Cardiology News

A study showing that once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide 2.4 mg (Wegovy, Novo Nordisk) produces greater long-term weight loss than once-daily injected liraglutide 3.0 mg (Saxenda, Novo Nordisk) among adults with overweight or obesity without diabetes has now been published.

The data, previously reported at Obesity Week 2021, were published online Jan. 11 in JAMA.

The findings are from the phase 3 Semaglutide Treatment Effect in People with Obesity (STEP) 8 trial by Domenica M. Rubino, MD, of the Washington Center for Weight Management and Research, Arlington, Virginia, and colleagues.

Semaglutide and liraglutide, subcutaneously injectable glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonists, were both first approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in the United States and elsewhere, but are now also approved, in different doses, for chronic weight management and in people with obesity or overweight and comorbidities. A phase 2 trial demonstrated that once-daily semaglutide 0.4 mg produced significantly more weight loss than liraglutide 3.0 mg.

“Semaglutide and liraglutide induce weight loss by lowering energy intake. However, the reduction in caloric intake versus placebo appears to be larger with semaglutide (35%) than liraglutide (approximately 16%),” say Dr. Rubino and colleagues.

“Semaglutide has also been associated with reductions in food cravings, which is less evident with liraglutide, suggesting different mechanisms of energy intake regulation,” they add.   

Novo Nordisk has recently reported that there may be supply problems with Wegovy, as a contract manufacturer that fills syringes for pens to inject the drug temporarily halted deliveries and manufacturing after issues related to good manufacturing practice.

The company is also developing an oral form of semaglutide for weight loss. The oral form has already been approved in doses of 7 or 14 mg/day for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in the United States as Rybelsus.

Individualize treatment for those with obesity

STEP 8 was a randomized, open-label, 68-week phase 3b trial of 338 adults randomized to once-weekly semaglutide 2.4 mg (n = 126), once-daily liraglutide 3.0 mg (n = 127), or matched injected placebo (n = 85) for 68 weeks, all provided with counseling on diet and physical activity.  

The primary outcome – estimated mean change in body weight at week 68 – was –15.8% with semaglutide versus –6.4% with liraglutide, a significant difference (P < .001). The proportions of patients achieving loss of body weight of 10%, 15%, or 20% were 70.9%, 55.6%, and 38.5% with semaglutide versus 25.6%, 12.0%, and 6.0% with liraglutide, respectively.

Significantly greater reductions were also seen at 68 weeks for weekly semaglutide versus daily liraglutide in absolute body weight, waist circumference, diastolic blood pressure, total cholesterol, very low-density cholesterol, triglycerides, A1c, fasting plasma glucose, and C-reactive protein. Differences in systolic blood pressure, LDL and HDL cholesterol, free fatty acids, and fasting serum insulin did not achieve significance.

Overall, 19.8% of patients permanently discontinued treatment, with the most discontinuations in the liraglutide group (27.6%), followed by placebo (17.6%) and semaglutide (3.5%). Time to first and permanent discontinuation were shorter with liraglutide than with semaglutide or placebo.

Adverse events were reported by 95.2% of patients with semaglutide, 96.1% with liraglutide, and 95.3% with placebo. Gastrointestinal disorders were the most common with the two active drugs, reported by 84.1% with semaglutide and 82.7% with liraglutide versus 55.3% with placebo.

Most side effects were mild to moderate and resolved without treatment discontinuation. Severe gastrointestinal adverse events were reported by only 3.2%, 2.4%, and 3.5% of patients with semaglutide, liraglutide, and placebo, respectively.

“This trial found weight loss with semaglutide was significantly greater than with liraglutide. However, the variability in treatment response means an individual’s tolerance and sensitivity to a specific treatment is important for obesity management,” the researchers observe.

“Therefore, having multiple antiobesity medications proven to lower body weight through different mechanisms, with different adverse effect profiles and dosing regimens, can only benefit clinicians and patients,” they conclude.

The trial was funded by Novo Nordisk. Dr. Rubino has reported being a clinical investigator for Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, and Novo Nordisk; receiving honoraria from WebMD; receiving speaker fees, consulting fees, scientific advisory fees, and honoraria from Novo Nordisk; receiving grants from SARL and personal fees from Medscape, PeerView, and the Endocrine Society; and being a shareholder in Novo Nordisk.

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

A study showing that once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide 2.4 mg (Wegovy, Novo Nordisk) produces greater long-term weight loss than once-daily injected liraglutide 3.0 mg (Saxenda, Novo Nordisk) among adults with overweight or obesity without diabetes has now been published.

The data, previously reported at Obesity Week 2021, were published online Jan. 11 in JAMA.

The findings are from the phase 3 Semaglutide Treatment Effect in People with Obesity (STEP) 8 trial by Domenica M. Rubino, MD, of the Washington Center for Weight Management and Research, Arlington, Virginia, and colleagues.

Semaglutide and liraglutide, subcutaneously injectable glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonists, were both first approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in the United States and elsewhere, but are now also approved, in different doses, for chronic weight management and in people with obesity or overweight and comorbidities. A phase 2 trial demonstrated that once-daily semaglutide 0.4 mg produced significantly more weight loss than liraglutide 3.0 mg.

“Semaglutide and liraglutide induce weight loss by lowering energy intake. However, the reduction in caloric intake versus placebo appears to be larger with semaglutide (35%) than liraglutide (approximately 16%),” say Dr. Rubino and colleagues.

“Semaglutide has also been associated with reductions in food cravings, which is less evident with liraglutide, suggesting different mechanisms of energy intake regulation,” they add.   

Novo Nordisk has recently reported that there may be supply problems with Wegovy, as a contract manufacturer that fills syringes for pens to inject the drug temporarily halted deliveries and manufacturing after issues related to good manufacturing practice.

The company is also developing an oral form of semaglutide for weight loss. The oral form has already been approved in doses of 7 or 14 mg/day for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in the United States as Rybelsus.

Individualize treatment for those with obesity

STEP 8 was a randomized, open-label, 68-week phase 3b trial of 338 adults randomized to once-weekly semaglutide 2.4 mg (n = 126), once-daily liraglutide 3.0 mg (n = 127), or matched injected placebo (n = 85) for 68 weeks, all provided with counseling on diet and physical activity.  

The primary outcome – estimated mean change in body weight at week 68 – was –15.8% with semaglutide versus –6.4% with liraglutide, a significant difference (P < .001). The proportions of patients achieving loss of body weight of 10%, 15%, or 20% were 70.9%, 55.6%, and 38.5% with semaglutide versus 25.6%, 12.0%, and 6.0% with liraglutide, respectively.

Significantly greater reductions were also seen at 68 weeks for weekly semaglutide versus daily liraglutide in absolute body weight, waist circumference, diastolic blood pressure, total cholesterol, very low-density cholesterol, triglycerides, A1c, fasting plasma glucose, and C-reactive protein. Differences in systolic blood pressure, LDL and HDL cholesterol, free fatty acids, and fasting serum insulin did not achieve significance.

Overall, 19.8% of patients permanently discontinued treatment, with the most discontinuations in the liraglutide group (27.6%), followed by placebo (17.6%) and semaglutide (3.5%). Time to first and permanent discontinuation were shorter with liraglutide than with semaglutide or placebo.

Adverse events were reported by 95.2% of patients with semaglutide, 96.1% with liraglutide, and 95.3% with placebo. Gastrointestinal disorders were the most common with the two active drugs, reported by 84.1% with semaglutide and 82.7% with liraglutide versus 55.3% with placebo.

Most side effects were mild to moderate and resolved without treatment discontinuation. Severe gastrointestinal adverse events were reported by only 3.2%, 2.4%, and 3.5% of patients with semaglutide, liraglutide, and placebo, respectively.

“This trial found weight loss with semaglutide was significantly greater than with liraglutide. However, the variability in treatment response means an individual’s tolerance and sensitivity to a specific treatment is important for obesity management,” the researchers observe.

“Therefore, having multiple antiobesity medications proven to lower body weight through different mechanisms, with different adverse effect profiles and dosing regimens, can only benefit clinicians and patients,” they conclude.

The trial was funded by Novo Nordisk. Dr. Rubino has reported being a clinical investigator for Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, and Novo Nordisk; receiving honoraria from WebMD; receiving speaker fees, consulting fees, scientific advisory fees, and honoraria from Novo Nordisk; receiving grants from SARL and personal fees from Medscape, PeerView, and the Endocrine Society; and being a shareholder in Novo Nordisk.

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

A study showing that once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide 2.4 mg (Wegovy, Novo Nordisk) produces greater long-term weight loss than once-daily injected liraglutide 3.0 mg (Saxenda, Novo Nordisk) among adults with overweight or obesity without diabetes has now been published.

The data, previously reported at Obesity Week 2021, were published online Jan. 11 in JAMA.

The findings are from the phase 3 Semaglutide Treatment Effect in People with Obesity (STEP) 8 trial by Domenica M. Rubino, MD, of the Washington Center for Weight Management and Research, Arlington, Virginia, and colleagues.

Semaglutide and liraglutide, subcutaneously injectable glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonists, were both first approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in the United States and elsewhere, but are now also approved, in different doses, for chronic weight management and in people with obesity or overweight and comorbidities. A phase 2 trial demonstrated that once-daily semaglutide 0.4 mg produced significantly more weight loss than liraglutide 3.0 mg.

“Semaglutide and liraglutide induce weight loss by lowering energy intake. However, the reduction in caloric intake versus placebo appears to be larger with semaglutide (35%) than liraglutide (approximately 16%),” say Dr. Rubino and colleagues.

“Semaglutide has also been associated with reductions in food cravings, which is less evident with liraglutide, suggesting different mechanisms of energy intake regulation,” they add.   

Novo Nordisk has recently reported that there may be supply problems with Wegovy, as a contract manufacturer that fills syringes for pens to inject the drug temporarily halted deliveries and manufacturing after issues related to good manufacturing practice.

The company is also developing an oral form of semaglutide for weight loss. The oral form has already been approved in doses of 7 or 14 mg/day for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in the United States as Rybelsus.

Individualize treatment for those with obesity

STEP 8 was a randomized, open-label, 68-week phase 3b trial of 338 adults randomized to once-weekly semaglutide 2.4 mg (n = 126), once-daily liraglutide 3.0 mg (n = 127), or matched injected placebo (n = 85) for 68 weeks, all provided with counseling on diet and physical activity.  

The primary outcome – estimated mean change in body weight at week 68 – was –15.8% with semaglutide versus –6.4% with liraglutide, a significant difference (P < .001). The proportions of patients achieving loss of body weight of 10%, 15%, or 20% were 70.9%, 55.6%, and 38.5% with semaglutide versus 25.6%, 12.0%, and 6.0% with liraglutide, respectively.

Significantly greater reductions were also seen at 68 weeks for weekly semaglutide versus daily liraglutide in absolute body weight, waist circumference, diastolic blood pressure, total cholesterol, very low-density cholesterol, triglycerides, A1c, fasting plasma glucose, and C-reactive protein. Differences in systolic blood pressure, LDL and HDL cholesterol, free fatty acids, and fasting serum insulin did not achieve significance.

Overall, 19.8% of patients permanently discontinued treatment, with the most discontinuations in the liraglutide group (27.6%), followed by placebo (17.6%) and semaglutide (3.5%). Time to first and permanent discontinuation were shorter with liraglutide than with semaglutide or placebo.

Adverse events were reported by 95.2% of patients with semaglutide, 96.1% with liraglutide, and 95.3% with placebo. Gastrointestinal disorders were the most common with the two active drugs, reported by 84.1% with semaglutide and 82.7% with liraglutide versus 55.3% with placebo.

Most side effects were mild to moderate and resolved without treatment discontinuation. Severe gastrointestinal adverse events were reported by only 3.2%, 2.4%, and 3.5% of patients with semaglutide, liraglutide, and placebo, respectively.

“This trial found weight loss with semaglutide was significantly greater than with liraglutide. However, the variability in treatment response means an individual’s tolerance and sensitivity to a specific treatment is important for obesity management,” the researchers observe.

“Therefore, having multiple antiobesity medications proven to lower body weight through different mechanisms, with different adverse effect profiles and dosing regimens, can only benefit clinicians and patients,” they conclude.

The trial was funded by Novo Nordisk. Dr. Rubino has reported being a clinical investigator for Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, and Novo Nordisk; receiving honoraria from WebMD; receiving speaker fees, consulting fees, scientific advisory fees, and honoraria from Novo Nordisk; receiving grants from SARL and personal fees from Medscape, PeerView, and the Endocrine Society; and being a shareholder in Novo Nordisk.

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

Vitamin D supplementation did not appear to influence the incidence of cancer or major cardiovascular disease (CVD) events in older adults who largely already had adequate vitamin D levels, according to a new randomized controlled study.

In the cohort of nearly 2,500 healthy individuals, the researchers found no differences in cancer or CVD incidence over 5 years between the groups randomly assigned to vitamin D supplementation and to placebo.

The findings, published online Jan. 4, 2022, in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, may be influenced by the fact that most participants had sufficient vitamin D levels at baseline, and thus received higher than recommended doses of vitamin D during the study.

“Vitamin D₃ supplementation with 1600 or 3200 IU/day for 5 years did not reduce the incidence of major CVD events, any invasive cancer, or mortality among generally healthy and mostly vitamin D sufficient older adults in Finland,” write the authors, led by Jyrki Virtanen, RD, PhD, associate professor of nutrition and public health at University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio.

“The low number of subjects with low vitamin D concentrations was a bit of a surprise for us also, but it likely reflects the quite successful food fortification policy in Finland,” Dr. Virtanen told this news organization.

Prior research has found that vitamin D insufficiency is associated with a higher risk of nearly all diseases. Although the evidence on the benefits of vitamin D supplementation remains more limited, a meta-analysis reported a consistent and significant 13% reduction in cancer mortality in those who received vitamin D supplements.

In this study, Dr. Virtanen and colleagues investigated the effects of vitamin D₃ supplementation on cancer and CVD incidence in a cohort of 2,495 healthy participants.

Men 60 years or older and women 65 years or older were randomly assigned to one of three groups: placebo, 40 mcg (1,600 IU) of daily vitamin D₃, or 80 mcg (3,200 IU) of daily vitamin D₃.

Data collected at baseline and throughout the trial included serum 25(OH)D concentrations, nutrition, sun exposure, medication use, mental health, and other factors that could affect the risk of disease.

The study’s primary endpoints were incident of major CVD and invasive cancer. Secondary endpoints included incidence of myocardial infarction, stroke, and CVD mortality as well as site-specific cancers and cancer death.

Follow-up occurred via annual study questionnaires and national registry data. A representative subcohort of 551 participants had more detailed in-person evaluations. In the sub-cohort, mean serum 25(OH)D concentration was 75 nmol/L (30 ng/mL) at baseline; 9.1% had concentrations less than 50 nmol/L (20 ng/mL) and 50.0% had concentrations of at least 75 nmol/L (30 ng/mL).

The authors identified no major differences between the three arms at baseline, but noted that, compared with the overall study population, those in the subcohort were younger, more likely to use their own vitamin D supplements, and more likely to rate their health as good or excellent.

Among 503 participants that had complete data from baseline, the mean increase in serum 25(OH)D in participants receiving 1,600 IU/day vitamin D₃ was 23.4 nmol/L (9.4 ng/mL) and 43.6 nmol/L (17.4 ng/mL) in the arm receiving 3,200 IU/day between baseline and 6 months. The authors observed a small additional increase in levels between the 6-month and 12-month visits, but few changes in vitamin D₃ levels in the placebo arm.

At the 5-year follow-up, major CVD events occurred in 4.9% of participants in the placebo arm, 5% in those in the 1,600 IU/d arm (hazard ratio, 0.97), and 4.3% of those in the 3,200 IU/d arm (HR, 0.84; P = .44). Invasive cancer at follow-up was diagnosed in 4.9% of placebo recipients, 5.8% of those on 1,600 IU/d supplementation (HR, 1.14; P = .55), and 4.8% in the 3,200 IU/d group (HR, 0.95; P = .81). No significant differences were observed in the secondary endpoints or in total mortality.

The authors did not conduct a subanalysis in participants who had low 25(OH)D concentrations levels at baseline because “there were too few participants to do any meaningful analyses,” said Dr. Virtanen, who noted that blood samples were available for a representative subgroup of 550 subjects, and only 9% of them had low 25(OH)D concentrations at baseline.

Dr. Virtanen noted that future vitamin D supplementation trials should focus on recruiting participants with low vitamin D status.

The study was supported by funding from the Academy of Finland, University of Eastern Finland, Juho Vainio Foundation, Medicinska Understödsföreningen Liv och Hälsa, Finnish Foundation for Cardiovascular Research, Finnish Diabetes Research Foundation, and Finnish Cultural Foundation. Dr. Virtanen disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Vitamin D supplementation did not appear to influence the incidence of cancer or major cardiovascular disease (CVD) events in older adults who largely already had adequate vitamin D levels, according to a new randomized controlled study.

In the cohort of nearly 2,500 healthy individuals, the researchers found no differences in cancer or CVD incidence over 5 years between the groups randomly assigned to vitamin D supplementation and to placebo.

The findings, published online Jan. 4, 2022, in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, may be influenced by the fact that most participants had sufficient vitamin D levels at baseline, and thus received higher than recommended doses of vitamin D during the study.

“Vitamin D₃ supplementation with 1600 or 3200 IU/day for 5 years did not reduce the incidence of major CVD events, any invasive cancer, or mortality among generally healthy and mostly vitamin D sufficient older adults in Finland,” write the authors, led by Jyrki Virtanen, RD, PhD, associate professor of nutrition and public health at University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio.

“The low number of subjects with low vitamin D concentrations was a bit of a surprise for us also, but it likely reflects the quite successful food fortification policy in Finland,” Dr. Virtanen told this news organization.

Prior research has found that vitamin D insufficiency is associated with a higher risk of nearly all diseases. Although the evidence on the benefits of vitamin D supplementation remains more limited, a meta-analysis reported a consistent and significant 13% reduction in cancer mortality in those who received vitamin D supplements.

In this study, Dr. Virtanen and colleagues investigated the effects of vitamin D₃ supplementation on cancer and CVD incidence in a cohort of 2,495 healthy participants.

Men 60 years or older and women 65 years or older were randomly assigned to one of three groups: placebo, 40 mcg (1,600 IU) of daily vitamin D₃, or 80 mcg (3,200 IU) of daily vitamin D₃.

Data collected at baseline and throughout the trial included serum 25(OH)D concentrations, nutrition, sun exposure, medication use, mental health, and other factors that could affect the risk of disease.

The study’s primary endpoints were incident of major CVD and invasive cancer. Secondary endpoints included incidence of myocardial infarction, stroke, and CVD mortality as well as site-specific cancers and cancer death.

Follow-up occurred via annual study questionnaires and national registry data. A representative subcohort of 551 participants had more detailed in-person evaluations. In the sub-cohort, mean serum 25(OH)D concentration was 75 nmol/L (30 ng/mL) at baseline; 9.1% had concentrations less than 50 nmol/L (20 ng/mL) and 50.0% had concentrations of at least 75 nmol/L (30 ng/mL).

The authors identified no major differences between the three arms at baseline, but noted that, compared with the overall study population, those in the subcohort were younger, more likely to use their own vitamin D supplements, and more likely to rate their health as good or excellent.

Among 503 participants that had complete data from baseline, the mean increase in serum 25(OH)D in participants receiving 1,600 IU/day vitamin D₃ was 23.4 nmol/L (9.4 ng/mL) and 43.6 nmol/L (17.4 ng/mL) in the arm receiving 3,200 IU/day between baseline and 6 months. The authors observed a small additional increase in levels between the 6-month and 12-month visits, but few changes in vitamin D₃ levels in the placebo arm.

At the 5-year follow-up, major CVD events occurred in 4.9% of participants in the placebo arm, 5% in those in the 1,600 IU/d arm (hazard ratio, 0.97), and 4.3% of those in the 3,200 IU/d arm (HR, 0.84; P = .44). Invasive cancer at follow-up was diagnosed in 4.9% of placebo recipients, 5.8% of those on 1,600 IU/d supplementation (HR, 1.14; P = .55), and 4.8% in the 3,200 IU/d group (HR, 0.95; P = .81). No significant differences were observed in the secondary endpoints or in total mortality.

The authors did not conduct a subanalysis in participants who had low 25(OH)D concentrations levels at baseline because “there were too few participants to do any meaningful analyses,” said Dr. Virtanen, who noted that blood samples were available for a representative subgroup of 550 subjects, and only 9% of them had low 25(OH)D concentrations at baseline.

Dr. Virtanen noted that future vitamin D supplementation trials should focus on recruiting participants with low vitamin D status.

The study was supported by funding from the Academy of Finland, University of Eastern Finland, Juho Vainio Foundation, Medicinska Understödsföreningen Liv och Hälsa, Finnish Foundation for Cardiovascular Research, Finnish Diabetes Research Foundation, and Finnish Cultural Foundation. Dr. Virtanen disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Vitamin D supplementation did not appear to influence the incidence of cancer or major cardiovascular disease (CVD) events in older adults who largely already had adequate vitamin D levels, according to a new randomized controlled study.

In the cohort of nearly 2,500 healthy individuals, the researchers found no differences in cancer or CVD incidence over 5 years between the groups randomly assigned to vitamin D supplementation and to placebo.

The findings, published online Jan. 4, 2022, in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, may be influenced by the fact that most participants had sufficient vitamin D levels at baseline, and thus received higher than recommended doses of vitamin D during the study.

“Vitamin D₃ supplementation with 1600 or 3200 IU/day for 5 years did not reduce the incidence of major CVD events, any invasive cancer, or mortality among generally healthy and mostly vitamin D sufficient older adults in Finland,” write the authors, led by Jyrki Virtanen, RD, PhD, associate professor of nutrition and public health at University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio.

“The low number of subjects with low vitamin D concentrations was a bit of a surprise for us also, but it likely reflects the quite successful food fortification policy in Finland,” Dr. Virtanen told this news organization.

Prior research has found that vitamin D insufficiency is associated with a higher risk of nearly all diseases. Although the evidence on the benefits of vitamin D supplementation remains more limited, a meta-analysis reported a consistent and significant 13% reduction in cancer mortality in those who received vitamin D supplements.

In this study, Dr. Virtanen and colleagues investigated the effects of vitamin D₃ supplementation on cancer and CVD incidence in a cohort of 2,495 healthy participants.

Men 60 years or older and women 65 years or older were randomly assigned to one of three groups: placebo, 40 mcg (1,600 IU) of daily vitamin D₃, or 80 mcg (3,200 IU) of daily vitamin D₃.

Data collected at baseline and throughout the trial included serum 25(OH)D concentrations, nutrition, sun exposure, medication use, mental health, and other factors that could affect the risk of disease.

The study’s primary endpoints were incident of major CVD and invasive cancer. Secondary endpoints included incidence of myocardial infarction, stroke, and CVD mortality as well as site-specific cancers and cancer death.

Follow-up occurred via annual study questionnaires and national registry data. A representative subcohort of 551 participants had more detailed in-person evaluations. In the sub-cohort, mean serum 25(OH)D concentration was 75 nmol/L (30 ng/mL) at baseline; 9.1% had concentrations less than 50 nmol/L (20 ng/mL) and 50.0% had concentrations of at least 75 nmol/L (30 ng/mL).

The authors identified no major differences between the three arms at baseline, but noted that, compared with the overall study population, those in the subcohort were younger, more likely to use their own vitamin D supplements, and more likely to rate their health as good or excellent.

Among 503 participants that had complete data from baseline, the mean increase in serum 25(OH)D in participants receiving 1,600 IU/day vitamin D₃ was 23.4 nmol/L (9.4 ng/mL) and 43.6 nmol/L (17.4 ng/mL) in the arm receiving 3,200 IU/day between baseline and 6 months. The authors observed a small additional increase in levels between the 6-month and 12-month visits, but few changes in vitamin D₃ levels in the placebo arm.

At the 5-year follow-up, major CVD events occurred in 4.9% of participants in the placebo arm, 5% in those in the 1,600 IU/d arm (hazard ratio, 0.97), and 4.3% of those in the 3,200 IU/d arm (HR, 0.84; P = .44). Invasive cancer at follow-up was diagnosed in 4.9% of placebo recipients, 5.8% of those on 1,600 IU/d supplementation (HR, 1.14; P = .55), and 4.8% in the 3,200 IU/d group (HR, 0.95; P = .81). No significant differences were observed in the secondary endpoints or in total mortality.

The authors did not conduct a subanalysis in participants who had low 25(OH)D concentrations levels at baseline because “there were too few participants to do any meaningful analyses,” said Dr. Virtanen, who noted that blood samples were available for a representative subgroup of 550 subjects, and only 9% of them had low 25(OH)D concentrations at baseline.

Dr. Virtanen noted that future vitamin D supplementation trials should focus on recruiting participants with low vitamin D status.

The study was supported by funding from the Academy of Finland, University of Eastern Finland, Juho Vainio Foundation, Medicinska Understödsföreningen Liv och Hälsa, Finnish Foundation for Cardiovascular Research, Finnish Diabetes Research Foundation, and Finnish Cultural Foundation. Dr. Virtanen disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Whenever I get a new patient with type 2 diabetes, who is generally on metformin, one of the very first questions they ask me is, “Can I get off my medication?” Everybody, it seems, who gets diabetes wants to not have diabetes.

So, what does this really mean? What does this mean to me as a clinician? And what does this mean to my patients? The American Diabetes Association recently came out with a consensus statement that defines and interprets the definition of remission in people with type 2 diabetes. Basically, if the hemoglobin A1c is less than 6.5% without diabetes medications for at least 3 months, that’s considered remission.

There are other considerations, such as metabolic surgery, that can lead to remission. But again, such patients should be 3 months post surgery and at least 3 months off diabetes medication. As for a lifestyle intervention, the authors state that remission really happens within about 6 months.

That leads me to wonder: What is remission? Remission really means temporary recovery, so it doesn’t mean a cure. Now, I’m not against curing diabetes. In fact, I’m all for it. But when somebody gets diabetes – and honestly, it doesn’t matter whether it’s type 1 or type 2 – the first thing I think of, and I think the first thing that my patients are taught, is how important it is to have a healthy lifestyle. This healthy lifestyle isn’t just for people with diabetes; it largely means the healthy lifestyle that all of us should follow, one where we eat fewer simple carbs, less processed food, more vegetables, more lean proteins and meats – all of the things that we know we should do. And all of the things that keep us healthy. To some degree, I don’t think you can ever get “remission” from diabetes, because if having diabetes points an individual toward having a healthier lifestyle, I think that’s great.

I think people should exercise more. When it comes to treating diabetes, exercise is key. When you think about obesity, we want to help people who are overweight or obese lose weight as part of their treatment for diabetes. And that doesn’t go away, either.

So, no, people who are diagnosed with diabetes don’t really go into remission if they keep their same old habits and don’t lose weight and don’t exercise. But many people with diabetes can get off medication if they do those things.

However, it’s not true for everybody, and I don’t want people to get unrealistic expectations because I think there are probably about a thousand different subtypes of type 2 diabetes. And I’ve definitely seen people who are lean with type 2 diabetes who don’t respond as well to a lifestyle intervention, or people who are more insulin deficient, who also need medication.

I think it’s really important to frame the expectation that, if remission means going back to the way it was before, when they didn’t have to think about what they ate or whether or not they exercised, that’s not going to happen. I think diabetes should really be a wake-up call that people need to be healthier in terms of their lifestyle habits.

The issue of medication is really an individual one, and I think we need to help patients look for what’s best for the individual, what their targets are, what their goals are. But we also have to think that diabetes isn’t just about glucose.

So remission in terms of the ADA’s definition looks at glucose, but I look at more than glucose. You have to look at lipids and blood pressure. And, as I mentioned earlier, you have to look at whether or not a person has preexisting cardiovascular disease or has the presence of microvascular complications that need to be screened for and treated.

I actually think that, in some ways, the diagnosis of diabetes is helpful simply because it helps put people on a better path to health. I don’t want people to think that remission means that they can go back to unhealthy habits. I really encourage all people to live a healthier lifestyle, and if it leads to improvements in glucose levels and getting off medication, I think that’s wonderful and a worthy goal. But remember, health and meeting one’s targets remain key in the treatment of type 2 diabetes.
 

Dr. Peters is a professor in the department of clinical medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles. She reported serving on the advisory board or speakers’ bureau of Medscape and several pharmaceutical companies, and has received research support from Dexcom, MannKind, and AstraZeneca. This perspective and an accompanying video first appeared on Medscape.com.

Whenever I get a new patient with type 2 diabetes, who is generally on metformin, one of the very first questions they ask me is, “Can I get off my medication?” Everybody, it seems, who gets diabetes wants to not have diabetes.

So, what does this really mean? What does this mean to me as a clinician? And what does this mean to my patients? The American Diabetes Association recently came out with a consensus statement that defines and interprets the definition of remission in people with type 2 diabetes. Basically, if the hemoglobin A1c is less than 6.5% without diabetes medications for at least 3 months, that’s considered remission.

There are other considerations, such as metabolic surgery, that can lead to remission. But again, such patients should be 3 months post surgery and at least 3 months off diabetes medication. As for a lifestyle intervention, the authors state that remission really happens within about 6 months.

That leads me to wonder: What is remission? Remission really means temporary recovery, so it doesn’t mean a cure. Now, I’m not against curing diabetes. In fact, I’m all for it. But when somebody gets diabetes – and honestly, it doesn’t matter whether it’s type 1 or type 2 – the first thing I think of, and I think the first thing that my patients are taught, is how important it is to have a healthy lifestyle. This healthy lifestyle isn’t just for people with diabetes; it largely means the healthy lifestyle that all of us should follow, one where we eat fewer simple carbs, less processed food, more vegetables, more lean proteins and meats – all of the things that we know we should do. And all of the things that keep us healthy. To some degree, I don’t think you can ever get “remission” from diabetes, because if having diabetes points an individual toward having a healthier lifestyle, I think that’s great.

I think people should exercise more. When it comes to treating diabetes, exercise is key. When you think about obesity, we want to help people who are overweight or obese lose weight as part of their treatment for diabetes. And that doesn’t go away, either.

So, no, people who are diagnosed with diabetes don’t really go into remission if they keep their same old habits and don’t lose weight and don’t exercise. But many people with diabetes can get off medication if they do those things.

However, it’s not true for everybody, and I don’t want people to get unrealistic expectations because I think there are probably about a thousand different subtypes of type 2 diabetes. And I’ve definitely seen people who are lean with type 2 diabetes who don’t respond as well to a lifestyle intervention, or people who are more insulin deficient, who also need medication.

I think it’s really important to frame the expectation that, if remission means going back to the way it was before, when they didn’t have to think about what they ate or whether or not they exercised, that’s not going to happen. I think diabetes should really be a wake-up call that people need to be healthier in terms of their lifestyle habits.

The issue of medication is really an individual one, and I think we need to help patients look for what’s best for the individual, what their targets are, what their goals are. But we also have to think that diabetes isn’t just about glucose.

So remission in terms of the ADA’s definition looks at glucose, but I look at more than glucose. You have to look at lipids and blood pressure. And, as I mentioned earlier, you have to look at whether or not a person has preexisting cardiovascular disease or has the presence of microvascular complications that need to be screened for and treated.

I actually think that, in some ways, the diagnosis of diabetes is helpful simply because it helps put people on a better path to health. I don’t want people to think that remission means that they can go back to unhealthy habits. I really encourage all people to live a healthier lifestyle, and if it leads to improvements in glucose levels and getting off medication, I think that’s wonderful and a worthy goal. But remember, health and meeting one’s targets remain key in the treatment of type 2 diabetes.
 

Dr. Peters is a professor in the department of clinical medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles. She reported serving on the advisory board or speakers’ bureau of Medscape and several pharmaceutical companies, and has received research support from Dexcom, MannKind, and AstraZeneca. This perspective and an accompanying video first appeared on Medscape.com.

Whenever I get a new patient with type 2 diabetes, who is generally on metformin, one of the very first questions they ask me is, “Can I get off my medication?” Everybody, it seems, who gets diabetes wants to not have diabetes.

So, what does this really mean? What does this mean to me as a clinician? And what does this mean to my patients? The American Diabetes Association recently came out with a consensus statement that defines and interprets the definition of remission in people with type 2 diabetes. Basically, if the hemoglobin A1c is less than 6.5% without diabetes medications for at least 3 months, that’s considered remission.

There are other considerations, such as metabolic surgery, that can lead to remission. But again, such patients should be 3 months post surgery and at least 3 months off diabetes medication. As for a lifestyle intervention, the authors state that remission really happens within about 6 months.

That leads me to wonder: What is remission? Remission really means temporary recovery, so it doesn’t mean a cure. Now, I’m not against curing diabetes. In fact, I’m all for it. But when somebody gets diabetes – and honestly, it doesn’t matter whether it’s type 1 or type 2 – the first thing I think of, and I think the first thing that my patients are taught, is how important it is to have a healthy lifestyle. This healthy lifestyle isn’t just for people with diabetes; it largely means the healthy lifestyle that all of us should follow, one where we eat fewer simple carbs, less processed food, more vegetables, more lean proteins and meats – all of the things that we know we should do. And all of the things that keep us healthy. To some degree, I don’t think you can ever get “remission” from diabetes, because if having diabetes points an individual toward having a healthier lifestyle, I think that’s great.

I think people should exercise more. When it comes to treating diabetes, exercise is key. When you think about obesity, we want to help people who are overweight or obese lose weight as part of their treatment for diabetes. And that doesn’t go away, either.

So, no, people who are diagnosed with diabetes don’t really go into remission if they keep their same old habits and don’t lose weight and don’t exercise. But many people with diabetes can get off medication if they do those things.

However, it’s not true for everybody, and I don’t want people to get unrealistic expectations because I think there are probably about a thousand different subtypes of type 2 diabetes. And I’ve definitely seen people who are lean with type 2 diabetes who don’t respond as well to a lifestyle intervention, or people who are more insulin deficient, who also need medication.

I think it’s really important to frame the expectation that, if remission means going back to the way it was before, when they didn’t have to think about what they ate or whether or not they exercised, that’s not going to happen. I think diabetes should really be a wake-up call that people need to be healthier in terms of their lifestyle habits.

The issue of medication is really an individual one, and I think we need to help patients look for what’s best for the individual, what their targets are, what their goals are. But we also have to think that diabetes isn’t just about glucose.

So remission in terms of the ADA’s definition looks at glucose, but I look at more than glucose. You have to look at lipids and blood pressure. And, as I mentioned earlier, you have to look at whether or not a person has preexisting cardiovascular disease or has the presence of microvascular complications that need to be screened for and treated.

I actually think that, in some ways, the diagnosis of diabetes is helpful simply because it helps put people on a better path to health. I don’t want people to think that remission means that they can go back to unhealthy habits. I really encourage all people to live a healthier lifestyle, and if it leads to improvements in glucose levels and getting off medication, I think that’s wonderful and a worthy goal. But remember, health and meeting one’s targets remain key in the treatment of type 2 diabetes.
 

Dr. Peters is a professor in the department of clinical medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles. She reported serving on the advisory board or speakers’ bureau of Medscape and several pharmaceutical companies, and has received research support from Dexcom, MannKind, and AstraZeneca. This perspective and an accompanying video first appeared on Medscape.com.

Scientific achievements usually raise big new questions, and the remarkable surgery that took place on Jan. 7, when Maryland resident David Bennett was transplanted with a genetically modified heart from a pig, has been no different.

The 57-year-old with end-stage heart failure had been repeatedly turned down for a standard transplant and was judged a poor candidate for a ventricular assist device. Now his new heart is beating soundly and apparently accepted by his immune system as Mr. Bennett, his physicians at the University of Maryland where the procedure took place, and indeed the world set out on a journey with far more unknowns than knowns.

University of Maryland Medical Center

“I think even just a couple of years ago, people felt that xenotransplantation for the heart and other organs was still a long way off. And it seems like it’s started to move very quickly,” Larry A. Allen, MD, University of Colorado, Aurora, said in an interview.

Demand for donor hearts far outstrips supply, and despite advances in the development of ventricular assist pumps and artificial hearts, “there are still significant limitations to them in terms of clotting, stroke, and infection. We’ve seen the use of those devices plateau,” Dr. Allen said. “So, the concept of a nonhuman source of organs is exciting and very much in need, if people can get it to work.”

“I really credit the surgeons at the University of Maryland for courageous clinical work and a brilliant scientific innovation,” Clyde W. Yancy, MD, MSc, Northwestern University, Chicago, said in an interview. “But it’s always in the implementation that we have to hold our breath.” Heart xenotransplantation is an old idea that “has never before been successful,” he said. And standard heart transplantation has set a high bar, with a 1-year survival of about 90% and low 1-year risk for rejection. Whether the new procedure can meet that standard is unknown, as is its potential for complications, such as chronic rejection or cancers due to long-term immunosuppression. Those are “major questions requiring more time and careful follow-up.”

‘Still a nascent technology’

“This is an exciting and courageous step forward in heart transplantation, and kudos to the team at the University of Maryland,” said Mandeep R. Mehra, MD, Brigham and Woman’s Hospital, Boston. But “there are many challenges here.”

University of Maryland Medical Center

The procedure’s 10 gene modifications were reportedly aimed at preventing hyperacute rejection of the heart and its excessive growth after transplantation, and making the organ less immunogenic, Dr. Mehra said in an interview. But even if those goals are met, could the same changes potentially impede the heart’s adaptation to human physiology, such as during ambulation or stress?

That kind of adaptation may become important. For example, Dr. Mehra observed, normally a pig heart “provides flow in a four-footed configuration, and pig temperature is inherently higher than humans by several degrees, so it will be functioning in a relatively hypothermic environment.”

Transplantation remains the gold standard for patients with advanced heart failure despite modern medical and device therapy, Dr. Allen agreed. But “if we can raise pig hearts that provide the organ, and it can be implanted with a surgery that’s been done for 50 years, and rejection can be managed with gene editing and tailored immunosuppression, then it’s not hard to think about this very rapidly replacing a lot of what we do in the advanced heart failure and transplantation world.”

Certainly, it would be a major advance if the gene editing technique successfully improves the heart’s immunologic compatibility, Dr. Yancy noted. But do we have enough genomic knowledge to select gene deletions and insertions in the safest way for a successful outcome? “We have to appreciate that this is still a nascent technology, and we should be careful that there might be consequences that we haven’t anticipated.”

For example, he said, the xenotransplantation and gene-modifying techniques should be explored in a range of patients, including older and younger people, women and men, and people of different ethnicities and races.

“There may be some differences based on ancestry, based on gender, based on aging, that will influence the way in which these engineered donor hearts are experienced clinically,” Dr. Yancy said.

The xenotransplantation technique’s potential impact on health equity should also be considered, as it “almost assuredly will be a very expensive technology that will be utilized in a very select population,” he noted. “We need to have a really wide lens to think about all of the potential ramifications.”
 

‘This field needs to evolve’

Dr. Mehra also flagged the procedure’s potential cost should it become mainstream. Perhaps that would promote dialogue on how to primarily use it “after legitimately exhausting all available options, such as total artificial heart support.”

It might also teach the field to take greater advantage of the many donated hearts discarded as suboptimal. “The general usage rate for offered organs is around a third,” despite opportunities to expand use of those that are “less than perfect,” Dr. Mehra said. “I think that the field will grow with the community focusing on reduced discards of current available heart organs, and not necessarily grow because of the availability of ‘xeno-organs.’ ”

“This field needs to evolve because we’re actively transplanting patients today. But in my mind, the real future is to have such a sufficient understanding of the biology of left ventricular dysfunction that transplantation is a rare event,” Dr. Yancy proposed.

“I’m not certain that heart transplantation per se is the endgame. I think the avoidance of transplantation is the real endgame,” he said. “This may be controversial, but my vision of the future is not one where we have a supply of animals that we can use for transplantation. My vision of the future is that heart transplantation becomes obsolete.”

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

Scientific achievements usually raise big new questions, and the remarkable surgery that took place on Jan. 7, when Maryland resident David Bennett was transplanted with a genetically modified heart from a pig, has been no different.

The 57-year-old with end-stage heart failure had been repeatedly turned down for a standard transplant and was judged a poor candidate for a ventricular assist device. Now his new heart is beating soundly and apparently accepted by his immune system as Mr. Bennett, his physicians at the University of Maryland where the procedure took place, and indeed the world set out on a journey with far more unknowns than knowns.

University of Maryland Medical Center

“I think even just a couple of years ago, people felt that xenotransplantation for the heart and other organs was still a long way off. And it seems like it’s started to move very quickly,” Larry A. Allen, MD, University of Colorado, Aurora, said in an interview.

Demand for donor hearts far outstrips supply, and despite advances in the development of ventricular assist pumps and artificial hearts, “there are still significant limitations to them in terms of clotting, stroke, and infection. We’ve seen the use of those devices plateau,” Dr. Allen said. “So, the concept of a nonhuman source of organs is exciting and very much in need, if people can get it to work.”

“I really credit the surgeons at the University of Maryland for courageous clinical work and a brilliant scientific innovation,” Clyde W. Yancy, MD, MSc, Northwestern University, Chicago, said in an interview. “But it’s always in the implementation that we have to hold our breath.” Heart xenotransplantation is an old idea that “has never before been successful,” he said. And standard heart transplantation has set a high bar, with a 1-year survival of about 90% and low 1-year risk for rejection. Whether the new procedure can meet that standard is unknown, as is its potential for complications, such as chronic rejection or cancers due to long-term immunosuppression. Those are “major questions requiring more time and careful follow-up.”

‘Still a nascent technology’

“This is an exciting and courageous step forward in heart transplantation, and kudos to the team at the University of Maryland,” said Mandeep R. Mehra, MD, Brigham and Woman’s Hospital, Boston. But “there are many challenges here.”

University of Maryland Medical Center

The procedure’s 10 gene modifications were reportedly aimed at preventing hyperacute rejection of the heart and its excessive growth after transplantation, and making the organ less immunogenic, Dr. Mehra said in an interview. But even if those goals are met, could the same changes potentially impede the heart’s adaptation to human physiology, such as during ambulation or stress?

That kind of adaptation may become important. For example, Dr. Mehra observed, normally a pig heart “provides flow in a four-footed configuration, and pig temperature is inherently higher than humans by several degrees, so it will be functioning in a relatively hypothermic environment.”

Transplantation remains the gold standard for patients with advanced heart failure despite modern medical and device therapy, Dr. Allen agreed. But “if we can raise pig hearts that provide the organ, and it can be implanted with a surgery that’s been done for 50 years, and rejection can be managed with gene editing and tailored immunosuppression, then it’s not hard to think about this very rapidly replacing a lot of what we do in the advanced heart failure and transplantation world.”

Certainly, it would be a major advance if the gene editing technique successfully improves the heart’s immunologic compatibility, Dr. Yancy noted. But do we have enough genomic knowledge to select gene deletions and insertions in the safest way for a successful outcome? “We have to appreciate that this is still a nascent technology, and we should be careful that there might be consequences that we haven’t anticipated.”

For example, he said, the xenotransplantation and gene-modifying techniques should be explored in a range of patients, including older and younger people, women and men, and people of different ethnicities and races.

“There may be some differences based on ancestry, based on gender, based on aging, that will influence the way in which these engineered donor hearts are experienced clinically,” Dr. Yancy said.

The xenotransplantation technique’s potential impact on health equity should also be considered, as it “almost assuredly will be a very expensive technology that will be utilized in a very select population,” he noted. “We need to have a really wide lens to think about all of the potential ramifications.”
 

‘This field needs to evolve’

Dr. Mehra also flagged the procedure’s potential cost should it become mainstream. Perhaps that would promote dialogue on how to primarily use it “after legitimately exhausting all available options, such as total artificial heart support.”

It might also teach the field to take greater advantage of the many donated hearts discarded as suboptimal. “The general usage rate for offered organs is around a third,” despite opportunities to expand use of those that are “less than perfect,” Dr. Mehra said. “I think that the field will grow with the community focusing on reduced discards of current available heart organs, and not necessarily grow because of the availability of ‘xeno-organs.’ ”

“This field needs to evolve because we’re actively transplanting patients today. But in my mind, the real future is to have such a sufficient understanding of the biology of left ventricular dysfunction that transplantation is a rare event,” Dr. Yancy proposed.

“I’m not certain that heart transplantation per se is the endgame. I think the avoidance of transplantation is the real endgame,” he said. “This may be controversial, but my vision of the future is not one where we have a supply of animals that we can use for transplantation. My vision of the future is that heart transplantation becomes obsolete.”

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

Scientific achievements usually raise big new questions, and the remarkable surgery that took place on Jan. 7, when Maryland resident David Bennett was transplanted with a genetically modified heart from a pig, has been no different.

The 57-year-old with end-stage heart failure had been repeatedly turned down for a standard transplant and was judged a poor candidate for a ventricular assist device. Now his new heart is beating soundly and apparently accepted by his immune system as Mr. Bennett, his physicians at the University of Maryland where the procedure took place, and indeed the world set out on a journey with far more unknowns than knowns.

University of Maryland Medical Center

“I think even just a couple of years ago, people felt that xenotransplantation for the heart and other organs was still a long way off. And it seems like it’s started to move very quickly,” Larry A. Allen, MD, University of Colorado, Aurora, said in an interview.

Demand for donor hearts far outstrips supply, and despite advances in the development of ventricular assist pumps and artificial hearts, “there are still significant limitations to them in terms of clotting, stroke, and infection. We’ve seen the use of those devices plateau,” Dr. Allen said. “So, the concept of a nonhuman source of organs is exciting and very much in need, if people can get it to work.”

“I really credit the surgeons at the University of Maryland for courageous clinical work and a brilliant scientific innovation,” Clyde W. Yancy, MD, MSc, Northwestern University, Chicago, said in an interview. “But it’s always in the implementation that we have to hold our breath.” Heart xenotransplantation is an old idea that “has never before been successful,” he said. And standard heart transplantation has set a high bar, with a 1-year survival of about 90% and low 1-year risk for rejection. Whether the new procedure can meet that standard is unknown, as is its potential for complications, such as chronic rejection or cancers due to long-term immunosuppression. Those are “major questions requiring more time and careful follow-up.”

‘Still a nascent technology’

“This is an exciting and courageous step forward in heart transplantation, and kudos to the team at the University of Maryland,” said Mandeep R. Mehra, MD, Brigham and Woman’s Hospital, Boston. But “there are many challenges here.”

University of Maryland Medical Center

The procedure’s 10 gene modifications were reportedly aimed at preventing hyperacute rejection of the heart and its excessive growth after transplantation, and making the organ less immunogenic, Dr. Mehra said in an interview. But even if those goals are met, could the same changes potentially impede the heart’s adaptation to human physiology, such as during ambulation or stress?

That kind of adaptation may become important. For example, Dr. Mehra observed, normally a pig heart “provides flow in a four-footed configuration, and pig temperature is inherently higher than humans by several degrees, so it will be functioning in a relatively hypothermic environment.”

Transplantation remains the gold standard for patients with advanced heart failure despite modern medical and device therapy, Dr. Allen agreed. But “if we can raise pig hearts that provide the organ, and it can be implanted with a surgery that’s been done for 50 years, and rejection can be managed with gene editing and tailored immunosuppression, then it’s not hard to think about this very rapidly replacing a lot of what we do in the advanced heart failure and transplantation world.”

Certainly, it would be a major advance if the gene editing technique successfully improves the heart’s immunologic compatibility, Dr. Yancy noted. But do we have enough genomic knowledge to select gene deletions and insertions in the safest way for a successful outcome? “We have to appreciate that this is still a nascent technology, and we should be careful that there might be consequences that we haven’t anticipated.”

For example, he said, the xenotransplantation and gene-modifying techniques should be explored in a range of patients, including older and younger people, women and men, and people of different ethnicities and races.

“There may be some differences based on ancestry, based on gender, based on aging, that will influence the way in which these engineered donor hearts are experienced clinically,” Dr. Yancy said.

The xenotransplantation technique’s potential impact on health equity should also be considered, as it “almost assuredly will be a very expensive technology that will be utilized in a very select population,” he noted. “We need to have a really wide lens to think about all of the potential ramifications.”
 

‘This field needs to evolve’

Dr. Mehra also flagged the procedure’s potential cost should it become mainstream. Perhaps that would promote dialogue on how to primarily use it “after legitimately exhausting all available options, such as total artificial heart support.”

It might also teach the field to take greater advantage of the many donated hearts discarded as suboptimal. “The general usage rate for offered organs is around a third,” despite opportunities to expand use of those that are “less than perfect,” Dr. Mehra said. “I think that the field will grow with the community focusing on reduced discards of current available heart organs, and not necessarily grow because of the availability of ‘xeno-organs.’ ”

“This field needs to evolve because we’re actively transplanting patients today. But in my mind, the real future is to have such a sufficient understanding of the biology of left ventricular dysfunction that transplantation is a rare event,” Dr. Yancy proposed.

“I’m not certain that heart transplantation per se is the endgame. I think the avoidance of transplantation is the real endgame,” he said. “This may be controversial, but my vision of the future is not one where we have a supply of animals that we can use for transplantation. My vision of the future is that heart transplantation becomes obsolete.”

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

Quebec, Canada’s second most populous province, announced on Jan. 11 that adult residents who refuse to get vaccinated against COVID-19 will face a financial penalty.

The amount hasn’t been decided yet, but it will be “significant” and more than $100. More details will be released at a later date, The Associated Press reported.

“Those who refuse to get their first doses in the coming weeks will have to pay a new health contribution,” Premier Francois Legault said during a news conference.

Not getting vaccinated burdens the health care system, and not all residents should pay for it, he said. About 10% of adults in Quebec are unvaccinated, but they represent about 50% of intensive care patients.

“I think it’s reasonable a majority of the population is asking that there be consequences,” he said. “It’s a question of fairness for the 90% of the population that have made some sacrifices. We owe them.”

The fine will apply to those who don’t qualify for a medical exemption, Mr. Legault said.

Provinces across Canada have reported a surge in COVID-19 cases due to the Omicron variant, with Quebec being one of the hardest-hit, according to Reuters. The province is regularly recording the highest daily case count across the country.

Quebec also has announced a 10 p.m. to 5 a.m. curfew, the AP reported. Starting Jan. 18, liquor and cannabis stores in the province will require proof of vaccination, and shopping malls and hair salons could soon require them as well.

About a quarter of all Canadians live in Quebec, according to CNN. The province was one of the first in Canada to require proof of vaccination for residents to eat in restaurants, go to the gym, or attend sporting events.

Some European countries have announced fees for unvaccinated residents, the AP reported, but Quebec is the first in Canada to announce a financial penalty for those who don’t get a shot.

In Greece, people older than 60 have until Jan. 16 to receive the first dose, or they will be fined 100 euros for every month they remain unvaccinated, the AP reported.

Austria will impose fines up to 3,600 euros for those who don’t follow the vaccine mandate for ages 14 and older, which is slated to start in February.

In Italy, residents who are 50 and older are required to be vaccinated. In mid-February, those who are unvaccinated could be fined up to 1,600 euros if they enter their workplaces, the AP reported.

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

Quebec, Canada’s second most populous province, announced on Jan. 11 that adult residents who refuse to get vaccinated against COVID-19 will face a financial penalty.

The amount hasn’t been decided yet, but it will be “significant” and more than $100. More details will be released at a later date, The Associated Press reported.

“Those who refuse to get their first doses in the coming weeks will have to pay a new health contribution,” Premier Francois Legault said during a news conference.

Not getting vaccinated burdens the health care system, and not all residents should pay for it, he said. About 10% of adults in Quebec are unvaccinated, but they represent about 50% of intensive care patients.

“I think it’s reasonable a majority of the population is asking that there be consequences,” he said. “It’s a question of fairness for the 90% of the population that have made some sacrifices. We owe them.”

The fine will apply to those who don’t qualify for a medical exemption, Mr. Legault said.

Provinces across Canada have reported a surge in COVID-19 cases due to the Omicron variant, with Quebec being one of the hardest-hit, according to Reuters. The province is regularly recording the highest daily case count across the country.

Quebec also has announced a 10 p.m. to 5 a.m. curfew, the AP reported. Starting Jan. 18, liquor and cannabis stores in the province will require proof of vaccination, and shopping malls and hair salons could soon require them as well.

About a quarter of all Canadians live in Quebec, according to CNN. The province was one of the first in Canada to require proof of vaccination for residents to eat in restaurants, go to the gym, or attend sporting events.

Some European countries have announced fees for unvaccinated residents, the AP reported, but Quebec is the first in Canada to announce a financial penalty for those who don’t get a shot.

In Greece, people older than 60 have until Jan. 16 to receive the first dose, or they will be fined 100 euros for every month they remain unvaccinated, the AP reported.

Austria will impose fines up to 3,600 euros for those who don’t follow the vaccine mandate for ages 14 and older, which is slated to start in February.

In Italy, residents who are 50 and older are required to be vaccinated. In mid-February, those who are unvaccinated could be fined up to 1,600 euros if they enter their workplaces, the AP reported.

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

Quebec, Canada’s second most populous province, announced on Jan. 11 that adult residents who refuse to get vaccinated against COVID-19 will face a financial penalty.

The amount hasn’t been decided yet, but it will be “significant” and more than $100. More details will be released at a later date, The Associated Press reported.

“Those who refuse to get their first doses in the coming weeks will have to pay a new health contribution,” Premier Francois Legault said during a news conference.

Not getting vaccinated burdens the health care system, and not all residents should pay for it, he said. About 10% of adults in Quebec are unvaccinated, but they represent about 50% of intensive care patients.

“I think it’s reasonable a majority of the population is asking that there be consequences,” he said. “It’s a question of fairness for the 90% of the population that have made some sacrifices. We owe them.”

The fine will apply to those who don’t qualify for a medical exemption, Mr. Legault said.

Provinces across Canada have reported a surge in COVID-19 cases due to the Omicron variant, with Quebec being one of the hardest-hit, according to Reuters. The province is regularly recording the highest daily case count across the country.

Quebec also has announced a 10 p.m. to 5 a.m. curfew, the AP reported. Starting Jan. 18, liquor and cannabis stores in the province will require proof of vaccination, and shopping malls and hair salons could soon require them as well.

About a quarter of all Canadians live in Quebec, according to CNN. The province was one of the first in Canada to require proof of vaccination for residents to eat in restaurants, go to the gym, or attend sporting events.

Some European countries have announced fees for unvaccinated residents, the AP reported, but Quebec is the first in Canada to announce a financial penalty for those who don’t get a shot.

In Greece, people older than 60 have until Jan. 16 to receive the first dose, or they will be fined 100 euros for every month they remain unvaccinated, the AP reported.

Austria will impose fines up to 3,600 euros for those who don’t follow the vaccine mandate for ages 14 and older, which is slated to start in February.

In Italy, residents who are 50 and older are required to be vaccinated. In mid-February, those who are unvaccinated could be fined up to 1,600 euros if they enter their workplaces, the AP reported.

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

The CDC is preparing to update its COVID-19 mask recommendations to emphasize the use of N95 and KN95 masks that better filter the virus, Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, said on Jan. 12.

“We are preparing an update to the info on our mask website to best reflect the options that are available to people and the different levels of protection different masks provide, and we want to provide Americans the best and most updated information to choose what mask is going to be right for them,” she said at a White House news briefing.

While the higher-quality masks provide better protection, they can be uncomfortable to wear, expensive, and harder to find. That’s why Dr. Walensky added an important caveat.

“Any mask is better than no mask, and we do encourage all Americans to wear a well-fitting mask to protect themselves and prevent the spread of COVID-19. That recommendation is not going to change,” she said.

“Most importantly, the best mask that you wear is the one you will wear and the one you can keep on all day long and tolerate in public indoor settings.”

Meanwhile, the World Health Organization was more focused on vaccines.

WHO officials stressed on Jan. 12 that global vaccine distribution is first priority in defeating the highly contagious Omicron variant, as well as other variants that may evolve. 

The WHO’s Technical Advisory Group on COVID-19 Vaccine Composition – a group of experts assessing how COVID-19 vaccines perform against Omicron and other emerging variants – says there is an “urgent need” for broader access to vaccines, along with reviewing and updating current vaccines as needed to ensure protection. 

The WHO also disputed the idea that COVID-19 could become endemic in one largely vaccinated nation, while the rest of the world remains unprotected. 

“It is up to us how this pandemic unfolds,” Maria Van Kerkhove, PhD, the WHO’s technical lead on COVID-19 response, said at a news briefing. 

The WHO has a goal of vaccinating 70% of the population of every country by the middle of the year.

But right now, 90 countries have yet to reach 40% vaccination rates, and 36 of those countries have less than 10% of their populations vaccinated, according to WHO Director General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, PhD.

A staggering 85% of the African population has not received a first dose.

But progress is being made, Dr. Ghebreyesus said at the briefing. 

The WHO said there were over 15 million COVID-19 cases reported last week – the most ever in a single week – and this is likely an underestimate. 

The Omicron variant, first identified in South Africa 2 months ago and now found on all seven continents, is “rapidly replacing Delta in almost all countries,” Dr. Ghebreyesus said.

Dr. Walensky said this week’s U.S. daily average COVID-19 case count was 751,000, an increase of 47% from last week. The average daily hospital admissions this week is 19,800, an increase of 33%. Deaths are up 40%, reaching 1,600 per day.

But she also reported new data that supports other research showing Omicron may produce less severe disease. Kaiser Permanente Southern California released a study on Jan. 11 showing that, compared with Delta infections, Omicron was associated with a 53% reduction in hospitalizations, a 74% reduction in intensive care unit admissions, and a 91% lower risk of death.

In the study, no patients with Omicron required mechanical ventilation. The strain now accounts for 98% of cases nationwide.

But Dr. Walensky warned the lower disease severity is not enough to make up for the sheer number of cases that continue to overwhelm hospital systems.

“While we are seeing early evidence that Omicron is less severe than Delta and that those infected are less likely to require hospitalization, it’s important to note that Omicron continues to be much more transmissible than Delta,” she said. “The sudden rise in cases due to Omicron is resulting in unprecedented daily case counts, sickness, absenteeism, and strains on our health care system.”

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

The CDC is preparing to update its COVID-19 mask recommendations to emphasize the use of N95 and KN95 masks that better filter the virus, Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, said on Jan. 12.

“We are preparing an update to the info on our mask website to best reflect the options that are available to people and the different levels of protection different masks provide, and we want to provide Americans the best and most updated information to choose what mask is going to be right for them,” she said at a White House news briefing.

While the higher-quality masks provide better protection, they can be uncomfortable to wear, expensive, and harder to find. That’s why Dr. Walensky added an important caveat.

“Any mask is better than no mask, and we do encourage all Americans to wear a well-fitting mask to protect themselves and prevent the spread of COVID-19. That recommendation is not going to change,” she said.

“Most importantly, the best mask that you wear is the one you will wear and the one you can keep on all day long and tolerate in public indoor settings.”

Meanwhile, the World Health Organization was more focused on vaccines.

WHO officials stressed on Jan. 12 that global vaccine distribution is first priority in defeating the highly contagious Omicron variant, as well as other variants that may evolve. 

The WHO’s Technical Advisory Group on COVID-19 Vaccine Composition – a group of experts assessing how COVID-19 vaccines perform against Omicron and other emerging variants – says there is an “urgent need” for broader access to vaccines, along with reviewing and updating current vaccines as needed to ensure protection. 

The WHO also disputed the idea that COVID-19 could become endemic in one largely vaccinated nation, while the rest of the world remains unprotected. 

“It is up to us how this pandemic unfolds,” Maria Van Kerkhove, PhD, the WHO’s technical lead on COVID-19 response, said at a news briefing. 

The WHO has a goal of vaccinating 70% of the population of every country by the middle of the year.

But right now, 90 countries have yet to reach 40% vaccination rates, and 36 of those countries have less than 10% of their populations vaccinated, according to WHO Director General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, PhD.

A staggering 85% of the African population has not received a first dose.

But progress is being made, Dr. Ghebreyesus said at the briefing. 

The WHO said there were over 15 million COVID-19 cases reported last week – the most ever in a single week – and this is likely an underestimate. 

The Omicron variant, first identified in South Africa 2 months ago and now found on all seven continents, is “rapidly replacing Delta in almost all countries,” Dr. Ghebreyesus said.

Dr. Walensky said this week’s U.S. daily average COVID-19 case count was 751,000, an increase of 47% from last week. The average daily hospital admissions this week is 19,800, an increase of 33%. Deaths are up 40%, reaching 1,600 per day.

But she also reported new data that supports other research showing Omicron may produce less severe disease. Kaiser Permanente Southern California released a study on Jan. 11 showing that, compared with Delta infections, Omicron was associated with a 53% reduction in hospitalizations, a 74% reduction in intensive care unit admissions, and a 91% lower risk of death.

In the study, no patients with Omicron required mechanical ventilation. The strain now accounts for 98% of cases nationwide.

But Dr. Walensky warned the lower disease severity is not enough to make up for the sheer number of cases that continue to overwhelm hospital systems.

“While we are seeing early evidence that Omicron is less severe than Delta and that those infected are less likely to require hospitalization, it’s important to note that Omicron continues to be much more transmissible than Delta,” she said. “The sudden rise in cases due to Omicron is resulting in unprecedented daily case counts, sickness, absenteeism, and strains on our health care system.”

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

The CDC is preparing to update its COVID-19 mask recommendations to emphasize the use of N95 and KN95 masks that better filter the virus, Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, said on Jan. 12.

“We are preparing an update to the info on our mask website to best reflect the options that are available to people and the different levels of protection different masks provide, and we want to provide Americans the best and most updated information to choose what mask is going to be right for them,” she said at a White House news briefing.

While the higher-quality masks provide better protection, they can be uncomfortable to wear, expensive, and harder to find. That’s why Dr. Walensky added an important caveat.

“Any mask is better than no mask, and we do encourage all Americans to wear a well-fitting mask to protect themselves and prevent the spread of COVID-19. That recommendation is not going to change,” she said.

“Most importantly, the best mask that you wear is the one you will wear and the one you can keep on all day long and tolerate in public indoor settings.”

Meanwhile, the World Health Organization was more focused on vaccines.

WHO officials stressed on Jan. 12 that global vaccine distribution is first priority in defeating the highly contagious Omicron variant, as well as other variants that may evolve. 

The WHO’s Technical Advisory Group on COVID-19 Vaccine Composition – a group of experts assessing how COVID-19 vaccines perform against Omicron and other emerging variants – says there is an “urgent need” for broader access to vaccines, along with reviewing and updating current vaccines as needed to ensure protection. 

The WHO also disputed the idea that COVID-19 could become endemic in one largely vaccinated nation, while the rest of the world remains unprotected. 

“It is up to us how this pandemic unfolds,” Maria Van Kerkhove, PhD, the WHO’s technical lead on COVID-19 response, said at a news briefing. 

The WHO has a goal of vaccinating 70% of the population of every country by the middle of the year.

But right now, 90 countries have yet to reach 40% vaccination rates, and 36 of those countries have less than 10% of their populations vaccinated, according to WHO Director General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, PhD.

A staggering 85% of the African population has not received a first dose.

But progress is being made, Dr. Ghebreyesus said at the briefing. 

The WHO said there were over 15 million COVID-19 cases reported last week – the most ever in a single week – and this is likely an underestimate. 

The Omicron variant, first identified in South Africa 2 months ago and now found on all seven continents, is “rapidly replacing Delta in almost all countries,” Dr. Ghebreyesus said.

Dr. Walensky said this week’s U.S. daily average COVID-19 case count was 751,000, an increase of 47% from last week. The average daily hospital admissions this week is 19,800, an increase of 33%. Deaths are up 40%, reaching 1,600 per day.

But she also reported new data that supports other research showing Omicron may produce less severe disease. Kaiser Permanente Southern California released a study on Jan. 11 showing that, compared with Delta infections, Omicron was associated with a 53% reduction in hospitalizations, a 74% reduction in intensive care unit admissions, and a 91% lower risk of death.

In the study, no patients with Omicron required mechanical ventilation. The strain now accounts for 98% of cases nationwide.

But Dr. Walensky warned the lower disease severity is not enough to make up for the sheer number of cases that continue to overwhelm hospital systems.

“While we are seeing early evidence that Omicron is less severe than Delta and that those infected are less likely to require hospitalization, it’s important to note that Omicron continues to be much more transmissible than Delta,” she said. “The sudden rise in cases due to Omicron is resulting in unprecedented daily case counts, sickness, absenteeism, and strains on our health care system.”

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

Urine for a new vaccine alternative

Yep, you read that right: Another vaccine alternative. Urine sounds disgusting, but you’ve got to admit, it’s resourceful at least.

Christopher Key, the leader of a group of antivaxxers known as the “Vaccine Police,” is now claiming that you should do “urine therapy,” when means drinking your own pee to ward off COVID-19. According to My. Key, “tons and tons of research” shows the benefits of drinking urine to fight COVID-19, the Guardian reported.

EM80/Pixabay

Vaccine or beer? You must now choose

As the COVID-19 pandemic drags on toward its third year, the large subset of the population who refuse to get vaccinated has proved nearly intractable. Governments have tried numerous incentives to boost vaccination rates, ranging from free beer to million dollar lotteries. Needless to say, beyond their ability to generate LOTME stories, these incentives have been less than effective.

As the frankly unfairly contagious Omicron variant makes it way through the world, our friends in the Great White North have decided enough is enough. If the carrot doesn’t work, the people of Quebec are going to get the stick. Starting on Jan. 18, vaccination cards will be required to enter stores that sell alcohol or cannabis, better known as the things that have gotten us all through this pandemic.

John Margolies/rawpixel

And you know what? Cutting off the booze supply seems to be working. Christian Dubé, Quebec’s health minister, said that the number of vaccination appointments had quadrupled in the new year, rising from 1,500 per day to 6,000 per day, according to the CTV News report. Now, those aren’t massive numbers, but this is big empty Canada we’re talking about, and the unvaccinated make up about 10% of Quebec’s population, so 6,000 a day is quite impressive.

Mr. Dubé added that additional nonessential businesses could be added to the restriction list in the coming weeks, but we’re not sure it’ll be necessary. Those middle-aged soccer moms will do anything to secure their daily merlot. Also, alcohol and cannabis nonessential? The LOTME staff is appalled and offended at this insinuation.

All I need is the polyester that I breathe

When you do laundry, you’re probably thinking more of how to get that ketchup stain out of your white shirt than the effect it has on the environment. Well, research shows it actually has some significance.

monkeybusinessimages / Getty Images

That significance comes in the form of microfibers, which are released from natural fabrics such as cotton and from synthetic fabrics such as polyester, which are also considered to be microplastics.

The microfibers that get released in the water when we wash clothes are filtered out eventually, but the dryer is the real culprit, according to a study in Environmental Science & Technology Letters. We’re talking a discharge of up to 120 million microfiber fragments directly into the air annually from just one dryer!

Dryers, they found, emitted between 1.4-40 times more microfibers than did washing machines in previous studies. And polyester fabrics produced more fragments when load sizes increased, while fragment production from cotton fabrics remained constant.

Recent findings suggest that inhaling these microfibers can cause lung inflammation, increase cancer risk, and induce asthma attacks. The authors of the current study suggested additional filtration should be done on dryer vents to reduce the amount of pollutants emitted into the air.

Who would have thought just drying your sheets could be such a dangerous act?
 

It’s always in the last place you look

At least a million times every morning in this country, a million children yell something like this as they get ready for school: “Mom, have you seen my ...?”

Well, thanks to Defector.com, now we know what Mom should yell back: “Look in your weird cousin Mortimer!”

We will explain ... again.

When they’re not dealing with COVID-19, the folks who work in emergency departments spend a lot of their time removing things that are stuck in people’s bodily orifices. The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission even keeps track of them.

Nick Matthews/CC BY-SA 2.0

So if you’re looking for the number 8 button from the TV remote, or maybe a bullet, check Mortimer’s nose. Maybe you’re missing a lollipop, a hairpin, or some espresso beans. Mortimer’s friend Beulah might have put them in her ear.

Has an earbud gone missing? Another friend of Mortimer’s went to the ED with something stuck in his throat and said that he had a “pill in one hand and his earbud in the other hand, got distracted and took the earbud instead.” Yes, that is an actual quote (via Defector) from the CPSC database.

What about that old saying that someone’s lost his marbles? Well, the ED found one of Mortimer’s marbles ... in his penis. Also a spork, and a bread twist tie, and a chopstick. No, not all at the same time. As for Beulah, a barbell and a Spider-Man action figure somehow found their way – not at the same time, thank goodness – into her vagina.

And have you ever heard someone say that they’re “not going to stand for this”? Mortimer has, so he sat down ... on a light bulb, and a rolling pin, and a billiard ball. Yup, the ED had to remove these items from his rectum.

But not all at the same time, thank goodness.

Urine for a new vaccine alternative

Yep, you read that right: Another vaccine alternative. Urine sounds disgusting, but you’ve got to admit, it’s resourceful at least.

Christopher Key, the leader of a group of antivaxxers known as the “Vaccine Police,” is now claiming that you should do “urine therapy,” when means drinking your own pee to ward off COVID-19. According to My. Key, “tons and tons of research” shows the benefits of drinking urine to fight COVID-19, the Guardian reported.

EM80/Pixabay

Vaccine or beer? You must now choose

As the COVID-19 pandemic drags on toward its third year, the large subset of the population who refuse to get vaccinated has proved nearly intractable. Governments have tried numerous incentives to boost vaccination rates, ranging from free beer to million dollar lotteries. Needless to say, beyond their ability to generate LOTME stories, these incentives have been less than effective.

As the frankly unfairly contagious Omicron variant makes it way through the world, our friends in the Great White North have decided enough is enough. If the carrot doesn’t work, the people of Quebec are going to get the stick. Starting on Jan. 18, vaccination cards will be required to enter stores that sell alcohol or cannabis, better known as the things that have gotten us all through this pandemic.

John Margolies/rawpixel

And you know what? Cutting off the booze supply seems to be working. Christian Dubé, Quebec’s health minister, said that the number of vaccination appointments had quadrupled in the new year, rising from 1,500 per day to 6,000 per day, according to the CTV News report. Now, those aren’t massive numbers, but this is big empty Canada we’re talking about, and the unvaccinated make up about 10% of Quebec’s population, so 6,000 a day is quite impressive.

Mr. Dubé added that additional nonessential businesses could be added to the restriction list in the coming weeks, but we’re not sure it’ll be necessary. Those middle-aged soccer moms will do anything to secure their daily merlot. Also, alcohol and cannabis nonessential? The LOTME staff is appalled and offended at this insinuation.

All I need is the polyester that I breathe

When you do laundry, you’re probably thinking more of how to get that ketchup stain out of your white shirt than the effect it has on the environment. Well, research shows it actually has some significance.

monkeybusinessimages / Getty Images

That significance comes in the form of microfibers, which are released from natural fabrics such as cotton and from synthetic fabrics such as polyester, which are also considered to be microplastics.

The microfibers that get released in the water when we wash clothes are filtered out eventually, but the dryer is the real culprit, according to a study in Environmental Science & Technology Letters. We’re talking a discharge of up to 120 million microfiber fragments directly into the air annually from just one dryer!

Dryers, they found, emitted between 1.4-40 times more microfibers than did washing machines in previous studies. And polyester fabrics produced more fragments when load sizes increased, while fragment production from cotton fabrics remained constant.

Recent findings suggest that inhaling these microfibers can cause lung inflammation, increase cancer risk, and induce asthma attacks. The authors of the current study suggested additional filtration should be done on dryer vents to reduce the amount of pollutants emitted into the air.

Who would have thought just drying your sheets could be such a dangerous act?
 

It’s always in the last place you look

At least a million times every morning in this country, a million children yell something like this as they get ready for school: “Mom, have you seen my ...?”

Well, thanks to Defector.com, now we know what Mom should yell back: “Look in your weird cousin Mortimer!”

We will explain ... again.

When they’re not dealing with COVID-19, the folks who work in emergency departments spend a lot of their time removing things that are stuck in people’s bodily orifices. The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission even keeps track of them.

Nick Matthews/CC BY-SA 2.0

So if you’re looking for the number 8 button from the TV remote, or maybe a bullet, check Mortimer’s nose. Maybe you’re missing a lollipop, a hairpin, or some espresso beans. Mortimer’s friend Beulah might have put them in her ear.

Has an earbud gone missing? Another friend of Mortimer’s went to the ED with something stuck in his throat and said that he had a “pill in one hand and his earbud in the other hand, got distracted and took the earbud instead.” Yes, that is an actual quote (via Defector) from the CPSC database.

What about that old saying that someone’s lost his marbles? Well, the ED found one of Mortimer’s marbles ... in his penis. Also a spork, and a bread twist tie, and a chopstick. No, not all at the same time. As for Beulah, a barbell and a Spider-Man action figure somehow found their way – not at the same time, thank goodness – into her vagina.

And have you ever heard someone say that they’re “not going to stand for this”? Mortimer has, so he sat down ... on a light bulb, and a rolling pin, and a billiard ball. Yup, the ED had to remove these items from his rectum.

But not all at the same time, thank goodness.

Urine for a new vaccine alternative

Yep, you read that right: Another vaccine alternative. Urine sounds disgusting, but you’ve got to admit, it’s resourceful at least.

Christopher Key, the leader of a group of antivaxxers known as the “Vaccine Police,” is now claiming that you should do “urine therapy,” when means drinking your own pee to ward off COVID-19. According to My. Key, “tons and tons of research” shows the benefits of drinking urine to fight COVID-19, the Guardian reported.

EM80/Pixabay

Vaccine or beer? You must now choose

As the COVID-19 pandemic drags on toward its third year, the large subset of the population who refuse to get vaccinated has proved nearly intractable. Governments have tried numerous incentives to boost vaccination rates, ranging from free beer to million dollar lotteries. Needless to say, beyond their ability to generate LOTME stories, these incentives have been less than effective.

As the frankly unfairly contagious Omicron variant makes it way through the world, our friends in the Great White North have decided enough is enough. If the carrot doesn’t work, the people of Quebec are going to get the stick. Starting on Jan. 18, vaccination cards will be required to enter stores that sell alcohol or cannabis, better known as the things that have gotten us all through this pandemic.

John Margolies/rawpixel

And you know what? Cutting off the booze supply seems to be working. Christian Dubé, Quebec’s health minister, said that the number of vaccination appointments had quadrupled in the new year, rising from 1,500 per day to 6,000 per day, according to the CTV News report. Now, those aren’t massive numbers, but this is big empty Canada we’re talking about, and the unvaccinated make up about 10% of Quebec’s population, so 6,000 a day is quite impressive.

Mr. Dubé added that additional nonessential businesses could be added to the restriction list in the coming weeks, but we’re not sure it’ll be necessary. Those middle-aged soccer moms will do anything to secure their daily merlot. Also, alcohol and cannabis nonessential? The LOTME staff is appalled and offended at this insinuation.

All I need is the polyester that I breathe

When you do laundry, you’re probably thinking more of how to get that ketchup stain out of your white shirt than the effect it has on the environment. Well, research shows it actually has some significance.

monkeybusinessimages / Getty Images

That significance comes in the form of microfibers, which are released from natural fabrics such as cotton and from synthetic fabrics such as polyester, which are also considered to be microplastics.

The microfibers that get released in the water when we wash clothes are filtered out eventually, but the dryer is the real culprit, according to a study in Environmental Science & Technology Letters. We’re talking a discharge of up to 120 million microfiber fragments directly into the air annually from just one dryer!

Dryers, they found, emitted between 1.4-40 times more microfibers than did washing machines in previous studies. And polyester fabrics produced more fragments when load sizes increased, while fragment production from cotton fabrics remained constant.

Recent findings suggest that inhaling these microfibers can cause lung inflammation, increase cancer risk, and induce asthma attacks. The authors of the current study suggested additional filtration should be done on dryer vents to reduce the amount of pollutants emitted into the air.

Who would have thought just drying your sheets could be such a dangerous act?
 

It’s always in the last place you look

At least a million times every morning in this country, a million children yell something like this as they get ready for school: “Mom, have you seen my ...?”

Well, thanks to Defector.com, now we know what Mom should yell back: “Look in your weird cousin Mortimer!”

We will explain ... again.

When they’re not dealing with COVID-19, the folks who work in emergency departments spend a lot of their time removing things that are stuck in people’s bodily orifices. The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission even keeps track of them.

Nick Matthews/CC BY-SA 2.0

So if you’re looking for the number 8 button from the TV remote, or maybe a bullet, check Mortimer’s nose. Maybe you’re missing a lollipop, a hairpin, or some espresso beans. Mortimer’s friend Beulah might have put them in her ear.

Has an earbud gone missing? Another friend of Mortimer’s went to the ED with something stuck in his throat and said that he had a “pill in one hand and his earbud in the other hand, got distracted and took the earbud instead.” Yes, that is an actual quote (via Defector) from the CPSC database.

What about that old saying that someone’s lost his marbles? Well, the ED found one of Mortimer’s marbles ... in his penis. Also a spork, and a bread twist tie, and a chopstick. No, not all at the same time. As for Beulah, a barbell and a Spider-Man action figure somehow found their way – not at the same time, thank goodness – into her vagina.

And have you ever heard someone say that they’re “not going to stand for this”? Mortimer has, so he sat down ... on a light bulb, and a rolling pin, and a billiard ball. Yup, the ED had to remove these items from his rectum.

But not all at the same time, thank goodness.

People who build up high levels of immune cells from coronaviruses that cause the common cold could have some protection against COVID-19, according to a small study published Jan. 10 in Nature Communications.

Previous studies have shown that T cells created from other coronaviruses can recognize SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. In the new study, researchers at Imperial College London found that the presence of these T cells at the time of COVID-19 exposure could reduce the chance of getting infected.

The findings could provide a blueprint for a second-generation, universal vaccine to prevent infection from COVID-19 variants, including Omicron and ones that crop up later.

“Being exposed to SARS-CoV-2 virus doesn’t always result in infection, and we’ve been keen to understand why,” Rhia Kundu, PhD, the lead study author from Imperial’s National Heart and Lung Institute, said in a statement.

People with higher levels of T cells from the common cold were less likely to become infected with COVID-19, the researchers found.

“While this is an important discovery, it is only one form of protection, and I would stress that no one should rely on this alone,” Dr. Kundu said. “Instead, the best way to protect yourself against COVID-19 is to be fully vaccinated, including getting your booster dose.”

For the study, Dr. Kundu and colleagues analyzed blood samples from 52 people who lived with someone with confirmed COVID-19 in September 2020. Among the 26 people who didn’t contract COVID-19, there were “significantly higher levels” of preexisting T cells from common cold coronaviruses, as compared with the 26 people who did become infected.

The T cells researched in the study are considered “cross-reactive” and can recognize the proteins of SARS-CoV-2. They offer protection by targeting proteins inside the SARS-CoV-2 virus, rather than the spike proteins on the surface that allow the virus to invade cells.

The current COVID-19 vaccines target the spike proteins, which are more likely to mutate than internal proteins, the researchers wrote. The Omicron variant, for instance, has numerous mutations on spike proteins that may allow it to evade vaccines.

The data suggest that the next step of COVID-19 vaccine development could focus on internal proteins, the researchers said, which could provide lasting protection because T-cell responses persist longer than antibody responses that fade within a few months of vaccination.

“New vaccines that include these conserved, internal proteins would therefore induce broadly protective T-cell responses that should protect against current and future SARS-CoV-2 variants,” Ajit Lalvani, MD, the senior study author and director of Imperial’s respiratory infections health protection research unit, said in the statement.

But more research is needed, the authors said, noting that the study had a small sample size and lacked ethnic diversity, which puts limits on the research.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com

People who build up high levels of immune cells from coronaviruses that cause the common cold could have some protection against COVID-19, according to a small study published Jan. 10 in Nature Communications.

Previous studies have shown that T cells created from other coronaviruses can recognize SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. In the new study, researchers at Imperial College London found that the presence of these T cells at the time of COVID-19 exposure could reduce the chance of getting infected.

The findings could provide a blueprint for a second-generation, universal vaccine to prevent infection from COVID-19 variants, including Omicron and ones that crop up later.

“Being exposed to SARS-CoV-2 virus doesn’t always result in infection, and we’ve been keen to understand why,” Rhia Kundu, PhD, the lead study author from Imperial’s National Heart and Lung Institute, said in a statement.

People with higher levels of T cells from the common cold were less likely to become infected with COVID-19, the researchers found.

“While this is an important discovery, it is only one form of protection, and I would stress that no one should rely on this alone,” Dr. Kundu said. “Instead, the best way to protect yourself against COVID-19 is to be fully vaccinated, including getting your booster dose.”

For the study, Dr. Kundu and colleagues analyzed blood samples from 52 people who lived with someone with confirmed COVID-19 in September 2020. Among the 26 people who didn’t contract COVID-19, there were “significantly higher levels” of preexisting T cells from common cold coronaviruses, as compared with the 26 people who did become infected.

The T cells researched in the study are considered “cross-reactive” and can recognize the proteins of SARS-CoV-2. They offer protection by targeting proteins inside the SARS-CoV-2 virus, rather than the spike proteins on the surface that allow the virus to invade cells.

The current COVID-19 vaccines target the spike proteins, which are more likely to mutate than internal proteins, the researchers wrote. The Omicron variant, for instance, has numerous mutations on spike proteins that may allow it to evade vaccines.

The data suggest that the next step of COVID-19 vaccine development could focus on internal proteins, the researchers said, which could provide lasting protection because T-cell responses persist longer than antibody responses that fade within a few months of vaccination.

“New vaccines that include these conserved, internal proteins would therefore induce broadly protective T-cell responses that should protect against current and future SARS-CoV-2 variants,” Ajit Lalvani, MD, the senior study author and director of Imperial’s respiratory infections health protection research unit, said in the statement.

But more research is needed, the authors said, noting that the study had a small sample size and lacked ethnic diversity, which puts limits on the research.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com

People who build up high levels of immune cells from coronaviruses that cause the common cold could have some protection against COVID-19, according to a small study published Jan. 10 in Nature Communications.

Previous studies have shown that T cells created from other coronaviruses can recognize SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. In the new study, researchers at Imperial College London found that the presence of these T cells at the time of COVID-19 exposure could reduce the chance of getting infected.

The findings could provide a blueprint for a second-generation, universal vaccine to prevent infection from COVID-19 variants, including Omicron and ones that crop up later.

“Being exposed to SARS-CoV-2 virus doesn’t always result in infection, and we’ve been keen to understand why,” Rhia Kundu, PhD, the lead study author from Imperial’s National Heart and Lung Institute, said in a statement.

People with higher levels of T cells from the common cold were less likely to become infected with COVID-19, the researchers found.

“While this is an important discovery, it is only one form of protection, and I would stress that no one should rely on this alone,” Dr. Kundu said. “Instead, the best way to protect yourself against COVID-19 is to be fully vaccinated, including getting your booster dose.”

For the study, Dr. Kundu and colleagues analyzed blood samples from 52 people who lived with someone with confirmed COVID-19 in September 2020. Among the 26 people who didn’t contract COVID-19, there were “significantly higher levels” of preexisting T cells from common cold coronaviruses, as compared with the 26 people who did become infected.

The T cells researched in the study are considered “cross-reactive” and can recognize the proteins of SARS-CoV-2. They offer protection by targeting proteins inside the SARS-CoV-2 virus, rather than the spike proteins on the surface that allow the virus to invade cells.

The current COVID-19 vaccines target the spike proteins, which are more likely to mutate than internal proteins, the researchers wrote. The Omicron variant, for instance, has numerous mutations on spike proteins that may allow it to evade vaccines.

The data suggest that the next step of COVID-19 vaccine development could focus on internal proteins, the researchers said, which could provide lasting protection because T-cell responses persist longer than antibody responses that fade within a few months of vaccination.

“New vaccines that include these conserved, internal proteins would therefore induce broadly protective T-cell responses that should protect against current and future SARS-CoV-2 variants,” Ajit Lalvani, MD, the senior study author and director of Imperial’s respiratory infections health protection research unit, said in the statement.

But more research is needed, the authors said, noting that the study had a small sample size and lacked ethnic diversity, which puts limits on the research.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com

Doctors providing “fraudulent” COVID-19 information became a hot-button issue for physicians responding to Medscape’s recent article, "Shouldn’t Doctors Who Spread False COVID-19 Information Lose Their Licenses?”

COVID-19 safety recommendations are set by mainstream medical organizations as new information becomes available, but some doctors consistently oppose advice from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other medical authorities. These physicians often promote off-label, unapproved use of medications for COVID-19 and/or contradict mainstream safety guidelines such as vaccines, masks, and social distancing.

Some medical organizations are concerned that these doctors are hampering efforts to control the highly contagious coronavirus and are, at worst, placing lives in danger with their contrarian views that can spread like wildfire on social media sites. Their words are often used by those who refuse to be vaccinated or wear masks.

State licensing boards have mostly refused to discipline these doctors for making false and/or misleading claims, but as the virus spreads, there are calls to take action against them. However, others worry that such actions would violate free speech and critical thought.

Medscape recently took on the question of whether doctors should lose their licenses for spreading misinformation and disinformation about COVID-19, which spurred a strong response from clinician readers.
 

Yes, those doctors are doing wrong

Several physicians took a strong stand against their fellow doctors who are spreading misinformation about COVID-19.

One doctor endorsed the idea of removing licenses for spreading misinformation and called for criminal prosecution: “It should certainly be grounds for cancellation of all licensing (after appropriate examination to rule out acute psychotic episodes, dementia, tumor, etc.) and very likely [include] a charge of manslaughter.”

Another health care provider said, “A person who does not accept science should not, of course, be allowed to practice medicine. One who argues publicly that vaccines and masks don’t work should be prosecuted for crimes ranging from reckless endangerment to attempted murder.”

One reader framed COVID-19 misinformers in stark terms: “These men and women are medical prostitutes. Their medical and surgical colleges [should] have a panel to track in-court testimony and the disinformation they spread ...”

“This is malpractice of the worst kind,” said a clinician. “Public health officials and science are quite clear on [the] best practices for safety during a pandemic, which is killing millions. This is a standard of care.”

“Medical Boards should suspend licenses and give the physician a chance to testify [about] the scientific basis for his comments,” added a health care provider. “Boards involve themselves in all kinds of perceived disciplinary infractions. We are in the midst of a lethal pandemic. I would think that would take precedence over many other issues?”

“I do believe that physicians have the responsibility to speak the truth and have scientifically displayed minds,” said a reader. “Not [to] promulgate misleading, false, and/or unverified information.”

“Any physician, who holds a license, should abide [by] government and state regulation,” asserted a doctor. “He should be disciplined by the board for spreading medical/public misinformation since he is creating potential harm to the population.”

One specialist insisted that “state boards do not do enough to restrict/limit the practice of physicians touting questionable therapies.”

“Any doctor who spreads false information about Covid is hurting our country, our individuals, and our economy and leading to needless deaths,” asserted a physician. “However, there are uncertainties, and where those exist, physicians [should] simply say ‘it is unknown.’”
 

No, those physicians have a right to speak their beliefs

However, many physicians worried that science and controversial thought were being muzzled.

“Absolutely no,” a doctor stated. “Who judges what is misinformation in this age where debate is canceled? Science advances with challenge, and it’s not about an authority dictating the allowable opinion.”

Another clinician claimed the “truth is very difficult to discern from less-than-truth in a country running on a profit-oriented economic ideology.”

One specialist warned that if disinformation doctors are held responsible, then “that means a lot of doctors” will be “gone” because “almost anything that is written or said about COVID can be contested.”

Another physician warned his colleagues about suppressing new ideas: “To condemn what we didn’t try, or purposefully ignore a different approach because [it] doesn’t agree with our opinion is suppression of information.”

Some doctors insisted the issue extended beyond medicine and into Constitutional freedoms. They also expressed their mistrust in the government to regulate physicians.

“There is a First Amendment in this country,” said one reader. “What you think is false may not be so. The people can listen to whoever they want to and make their own medical decisions. We do not need one iota more of politicizing medicine. Having an MD or DO does not mean you relinquish your First Amendment rights.”

“One of the fundamental problems with a system that allows government to ‘license’ physicians, or any other profession, is that politics inevitably turn to cronyism, and big businesses and wealthy people start controlling the government,” argued a doctor.

One clinician suggested enforcement against health food, drug company commercials, and talk shows: “What about all the [misinformation] at the health food stores and the like. Doctors of natural-whatever? Those info-commercials on tv. How many faxes do I get to ‘approve’ because ‘patients request’ braces and pain-treating expensive compounds advertised on TV? We tolerate those ... What about Dr. Oz and the docs on talk shows claiming BS?”
 

And the debate goes even further

Some physicians questioned the very notion of claiming “truth.”

“Nobody should be certain that they have the ‘absolute truth,’” said one reader. “In fact, the best clinical insights exceed so-called knowledge by at least one step.”

“Who can determine exactly what is truth?” asked another clinician. “For sure, the ‘Federal Government,’ who ‘is here to help you,’ is not qualified to make such determinations, and who are you to make such a suggestion as to remove someone’s license because they disagree with you? Give me a break!”

Another physician echoed that sentiment: “What’s true and false is often and certainly currently debatable. There are well-qualified physicians (with credentials such as the development of mRNA technology), virologists, and biostatisticians that have valid thoughts on this but do not necessarily agree with the drug company-sponsored journals and news channels (most of them). Their voices should be heard, and they should not lose their licenses. They are doing their work in good conscience.”

One reader commented that he wanted his “freedom of speech,” and offered this defiant advice: “You can take this license and shove it.”

Finally, a physician noted that the political climate has influenced medical directives: “If someone in a leadership role knowingly, and with intent, spread false information, that is wrong. However, during this global pandemic the active and the politics have combined. Red state no mandate, blue state mandate – what does that tell you about American leadership?”

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

Doctors providing “fraudulent” COVID-19 information became a hot-button issue for physicians responding to Medscape’s recent article, "Shouldn’t Doctors Who Spread False COVID-19 Information Lose Their Licenses?”

COVID-19 safety recommendations are set by mainstream medical organizations as new information becomes available, but some doctors consistently oppose advice from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other medical authorities. These physicians often promote off-label, unapproved use of medications for COVID-19 and/or contradict mainstream safety guidelines such as vaccines, masks, and social distancing.

Some medical organizations are concerned that these doctors are hampering efforts to control the highly contagious coronavirus and are, at worst, placing lives in danger with their contrarian views that can spread like wildfire on social media sites. Their words are often used by those who refuse to be vaccinated or wear masks.

State licensing boards have mostly refused to discipline these doctors for making false and/or misleading claims, but as the virus spreads, there are calls to take action against them. However, others worry that such actions would violate free speech and critical thought.

Medscape recently took on the question of whether doctors should lose their licenses for spreading misinformation and disinformation about COVID-19, which spurred a strong response from clinician readers.
 

Yes, those doctors are doing wrong

Several physicians took a strong stand against their fellow doctors who are spreading misinformation about COVID-19.

One doctor endorsed the idea of removing licenses for spreading misinformation and called for criminal prosecution: “It should certainly be grounds for cancellation of all licensing (after appropriate examination to rule out acute psychotic episodes, dementia, tumor, etc.) and very likely [include] a charge of manslaughter.”

Another health care provider said, “A person who does not accept science should not, of course, be allowed to practice medicine. One who argues publicly that vaccines and masks don’t work should be prosecuted for crimes ranging from reckless endangerment to attempted murder.”

One reader framed COVID-19 misinformers in stark terms: “These men and women are medical prostitutes. Their medical and surgical colleges [should] have a panel to track in-court testimony and the disinformation they spread ...”

“This is malpractice of the worst kind,” said a clinician. “Public health officials and science are quite clear on [the] best practices for safety during a pandemic, which is killing millions. This is a standard of care.”

“Medical Boards should suspend licenses and give the physician a chance to testify [about] the scientific basis for his comments,” added a health care provider. “Boards involve themselves in all kinds of perceived disciplinary infractions. We are in the midst of a lethal pandemic. I would think that would take precedence over many other issues?”

“I do believe that physicians have the responsibility to speak the truth and have scientifically displayed minds,” said a reader. “Not [to] promulgate misleading, false, and/or unverified information.”

“Any physician, who holds a license, should abide [by] government and state regulation,” asserted a doctor. “He should be disciplined by the board for spreading medical/public misinformation since he is creating potential harm to the population.”

One specialist insisted that “state boards do not do enough to restrict/limit the practice of physicians touting questionable therapies.”

“Any doctor who spreads false information about Covid is hurting our country, our individuals, and our economy and leading to needless deaths,” asserted a physician. “However, there are uncertainties, and where those exist, physicians [should] simply say ‘it is unknown.’”
 

No, those physicians have a right to speak their beliefs

However, many physicians worried that science and controversial thought were being muzzled.

“Absolutely no,” a doctor stated. “Who judges what is misinformation in this age where debate is canceled? Science advances with challenge, and it’s not about an authority dictating the allowable opinion.”

Another clinician claimed the “truth is very difficult to discern from less-than-truth in a country running on a profit-oriented economic ideology.”

One specialist warned that if disinformation doctors are held responsible, then “that means a lot of doctors” will be “gone” because “almost anything that is written or said about COVID can be contested.”

Another physician warned his colleagues about suppressing new ideas: “To condemn what we didn’t try, or purposefully ignore a different approach because [it] doesn’t agree with our opinion is suppression of information.”

Some doctors insisted the issue extended beyond medicine and into Constitutional freedoms. They also expressed their mistrust in the government to regulate physicians.

“There is a First Amendment in this country,” said one reader. “What you think is false may not be so. The people can listen to whoever they want to and make their own medical decisions. We do not need one iota more of politicizing medicine. Having an MD or DO does not mean you relinquish your First Amendment rights.”

“One of the fundamental problems with a system that allows government to ‘license’ physicians, or any other profession, is that politics inevitably turn to cronyism, and big businesses and wealthy people start controlling the government,” argued a doctor.

One clinician suggested enforcement against health food, drug company commercials, and talk shows: “What about all the [misinformation] at the health food stores and the like. Doctors of natural-whatever? Those info-commercials on tv. How many faxes do I get to ‘approve’ because ‘patients request’ braces and pain-treating expensive compounds advertised on TV? We tolerate those ... What about Dr. Oz and the docs on talk shows claiming BS?”
 

And the debate goes even further

Some physicians questioned the very notion of claiming “truth.”

“Nobody should be certain that they have the ‘absolute truth,’” said one reader. “In fact, the best clinical insights exceed so-called knowledge by at least one step.”

“Who can determine exactly what is truth?” asked another clinician. “For sure, the ‘Federal Government,’ who ‘is here to help you,’ is not qualified to make such determinations, and who are you to make such a suggestion as to remove someone’s license because they disagree with you? Give me a break!”

Another physician echoed that sentiment: “What’s true and false is often and certainly currently debatable. There are well-qualified physicians (with credentials such as the development of mRNA technology), virologists, and biostatisticians that have valid thoughts on this but do not necessarily agree with the drug company-sponsored journals and news channels (most of them). Their voices should be heard, and they should not lose their licenses. They are doing their work in good conscience.”

One reader commented that he wanted his “freedom of speech,” and offered this defiant advice: “You can take this license and shove it.”

Finally, a physician noted that the political climate has influenced medical directives: “If someone in a leadership role knowingly, and with intent, spread false information, that is wrong. However, during this global pandemic the active and the politics have combined. Red state no mandate, blue state mandate – what does that tell you about American leadership?”

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

Doctors providing “fraudulent” COVID-19 information became a hot-button issue for physicians responding to Medscape’s recent article, "Shouldn’t Doctors Who Spread False COVID-19 Information Lose Their Licenses?”

COVID-19 safety recommendations are set by mainstream medical organizations as new information becomes available, but some doctors consistently oppose advice from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other medical authorities. These physicians often promote off-label, unapproved use of medications for COVID-19 and/or contradict mainstream safety guidelines such as vaccines, masks, and social distancing.

Some medical organizations are concerned that these doctors are hampering efforts to control the highly contagious coronavirus and are, at worst, placing lives in danger with their contrarian views that can spread like wildfire on social media sites. Their words are often used by those who refuse to be vaccinated or wear masks.

State licensing boards have mostly refused to discipline these doctors for making false and/or misleading claims, but as the virus spreads, there are calls to take action against them. However, others worry that such actions would violate free speech and critical thought.

Medscape recently took on the question of whether doctors should lose their licenses for spreading misinformation and disinformation about COVID-19, which spurred a strong response from clinician readers.
 

Yes, those doctors are doing wrong

Several physicians took a strong stand against their fellow doctors who are spreading misinformation about COVID-19.

One doctor endorsed the idea of removing licenses for spreading misinformation and called for criminal prosecution: “It should certainly be grounds for cancellation of all licensing (after appropriate examination to rule out acute psychotic episodes, dementia, tumor, etc.) and very likely [include] a charge of manslaughter.”

Another health care provider said, “A person who does not accept science should not, of course, be allowed to practice medicine. One who argues publicly that vaccines and masks don’t work should be prosecuted for crimes ranging from reckless endangerment to attempted murder.”

One reader framed COVID-19 misinformers in stark terms: “These men and women are medical prostitutes. Their medical and surgical colleges [should] have a panel to track in-court testimony and the disinformation they spread ...”

“This is malpractice of the worst kind,” said a clinician. “Public health officials and science are quite clear on [the] best practices for safety during a pandemic, which is killing millions. This is a standard of care.”

“Medical Boards should suspend licenses and give the physician a chance to testify [about] the scientific basis for his comments,” added a health care provider. “Boards involve themselves in all kinds of perceived disciplinary infractions. We are in the midst of a lethal pandemic. I would think that would take precedence over many other issues?”

“I do believe that physicians have the responsibility to speak the truth and have scientifically displayed minds,” said a reader. “Not [to] promulgate misleading, false, and/or unverified information.”

“Any physician, who holds a license, should abide [by] government and state regulation,” asserted a doctor. “He should be disciplined by the board for spreading medical/public misinformation since he is creating potential harm to the population.”

One specialist insisted that “state boards do not do enough to restrict/limit the practice of physicians touting questionable therapies.”

“Any doctor who spreads false information about Covid is hurting our country, our individuals, and our economy and leading to needless deaths,” asserted a physician. “However, there are uncertainties, and where those exist, physicians [should] simply say ‘it is unknown.’”
 

No, those physicians have a right to speak their beliefs

However, many physicians worried that science and controversial thought were being muzzled.

“Absolutely no,” a doctor stated. “Who judges what is misinformation in this age where debate is canceled? Science advances with challenge, and it’s not about an authority dictating the allowable opinion.”

Another clinician claimed the “truth is very difficult to discern from less-than-truth in a country running on a profit-oriented economic ideology.”

One specialist warned that if disinformation doctors are held responsible, then “that means a lot of doctors” will be “gone” because “almost anything that is written or said about COVID can be contested.”

Another physician warned his colleagues about suppressing new ideas: “To condemn what we didn’t try, or purposefully ignore a different approach because [it] doesn’t agree with our opinion is suppression of information.”

Some doctors insisted the issue extended beyond medicine and into Constitutional freedoms. They also expressed their mistrust in the government to regulate physicians.

“There is a First Amendment in this country,” said one reader. “What you think is false may not be so. The people can listen to whoever they want to and make their own medical decisions. We do not need one iota more of politicizing medicine. Having an MD or DO does not mean you relinquish your First Amendment rights.”

“One of the fundamental problems with a system that allows government to ‘license’ physicians, or any other profession, is that politics inevitably turn to cronyism, and big businesses and wealthy people start controlling the government,” argued a doctor.

One clinician suggested enforcement against health food, drug company commercials, and talk shows: “What about all the [misinformation] at the health food stores and the like. Doctors of natural-whatever? Those info-commercials on tv. How many faxes do I get to ‘approve’ because ‘patients request’ braces and pain-treating expensive compounds advertised on TV? We tolerate those ... What about Dr. Oz and the docs on talk shows claiming BS?”
 

And the debate goes even further

Some physicians questioned the very notion of claiming “truth.”

“Nobody should be certain that they have the ‘absolute truth,’” said one reader. “In fact, the best clinical insights exceed so-called knowledge by at least one step.”

“Who can determine exactly what is truth?” asked another clinician. “For sure, the ‘Federal Government,’ who ‘is here to help you,’ is not qualified to make such determinations, and who are you to make such a suggestion as to remove someone’s license because they disagree with you? Give me a break!”

Another physician echoed that sentiment: “What’s true and false is often and certainly currently debatable. There are well-qualified physicians (with credentials such as the development of mRNA technology), virologists, and biostatisticians that have valid thoughts on this but do not necessarily agree with the drug company-sponsored journals and news channels (most of them). Their voices should be heard, and they should not lose their licenses. They are doing their work in good conscience.”

One reader commented that he wanted his “freedom of speech,” and offered this defiant advice: “You can take this license and shove it.”

Finally, a physician noted that the political climate has influenced medical directives: “If someone in a leadership role knowingly, and with intent, spread false information, that is wrong. However, during this global pandemic the active and the politics have combined. Red state no mandate, blue state mandate – what does that tell you about American leadership?”

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

In an observational study of more than 90,000 U.S. health care professionals, consuming even a small amount of olive oil was associated with reduced total mortality.

Compared with men and women who rarely or never consumed olive oil (the lowest intake), those who consumed greater than 0.5 tablespoon/day or more than 7 g/day (the highest intake) had a 19% lower mortality risk over a 28-year follow-up, starting from an average age of 56 years.

Moreover, compared with those with the lowest olive oil intake, those with the highest intake had a 19% lower cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality, a 17% lower risk of dying from cancer, a 29% lower risk of dying from neurodegenerative disease, and an 18% lower risk of dying from respiratory disease during follow-up.

masa44/iStock/Getty Images

The researchers estimate that replacing 10 g/day of margarine, butter, mayonnaise, or dairy fat with the same amount of olive oil is associated with an 8%-34% lower risk of death from various causes.

The study by Marta Guasch-Ferré, PhD, and colleagues was published online Jan. 10 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
 

Results support plant-based dietary fat recommendations

“Our results support current dietary recommendations to increase the intake of olive oil and other unsaturated vegetable oils in place of other fats to improve overall health and longevity,” the researchers summarize.

However, “I wouldn’t say that olive oil is the only way to help you live longer,” Dr. Guasch-Ferré, a senior research scientist in the department of nutrition, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, cautioned in an interview with this news organization.

“Other things are very important, such as not smoking, doing physical activity, etc., but one recommendation could be to try to eat more plant-based food including olive oil and healthy fat,” she added, and to use it for cooking, salad dressing, and baking, and substitute it for saturated fat or animal fat, especially for cooking.

The study suggests that people should “consume a more plant-based diet and prioritize fatty acids such as olive oil because they have a better nutritional composition (high in phenols and antioxidants), instead of using butter or margarines or other animal fats that have been shown to have detrimental effects for health,” she added, which is consistent with recommendations in the Dietary Guidelines for Americans.

“That said,” Dr. Guasch-Ferré summarized, “replication is needed in other cohorts and populations to see if the results are similar.”

In an accompanying editorial, Susanna C. Larsson, PhD, writes that “this was a well-designed study, with long-term follow-up and repeated measurements of dietary intake and other risk factors for diseases.”

“However, the difference in olive oil consumption between those with the highest and those with the lowest/no olive oil consumption was very low (0.5 tablespoon) and a [12%] reduced mortality risk was observed already at a much lower intake (0.5 teaspoon, about 1.5 g/day) of olive oil,” she noted in an email to this news organization.

“It’s a bit hard to believe that such a small amount could have an independent effect on mortality risk,” Dr. Larsson, associate professor of epidemiology at the Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, cautioned.

Like Dr. Guasch-Ferré, she noted that “just adding one or two teaspoons of olive oil to the diet each day will likely not change the risk of mortality.”

Rather, “people may need to make larger changes in the whole diet, not focus on fat only. An overall healthier diet, rich in nonrefined plant-based foods (vegetables, whole grains, nuts), low/no intake of processed foods, and a switch to healthier fat (eg, olive oil) is needed.”

Importantly, “this study cannot say anything about causality, that is, whether it’s olive oil specifically that reduces mortality risk or if there are many other beneficial factors that act together to reduce mortality rate among those with high olive oil consumption.”

The researchers acknowledge this observational study limitation and that the findings may not be generalizable to other populations.
 

Novel findings regarding Alzheimer’s and respiratory disease

Dr. Larsson highlights two novel findings of this study.

First, it showed a 27% reduction in risk of dementia-related mortality for those in the highest versus lowest category of olive oil consumption. “Considering the lack of preventive strategies for Alzheimer’s disease and the high morbidity and mortality related to this disease, this finding, if confirmed, is of great public health importance,” she said.

Second, the study reported an inverse association of olive oil consumption with risk of respiratory disease mortality. “Because residual confounding from smoking cannot be ruled out,” Dr. Larsson said, “this finding is tentative and requires confirmation in a study that is less susceptible to confounding, such as a randomized trial.”

And although the current study and previous studies have found that consumption of olive oil may have health benefits, she identified several remaining questions.

“Are the associations causal or spurious?” she noted. Is olive oil consumption protective for certain cardiovascular diseases like stroke or atrial fibrillation only, as has been shown in other studies, or also for other major diseases and causes of death, she added. What is the amount of olive oil required for a protective effect?

Further, is the potential effect related to monounsaturated fatty acids (MUFAs) or phenolic compounds; that is, “is the protective effect confined to polyphenol-rich extra-virgin olive oil or are refined olive oil and other vegetable oils as beneficial? More research is needed to address these questions,” she concludes.

“Further studies are needed,” the researchers agree, “to confirm the association of olive oil consumption with reduced mortality, clarify the mechanisms responsible, and quantify the dose/volume boundaries around this effect.”  
 

Virgin olive oil has more polyphenols

Olive oil, a key component of the Mediterranean diet, is high in MUFAs, especially oleic acid, as well as vitamin E and polyphenols, which contribute to its anti-inflammatory and antioxidant properties, the researchers explain.

Virgin olive oil, produced by mechanically pressing ripe olives, contains multiple bioactive and antioxidant components and has an acidity of less than 1.5%. And extra-virgin olive oil is produced the same way but has a higher quality, more intense taste, and lower acidity (less than 1%).

Refined or processed olive oil contains less phytochemicals, as some are lost during processing; it usually contains more than 80% refined oil, plus virgin oil added back to enhance flavor, and may also be labeled “pure” or “light.” However, refined olive oil “still has a good amount of healthy fatty acids but less bioactive compounds,” Dr. Guasch-Ferré noted.

Until now, no large prospective study has examined the link between olive oil intake and all-cause and cause-specific mortality in a U.S. population, where olive oil consumption is limited, compared with Mediterranean countries.

The researchers identified 60,582 women in the Nurses’ Health Study and 31,801 men in the Health Professionals Follow-up Study who were free of CVD or cancer in 1990, the first year that food frequency questionnaires in these studies asked about olive oil.

Participants replied to questionnaires every 4 years that asked about use of olive oil (for salad dressing, baking, frying, sautéing, and spreading on bread), other vegetable oils (for example, corn, safflower, soybean, canola oil), margarine, butter, and dairy fat. The researchers averaged the consumption of these fats during the follow-up years.

From 1990 to 2019, the average consumption of olive oil increased from 1.6 g/day to 4 g/day. Margarine in the 1990s contained saturated fat and trans fats, whereas more recently margarine contains beneficial olive oil or vegetable fat, Dr. Guasch-Ferré noted.

Baseline olive oil consumption in this U.S. population “differed remarkably” from that in the Spanish population in the PREDIMED (Prevención con Dieta Mediterránea) trial, which was, on average, 20-22 g/day of extra-virgin olive oil and 16-18 g/day of refined/mixed olive oil, Larsson pointed out.

Because olive oil consumption was so low in this U.S. study, the researchers did not distinguish between virgin/extra-virgin olive oil and refined/processed olive oil.

The participants were almost all White (99%) and were generally healthier than the average U.S. population; on average, they had a body mass index of 25.3-25.8 kg/m² and ate 4.8-7.2 fruits and vegetables/day.

Those with the highest olive oil consumption were more physically active, had a healthier diet, were more likely to have Southern European or Mediterranean ancestry, and were less likely to smoke.

During 28 years of follow-up, 36,856 participants died. The researchers classified the deaths into five categories: CVD, cancer, neurodegenerative disease (including Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis), respiratory disease (such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease), and all other causes (including suicide, injury, infections, diabetes, and kidney disease).

After adjusting for multiple confounders, compared with participants who rarely or never consumed olive oil, those in the highest quartile for olive oil consumption had a decreased risk of death from all causes (hazard ratio, 0.81; 95% confidence interval, 0.78 - 0.84) and from CVD (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.75-0.87), cancer (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.78-0.89), neurodegenerative disease (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.64-0.78), and respiratory disease (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.72-0.93). 

There was no decrease in mortality in models where the researchers substituted olive oil for vegetable oil, suggesting that vegetable oils may provide similar health benefits as olive oil.

The research was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Guasch-Ferré was supported by the American Diabetes Association. Coauthor Salas-Salvadó is partially supported by the Catalan Institution for Research and Advanced Studies and received the virgin olive oil that was used in the PREDIMED and PREDIMED-Plus studies from the Patrimonio Communal Olivalero and Hojiblanca (Málaga, Spain). The other study authors and Dr. Larsson have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

In an observational study of more than 90,000 U.S. health care professionals, consuming even a small amount of olive oil was associated with reduced total mortality.

Compared with men and women who rarely or never consumed olive oil (the lowest intake), those who consumed greater than 0.5 tablespoon/day or more than 7 g/day (the highest intake) had a 19% lower mortality risk over a 28-year follow-up, starting from an average age of 56 years.

Moreover, compared with those with the lowest olive oil intake, those with the highest intake had a 19% lower cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality, a 17% lower risk of dying from cancer, a 29% lower risk of dying from neurodegenerative disease, and an 18% lower risk of dying from respiratory disease during follow-up.

masa44/iStock/Getty Images

The researchers estimate that replacing 10 g/day of margarine, butter, mayonnaise, or dairy fat with the same amount of olive oil is associated with an 8%-34% lower risk of death from various causes.

The study by Marta Guasch-Ferré, PhD, and colleagues was published online Jan. 10 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
 

Results support plant-based dietary fat recommendations

“Our results support current dietary recommendations to increase the intake of olive oil and other unsaturated vegetable oils in place of other fats to improve overall health and longevity,” the researchers summarize.

However, “I wouldn’t say that olive oil is the only way to help you live longer,” Dr. Guasch-Ferré, a senior research scientist in the department of nutrition, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, cautioned in an interview with this news organization.

“Other things are very important, such as not smoking, doing physical activity, etc., but one recommendation could be to try to eat more plant-based food including olive oil and healthy fat,” she added, and to use it for cooking, salad dressing, and baking, and substitute it for saturated fat or animal fat, especially for cooking.

The study suggests that people should “consume a more plant-based diet and prioritize fatty acids such as olive oil because they have a better nutritional composition (high in phenols and antioxidants), instead of using butter or margarines or other animal fats that have been shown to have detrimental effects for health,” she added, which is consistent with recommendations in the Dietary Guidelines for Americans.

“That said,” Dr. Guasch-Ferré summarized, “replication is needed in other cohorts and populations to see if the results are similar.”

In an accompanying editorial, Susanna C. Larsson, PhD, writes that “this was a well-designed study, with long-term follow-up and repeated measurements of dietary intake and other risk factors for diseases.”

“However, the difference in olive oil consumption between those with the highest and those with the lowest/no olive oil consumption was very low (0.5 tablespoon) and a [12%] reduced mortality risk was observed already at a much lower intake (0.5 teaspoon, about 1.5 g/day) of olive oil,” she noted in an email to this news organization.

“It’s a bit hard to believe that such a small amount could have an independent effect on mortality risk,” Dr. Larsson, associate professor of epidemiology at the Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, cautioned.

Like Dr. Guasch-Ferré, she noted that “just adding one or two teaspoons of olive oil to the diet each day will likely not change the risk of mortality.”

Rather, “people may need to make larger changes in the whole diet, not focus on fat only. An overall healthier diet, rich in nonrefined plant-based foods (vegetables, whole grains, nuts), low/no intake of processed foods, and a switch to healthier fat (eg, olive oil) is needed.”

Importantly, “this study cannot say anything about causality, that is, whether it’s olive oil specifically that reduces mortality risk or if there are many other beneficial factors that act together to reduce mortality rate among those with high olive oil consumption.”

The researchers acknowledge this observational study limitation and that the findings may not be generalizable to other populations.
 

Novel findings regarding Alzheimer’s and respiratory disease

Dr. Larsson highlights two novel findings of this study.

First, it showed a 27% reduction in risk of dementia-related mortality for those in the highest versus lowest category of olive oil consumption. “Considering the lack of preventive strategies for Alzheimer’s disease and the high morbidity and mortality related to this disease, this finding, if confirmed, is of great public health importance,” she said.

Second, the study reported an inverse association of olive oil consumption with risk of respiratory disease mortality. “Because residual confounding from smoking cannot be ruled out,” Dr. Larsson said, “this finding is tentative and requires confirmation in a study that is less susceptible to confounding, such as a randomized trial.”

And although the current study and previous studies have found that consumption of olive oil may have health benefits, she identified several remaining questions.

“Are the associations causal or spurious?” she noted. Is olive oil consumption protective for certain cardiovascular diseases like stroke or atrial fibrillation only, as has been shown in other studies, or also for other major diseases and causes of death, she added. What is the amount of olive oil required for a protective effect?

Further, is the potential effect related to monounsaturated fatty acids (MUFAs) or phenolic compounds; that is, “is the protective effect confined to polyphenol-rich extra-virgin olive oil or are refined olive oil and other vegetable oils as beneficial? More research is needed to address these questions,” she concludes.

“Further studies are needed,” the researchers agree, “to confirm the association of olive oil consumption with reduced mortality, clarify the mechanisms responsible, and quantify the dose/volume boundaries around this effect.”  
 

Virgin olive oil has more polyphenols

Olive oil, a key component of the Mediterranean diet, is high in MUFAs, especially oleic acid, as well as vitamin E and polyphenols, which contribute to its anti-inflammatory and antioxidant properties, the researchers explain.

Virgin olive oil, produced by mechanically pressing ripe olives, contains multiple bioactive and antioxidant components and has an acidity of less than 1.5%. And extra-virgin olive oil is produced the same way but has a higher quality, more intense taste, and lower acidity (less than 1%).

Refined or processed olive oil contains less phytochemicals, as some are lost during processing; it usually contains more than 80% refined oil, plus virgin oil added back to enhance flavor, and may also be labeled “pure” or “light.” However, refined olive oil “still has a good amount of healthy fatty acids but less bioactive compounds,” Dr. Guasch-Ferré noted.

Until now, no large prospective study has examined the link between olive oil intake and all-cause and cause-specific mortality in a U.S. population, where olive oil consumption is limited, compared with Mediterranean countries.

The researchers identified 60,582 women in the Nurses’ Health Study and 31,801 men in the Health Professionals Follow-up Study who were free of CVD or cancer in 1990, the first year that food frequency questionnaires in these studies asked about olive oil.

Participants replied to questionnaires every 4 years that asked about use of olive oil (for salad dressing, baking, frying, sautéing, and spreading on bread), other vegetable oils (for example, corn, safflower, soybean, canola oil), margarine, butter, and dairy fat. The researchers averaged the consumption of these fats during the follow-up years.

From 1990 to 2019, the average consumption of olive oil increased from 1.6 g/day to 4 g/day. Margarine in the 1990s contained saturated fat and trans fats, whereas more recently margarine contains beneficial olive oil or vegetable fat, Dr. Guasch-Ferré noted.

Baseline olive oil consumption in this U.S. population “differed remarkably” from that in the Spanish population in the PREDIMED (Prevención con Dieta Mediterránea) trial, which was, on average, 20-22 g/day of extra-virgin olive oil and 16-18 g/day of refined/mixed olive oil, Larsson pointed out.

Because olive oil consumption was so low in this U.S. study, the researchers did not distinguish between virgin/extra-virgin olive oil and refined/processed olive oil.

The participants were almost all White (99%) and were generally healthier than the average U.S. population; on average, they had a body mass index of 25.3-25.8 kg/m² and ate 4.8-7.2 fruits and vegetables/day.

Those with the highest olive oil consumption were more physically active, had a healthier diet, were more likely to have Southern European or Mediterranean ancestry, and were less likely to smoke.

During 28 years of follow-up, 36,856 participants died. The researchers classified the deaths into five categories: CVD, cancer, neurodegenerative disease (including Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis), respiratory disease (such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease), and all other causes (including suicide, injury, infections, diabetes, and kidney disease).

After adjusting for multiple confounders, compared with participants who rarely or never consumed olive oil, those in the highest quartile for olive oil consumption had a decreased risk of death from all causes (hazard ratio, 0.81; 95% confidence interval, 0.78 - 0.84) and from CVD (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.75-0.87), cancer (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.78-0.89), neurodegenerative disease (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.64-0.78), and respiratory disease (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.72-0.93). 

There was no decrease in mortality in models where the researchers substituted olive oil for vegetable oil, suggesting that vegetable oils may provide similar health benefits as olive oil.

The research was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Guasch-Ferré was supported by the American Diabetes Association. Coauthor Salas-Salvadó is partially supported by the Catalan Institution for Research and Advanced Studies and received the virgin olive oil that was used in the PREDIMED and PREDIMED-Plus studies from the Patrimonio Communal Olivalero and Hojiblanca (Málaga, Spain). The other study authors and Dr. Larsson have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

In an observational study of more than 90,000 U.S. health care professionals, consuming even a small amount of olive oil was associated with reduced total mortality.

Compared with men and women who rarely or never consumed olive oil (the lowest intake), those who consumed greater than 0.5 tablespoon/day or more than 7 g/day (the highest intake) had a 19% lower mortality risk over a 28-year follow-up, starting from an average age of 56 years.

Moreover, compared with those with the lowest olive oil intake, those with the highest intake had a 19% lower cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality, a 17% lower risk of dying from cancer, a 29% lower risk of dying from neurodegenerative disease, and an 18% lower risk of dying from respiratory disease during follow-up.

masa44/iStock/Getty Images

The researchers estimate that replacing 10 g/day of margarine, butter, mayonnaise, or dairy fat with the same amount of olive oil is associated with an 8%-34% lower risk of death from various causes.

The study by Marta Guasch-Ferré, PhD, and colleagues was published online Jan. 10 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
 

Results support plant-based dietary fat recommendations

“Our results support current dietary recommendations to increase the intake of olive oil and other unsaturated vegetable oils in place of other fats to improve overall health and longevity,” the researchers summarize.

However, “I wouldn’t say that olive oil is the only way to help you live longer,” Dr. Guasch-Ferré, a senior research scientist in the department of nutrition, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, cautioned in an interview with this news organization.

“Other things are very important, such as not smoking, doing physical activity, etc., but one recommendation could be to try to eat more plant-based food including olive oil and healthy fat,” she added, and to use it for cooking, salad dressing, and baking, and substitute it for saturated fat or animal fat, especially for cooking.

The study suggests that people should “consume a more plant-based diet and prioritize fatty acids such as olive oil because they have a better nutritional composition (high in phenols and antioxidants), instead of using butter or margarines or other animal fats that have been shown to have detrimental effects for health,” she added, which is consistent with recommendations in the Dietary Guidelines for Americans.

“That said,” Dr. Guasch-Ferré summarized, “replication is needed in other cohorts and populations to see if the results are similar.”

In an accompanying editorial, Susanna C. Larsson, PhD, writes that “this was a well-designed study, with long-term follow-up and repeated measurements of dietary intake and other risk factors for diseases.”

“However, the difference in olive oil consumption between those with the highest and those with the lowest/no olive oil consumption was very low (0.5 tablespoon) and a [12%] reduced mortality risk was observed already at a much lower intake (0.5 teaspoon, about 1.5 g/day) of olive oil,” she noted in an email to this news organization.

“It’s a bit hard to believe that such a small amount could have an independent effect on mortality risk,” Dr. Larsson, associate professor of epidemiology at the Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, cautioned.

Like Dr. Guasch-Ferré, she noted that “just adding one or two teaspoons of olive oil to the diet each day will likely not change the risk of mortality.”

Rather, “people may need to make larger changes in the whole diet, not focus on fat only. An overall healthier diet, rich in nonrefined plant-based foods (vegetables, whole grains, nuts), low/no intake of processed foods, and a switch to healthier fat (eg, olive oil) is needed.”

Importantly, “this study cannot say anything about causality, that is, whether it’s olive oil specifically that reduces mortality risk or if there are many other beneficial factors that act together to reduce mortality rate among those with high olive oil consumption.”

The researchers acknowledge this observational study limitation and that the findings may not be generalizable to other populations.
 

Novel findings regarding Alzheimer’s and respiratory disease

Dr. Larsson highlights two novel findings of this study.

First, it showed a 27% reduction in risk of dementia-related mortality for those in the highest versus lowest category of olive oil consumption. “Considering the lack of preventive strategies for Alzheimer’s disease and the high morbidity and mortality related to this disease, this finding, if confirmed, is of great public health importance,” she said.

Second, the study reported an inverse association of olive oil consumption with risk of respiratory disease mortality. “Because residual confounding from smoking cannot be ruled out,” Dr. Larsson said, “this finding is tentative and requires confirmation in a study that is less susceptible to confounding, such as a randomized trial.”

And although the current study and previous studies have found that consumption of olive oil may have health benefits, she identified several remaining questions.

“Are the associations causal or spurious?” she noted. Is olive oil consumption protective for certain cardiovascular diseases like stroke or atrial fibrillation only, as has been shown in other studies, or also for other major diseases and causes of death, she added. What is the amount of olive oil required for a protective effect?

Further, is the potential effect related to monounsaturated fatty acids (MUFAs) or phenolic compounds; that is, “is the protective effect confined to polyphenol-rich extra-virgin olive oil or are refined olive oil and other vegetable oils as beneficial? More research is needed to address these questions,” she concludes.

“Further studies are needed,” the researchers agree, “to confirm the association of olive oil consumption with reduced mortality, clarify the mechanisms responsible, and quantify the dose/volume boundaries around this effect.”  
 

Virgin olive oil has more polyphenols

Olive oil, a key component of the Mediterranean diet, is high in MUFAs, especially oleic acid, as well as vitamin E and polyphenols, which contribute to its anti-inflammatory and antioxidant properties, the researchers explain.

Virgin olive oil, produced by mechanically pressing ripe olives, contains multiple bioactive and antioxidant components and has an acidity of less than 1.5%. And extra-virgin olive oil is produced the same way but has a higher quality, more intense taste, and lower acidity (less than 1%).

Refined or processed olive oil contains less phytochemicals, as some are lost during processing; it usually contains more than 80% refined oil, plus virgin oil added back to enhance flavor, and may also be labeled “pure” or “light.” However, refined olive oil “still has a good amount of healthy fatty acids but less bioactive compounds,” Dr. Guasch-Ferré noted.

Until now, no large prospective study has examined the link between olive oil intake and all-cause and cause-specific mortality in a U.S. population, where olive oil consumption is limited, compared with Mediterranean countries.

The researchers identified 60,582 women in the Nurses’ Health Study and 31,801 men in the Health Professionals Follow-up Study who were free of CVD or cancer in 1990, the first year that food frequency questionnaires in these studies asked about olive oil.

Participants replied to questionnaires every 4 years that asked about use of olive oil (for salad dressing, baking, frying, sautéing, and spreading on bread), other vegetable oils (for example, corn, safflower, soybean, canola oil), margarine, butter, and dairy fat. The researchers averaged the consumption of these fats during the follow-up years.

From 1990 to 2019, the average consumption of olive oil increased from 1.6 g/day to 4 g/day. Margarine in the 1990s contained saturated fat and trans fats, whereas more recently margarine contains beneficial olive oil or vegetable fat, Dr. Guasch-Ferré noted.

Baseline olive oil consumption in this U.S. population “differed remarkably” from that in the Spanish population in the PREDIMED (Prevención con Dieta Mediterránea) trial, which was, on average, 20-22 g/day of extra-virgin olive oil and 16-18 g/day of refined/mixed olive oil, Larsson pointed out.

Because olive oil consumption was so low in this U.S. study, the researchers did not distinguish between virgin/extra-virgin olive oil and refined/processed olive oil.

The participants were almost all White (99%) and were generally healthier than the average U.S. population; on average, they had a body mass index of 25.3-25.8 kg/m² and ate 4.8-7.2 fruits and vegetables/day.

Those with the highest olive oil consumption were more physically active, had a healthier diet, were more likely to have Southern European or Mediterranean ancestry, and were less likely to smoke.

During 28 years of follow-up, 36,856 participants died. The researchers classified the deaths into five categories: CVD, cancer, neurodegenerative disease (including Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis), respiratory disease (such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease), and all other causes (including suicide, injury, infections, diabetes, and kidney disease).

After adjusting for multiple confounders, compared with participants who rarely or never consumed olive oil, those in the highest quartile for olive oil consumption had a decreased risk of death from all causes (hazard ratio, 0.81; 95% confidence interval, 0.78 - 0.84) and from CVD (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.75-0.87), cancer (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.78-0.89), neurodegenerative disease (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.64-0.78), and respiratory disease (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.72-0.93). 

There was no decrease in mortality in models where the researchers substituted olive oil for vegetable oil, suggesting that vegetable oils may provide similar health benefits as olive oil.

The research was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Guasch-Ferré was supported by the American Diabetes Association. Coauthor Salas-Salvadó is partially supported by the Catalan Institution for Research and Advanced Studies and received the virgin olive oil that was used in the PREDIMED and PREDIMED-Plus studies from the Patrimonio Communal Olivalero and Hojiblanca (Málaga, Spain). The other study authors and Dr. Larsson have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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