User login
Cardiology News is an independent news source that provides cardiologists with timely and relevant news and commentary about clinical developments and the impact of health care policy on cardiology and the cardiologist's practice. Cardiology News Digital Network is the online destination and multimedia properties of Cardiology News, the independent news publication for cardiologists. Cardiology news is the leading source of news and commentary about clinical developments in cardiology as well as health care policy and regulations that affect the cardiologist's practice. Cardiology News Digital Network is owned by Frontline Medical Communications.
Stay tuned for CSI: Olive oil
Cracking down on food fraud
How do you know the olive oil in your pantry is from Greece? Or that the avocados on your toast are from Mexico? The label, right? Well, maybe not. False claims of origin are a huge problem in the food industry, costing over $30 billion in economic damage annually.
Fear not, citizens, because botanists are on the job, and they’ve found a cheaper and more efficient way to expose that non-Greek olive oil.
How? Florian Cueni, PhD, of the University of Basel, Switzerland, and associates developed a new model to simulate oxygen isotope ratios in plants from a specific region, based on the temperature, precipitation, growing season information, and humidity data. Previously, botanists had to collect reference data from the claimed origin country and from other regions to validate where the product actually came from.
“With minor adjustments to the parameters, our model can be used to determine all plant products,” said senior investigator Ansgar Kahmen. This can open up the door for even more plant forensics, including drug confiscations and illegal timber logging, with information that will hold up in court.
Why pay Greek-olive prices for olives from California?
Fear leads to anger, anger leads to unhelpful online reviews
And reading angry online reviews leads to hate and suffering. We may have co-opted Master Yoda’s wise words ever so slightly, but anyone who’s done any shopping online (so everyone) knows that the review section of any product can be downright villainous. Do these reviews affect what we buy?
The angry online product review was the subject of a recent study published in MIS Quarterly. In a series of experiments, participants were shown a series of realistic online reviews with varying amounts of anger but with similar amounts of information. After reading the reviews, participants rated helpfulness, their personal opinion of the product/retailer, and whether or not they would buy the product.
Participants overwhelmingly rated calmly written reviews as more helpful than angrily written ones. One would expect, then, that those unhelpful angry reviews would have little effect on the participant’s view or willingness to buy a product, but the study investigators found the opposite. Reading angry reviews made the participants more likely to reject the product, even though they didn’t think the angry review was useful. And when you think about it, it does make sense. Anger means drama, and we can’t resist a juicy bit of drama.
So while we should all aspire to be Yoda and rise above anger and hatred, in reality we seem to be channeling Emperor Palpatine. We let the hate flow through us, and in our anger, we ignore perfectly good products. On the plus side, now we can shoot lightning out of our hands, so that’s pretty cool.
Health care is heading to the hall of fame
We couldn’t be happier here at LOTME because it’s that time of year again.
No, we’re not talking about Healthcare Security and Safety Week or National Metric Week, although those are both kind of important. Hmm, maybe we should talk about health care security or the metric system. After all, in this country, medicine is one of the metric system’s biggest customers. And who doesn’t love picograms? They’re the unit-of-measurement equivalent of a koala.
So we’re doing the metric system, then? Nah.
We’re excited because the 2022 inductees to the National Inventors Hall of Fame were just announced, and, as usual, the world of health care is well represented.
First up is the surprisingly relevant (thanks to the party guest that won’t leave, SARS-CoV-2) pair of Katalin Karikó, PhD, and Drew Weissman, MD, who worked together in the early 2000s to modify mRNA “so it could avoid immediate immune detection, remain active longer and efficiently instruct cells to create antigens to protect against severe disease.” Their discoveries eventually led to the use of modified mRNA in the COVID-19 vaccines.
The second, albeit posthumous, physician-inductee is Patricia Bath, MD, who was the first Black female physician to receive a U.S. patent for a medical invention. The laserphaco device and technique to remove cataracts “performed all steps of cataract removal: making the incision, destroying the lens, and vacuuming out the fractured pieces.”
Two other inductees have somewhat tenuous connections to medical care. Lonnie Johnson invented the Super Soaker, a powerful squirt gun that has been criticized by psychologists for encouraging violence, and Carl Benz invented the automobile, which sort of means he invented the ambulance, so there you go.
The induction ceremony takes place on May 5, 2022, in Washington, DC. If you’re attending the black-tie dinner at The Anthem, let us know and we’ll split an Uber. It’s our only night to be fancy.
Cracking down on food fraud
How do you know the olive oil in your pantry is from Greece? Or that the avocados on your toast are from Mexico? The label, right? Well, maybe not. False claims of origin are a huge problem in the food industry, costing over $30 billion in economic damage annually.
Fear not, citizens, because botanists are on the job, and they’ve found a cheaper and more efficient way to expose that non-Greek olive oil.
How? Florian Cueni, PhD, of the University of Basel, Switzerland, and associates developed a new model to simulate oxygen isotope ratios in plants from a specific region, based on the temperature, precipitation, growing season information, and humidity data. Previously, botanists had to collect reference data from the claimed origin country and from other regions to validate where the product actually came from.
“With minor adjustments to the parameters, our model can be used to determine all plant products,” said senior investigator Ansgar Kahmen. This can open up the door for even more plant forensics, including drug confiscations and illegal timber logging, with information that will hold up in court.
Why pay Greek-olive prices for olives from California?
Fear leads to anger, anger leads to unhelpful online reviews
And reading angry online reviews leads to hate and suffering. We may have co-opted Master Yoda’s wise words ever so slightly, but anyone who’s done any shopping online (so everyone) knows that the review section of any product can be downright villainous. Do these reviews affect what we buy?
The angry online product review was the subject of a recent study published in MIS Quarterly. In a series of experiments, participants were shown a series of realistic online reviews with varying amounts of anger but with similar amounts of information. After reading the reviews, participants rated helpfulness, their personal opinion of the product/retailer, and whether or not they would buy the product.
Participants overwhelmingly rated calmly written reviews as more helpful than angrily written ones. One would expect, then, that those unhelpful angry reviews would have little effect on the participant’s view or willingness to buy a product, but the study investigators found the opposite. Reading angry reviews made the participants more likely to reject the product, even though they didn’t think the angry review was useful. And when you think about it, it does make sense. Anger means drama, and we can’t resist a juicy bit of drama.
So while we should all aspire to be Yoda and rise above anger and hatred, in reality we seem to be channeling Emperor Palpatine. We let the hate flow through us, and in our anger, we ignore perfectly good products. On the plus side, now we can shoot lightning out of our hands, so that’s pretty cool.
Health care is heading to the hall of fame
We couldn’t be happier here at LOTME because it’s that time of year again.
No, we’re not talking about Healthcare Security and Safety Week or National Metric Week, although those are both kind of important. Hmm, maybe we should talk about health care security or the metric system. After all, in this country, medicine is one of the metric system’s biggest customers. And who doesn’t love picograms? They’re the unit-of-measurement equivalent of a koala.
So we’re doing the metric system, then? Nah.
We’re excited because the 2022 inductees to the National Inventors Hall of Fame were just announced, and, as usual, the world of health care is well represented.
First up is the surprisingly relevant (thanks to the party guest that won’t leave, SARS-CoV-2) pair of Katalin Karikó, PhD, and Drew Weissman, MD, who worked together in the early 2000s to modify mRNA “so it could avoid immediate immune detection, remain active longer and efficiently instruct cells to create antigens to protect against severe disease.” Their discoveries eventually led to the use of modified mRNA in the COVID-19 vaccines.
The second, albeit posthumous, physician-inductee is Patricia Bath, MD, who was the first Black female physician to receive a U.S. patent for a medical invention. The laserphaco device and technique to remove cataracts “performed all steps of cataract removal: making the incision, destroying the lens, and vacuuming out the fractured pieces.”
Two other inductees have somewhat tenuous connections to medical care. Lonnie Johnson invented the Super Soaker, a powerful squirt gun that has been criticized by psychologists for encouraging violence, and Carl Benz invented the automobile, which sort of means he invented the ambulance, so there you go.
The induction ceremony takes place on May 5, 2022, in Washington, DC. If you’re attending the black-tie dinner at The Anthem, let us know and we’ll split an Uber. It’s our only night to be fancy.
Cracking down on food fraud
How do you know the olive oil in your pantry is from Greece? Or that the avocados on your toast are from Mexico? The label, right? Well, maybe not. False claims of origin are a huge problem in the food industry, costing over $30 billion in economic damage annually.
Fear not, citizens, because botanists are on the job, and they’ve found a cheaper and more efficient way to expose that non-Greek olive oil.
How? Florian Cueni, PhD, of the University of Basel, Switzerland, and associates developed a new model to simulate oxygen isotope ratios in plants from a specific region, based on the temperature, precipitation, growing season information, and humidity data. Previously, botanists had to collect reference data from the claimed origin country and from other regions to validate where the product actually came from.
“With minor adjustments to the parameters, our model can be used to determine all plant products,” said senior investigator Ansgar Kahmen. This can open up the door for even more plant forensics, including drug confiscations and illegal timber logging, with information that will hold up in court.
Why pay Greek-olive prices for olives from California?
Fear leads to anger, anger leads to unhelpful online reviews
And reading angry online reviews leads to hate and suffering. We may have co-opted Master Yoda’s wise words ever so slightly, but anyone who’s done any shopping online (so everyone) knows that the review section of any product can be downright villainous. Do these reviews affect what we buy?
The angry online product review was the subject of a recent study published in MIS Quarterly. In a series of experiments, participants were shown a series of realistic online reviews with varying amounts of anger but with similar amounts of information. After reading the reviews, participants rated helpfulness, their personal opinion of the product/retailer, and whether or not they would buy the product.
Participants overwhelmingly rated calmly written reviews as more helpful than angrily written ones. One would expect, then, that those unhelpful angry reviews would have little effect on the participant’s view or willingness to buy a product, but the study investigators found the opposite. Reading angry reviews made the participants more likely to reject the product, even though they didn’t think the angry review was useful. And when you think about it, it does make sense. Anger means drama, and we can’t resist a juicy bit of drama.
So while we should all aspire to be Yoda and rise above anger and hatred, in reality we seem to be channeling Emperor Palpatine. We let the hate flow through us, and in our anger, we ignore perfectly good products. On the plus side, now we can shoot lightning out of our hands, so that’s pretty cool.
Health care is heading to the hall of fame
We couldn’t be happier here at LOTME because it’s that time of year again.
No, we’re not talking about Healthcare Security and Safety Week or National Metric Week, although those are both kind of important. Hmm, maybe we should talk about health care security or the metric system. After all, in this country, medicine is one of the metric system’s biggest customers. And who doesn’t love picograms? They’re the unit-of-measurement equivalent of a koala.
So we’re doing the metric system, then? Nah.
We’re excited because the 2022 inductees to the National Inventors Hall of Fame were just announced, and, as usual, the world of health care is well represented.
First up is the surprisingly relevant (thanks to the party guest that won’t leave, SARS-CoV-2) pair of Katalin Karikó, PhD, and Drew Weissman, MD, who worked together in the early 2000s to modify mRNA “so it could avoid immediate immune detection, remain active longer and efficiently instruct cells to create antigens to protect against severe disease.” Their discoveries eventually led to the use of modified mRNA in the COVID-19 vaccines.
The second, albeit posthumous, physician-inductee is Patricia Bath, MD, who was the first Black female physician to receive a U.S. patent for a medical invention. The laserphaco device and technique to remove cataracts “performed all steps of cataract removal: making the incision, destroying the lens, and vacuuming out the fractured pieces.”
Two other inductees have somewhat tenuous connections to medical care. Lonnie Johnson invented the Super Soaker, a powerful squirt gun that has been criticized by psychologists for encouraging violence, and Carl Benz invented the automobile, which sort of means he invented the ambulance, so there you go.
The induction ceremony takes place on May 5, 2022, in Washington, DC. If you’re attending the black-tie dinner at The Anthem, let us know and we’ll split an Uber. It’s our only night to be fancy.
Omega-3s tame inflammation in elderly COVID-19 patients
results of a small randomized controlled trial suggest.
Results of the study, which included 22 patients with multiple comorbidities, were presented at the European Geriatric Medicine Society annual congress, a hybrid live and online meeting.
The patients, who had a median age of 81 years, were randomized to receive an intravenous infusion of an omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acid (PUFA) emulsion containing 10 g of fish oil per 100 mL or a saline placebo.
Those who received the intravenous infusion had significant decreases from baseline to end of treatment in the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), indicating marked reductions in systemic inflammation.
In contrast, patients randomized to a saline placebo had no significant improvements in NLR, Magnus Bäck, MD, PhD, from the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm reported at the meeting.
“Our lipidomic analysis also showed that omega-3 treatment skewed the lipid response, with reduced levels of proinflammatory lipid mediators, and increased levels of proresolving mediators,” according to a late-breaking abstract, which Dr. Bäck presented during the session.
Omega-3 treatment was not significantly associated with reduction in either C-reactive protein (CRP) or the proinflammatory cytokine interleukin-6, however.
‘Eicosanoid storm’
In a review article published in January 2021 in the open-access journal Frontiers in Physiology, Dr. Bäck and colleagues outlined the rationale for their randomized trial.
“Excessive inflammation has been reported in severe cases with respiratory failure and cardiovascular complications,” they wrote. “In addition to the release of cytokines, referred to as cytokine release syndrome or ‘cytokine storm,’ increased proinflammatory lipid mediators derived from the omega-6 polyunsaturated fatty acid (PUFA) arachidonic acid may cause an ‘eicosanoid storm,’ which contributes to the uncontrolled systemic inflammation.”
Omega-3 PUFA contains proresolving mediators that can limit inflammatory reactions, suggesting the possibility of an inflammation-resolving benefit in patients with COVID-19 without concerns about immunosuppression, the authors hypothesized.
Trial details
In the trial, COVID-Omega-F, they enrolled patients with a COVID-19 diagnosis requiring hospitalization. Patients with an allergy to fish oil or who had contraindications to intravenous PUFA administration (for example, risk for bleeding, shock, or emboli) were excluded.
Ten patients were randomly assigned to receive infusions of the omega-3 PUFA and 12 were assigned to receive infusions of the placebo, once daily for 5 days. The primary outcome measure was change in inflammatory biomarkers, including white blood cell counts, CRP, cytokines, and lipid mediators.
Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics were similar between the two study arms, with a median of about 7 days since the onset of symptoms, and 3.5 days since a diagnosis of COVID-19.
All patients had low lymphocyte responses reflected by a high NLR, a prognostic measure for worse outcomes in patients with COVID-19 infections, Dr. Bäck said.
Inflammation was moderate, with a CRP of 65 mg/L in the placebo group and 62 mg/L in the omega-3 group.
Seven patients in each study arm received concomitant corticoid treatment. Two patients in each arm died in hospital, but there were no serious treatment-related adverse events.
Inflammatory markers improve
As noted before, there was a significant decline in NLR from baseline among patients randomized to omega-3 (P = .02) but no corresponding decrease in patients assigned to placebo infusions.
“The significant decrease was largely driven by an increase in the lymphocyte count in the omega-3 treated group (P = .004), whereas lymphocytes did not significantly change,” Dr. Bäck said.
As expected, patients in the omega-3 group had pronounced increases in omega-3 fatty acids, including eicosapentaenoic acid and docosahexaenoic acid.
The metabolism of fatty acids also differed markedly between the groups, with a significant decrease in the omega-3 group but not the placebo group in proinflammatory mediators, and an increase in precursors to proresolving mediators, Dr. Bäck noted.
AFib concerns
In a question-and-answer part of the session, a physician who identified herself as “Senya from Russia” questioned the safety of omega-3 treatment in this population, “because recently there was a meta-analysis which showed that omega-3 fatty acids will increase the risk of atrial fibrillation in older adults especially.”
The systematic review and meta-analysis she referred to, published in Circulation and reported on by this news organization, showed that, among 81,210 patients with a mean age of 65 enrolled in seven randomized controlled trials, omega-3 fatty acid supplementation was associated with a 25% increase in risk for atrial fibrillation. This risk appeared to be higher in trials testing doses greater than 1 g/day, according to the paper.
“This was not monitored in this study,” Dr. Bäck replied. “It is true that the meta-analysis showed an increased incidence of atrial fibrillation, so it would be something to monitor in case this trial would be expanded to a larger population.”
The study was supported by the Karolinska Institute. Dr. Bäck disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
results of a small randomized controlled trial suggest.
Results of the study, which included 22 patients with multiple comorbidities, were presented at the European Geriatric Medicine Society annual congress, a hybrid live and online meeting.
The patients, who had a median age of 81 years, were randomized to receive an intravenous infusion of an omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acid (PUFA) emulsion containing 10 g of fish oil per 100 mL or a saline placebo.
Those who received the intravenous infusion had significant decreases from baseline to end of treatment in the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), indicating marked reductions in systemic inflammation.
In contrast, patients randomized to a saline placebo had no significant improvements in NLR, Magnus Bäck, MD, PhD, from the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm reported at the meeting.
“Our lipidomic analysis also showed that omega-3 treatment skewed the lipid response, with reduced levels of proinflammatory lipid mediators, and increased levels of proresolving mediators,” according to a late-breaking abstract, which Dr. Bäck presented during the session.
Omega-3 treatment was not significantly associated with reduction in either C-reactive protein (CRP) or the proinflammatory cytokine interleukin-6, however.
‘Eicosanoid storm’
In a review article published in January 2021 in the open-access journal Frontiers in Physiology, Dr. Bäck and colleagues outlined the rationale for their randomized trial.
“Excessive inflammation has been reported in severe cases with respiratory failure and cardiovascular complications,” they wrote. “In addition to the release of cytokines, referred to as cytokine release syndrome or ‘cytokine storm,’ increased proinflammatory lipid mediators derived from the omega-6 polyunsaturated fatty acid (PUFA) arachidonic acid may cause an ‘eicosanoid storm,’ which contributes to the uncontrolled systemic inflammation.”
Omega-3 PUFA contains proresolving mediators that can limit inflammatory reactions, suggesting the possibility of an inflammation-resolving benefit in patients with COVID-19 without concerns about immunosuppression, the authors hypothesized.
Trial details
In the trial, COVID-Omega-F, they enrolled patients with a COVID-19 diagnosis requiring hospitalization. Patients with an allergy to fish oil or who had contraindications to intravenous PUFA administration (for example, risk for bleeding, shock, or emboli) were excluded.
Ten patients were randomly assigned to receive infusions of the omega-3 PUFA and 12 were assigned to receive infusions of the placebo, once daily for 5 days. The primary outcome measure was change in inflammatory biomarkers, including white blood cell counts, CRP, cytokines, and lipid mediators.
Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics were similar between the two study arms, with a median of about 7 days since the onset of symptoms, and 3.5 days since a diagnosis of COVID-19.
All patients had low lymphocyte responses reflected by a high NLR, a prognostic measure for worse outcomes in patients with COVID-19 infections, Dr. Bäck said.
Inflammation was moderate, with a CRP of 65 mg/L in the placebo group and 62 mg/L in the omega-3 group.
Seven patients in each study arm received concomitant corticoid treatment. Two patients in each arm died in hospital, but there were no serious treatment-related adverse events.
Inflammatory markers improve
As noted before, there was a significant decline in NLR from baseline among patients randomized to omega-3 (P = .02) but no corresponding decrease in patients assigned to placebo infusions.
“The significant decrease was largely driven by an increase in the lymphocyte count in the omega-3 treated group (P = .004), whereas lymphocytes did not significantly change,” Dr. Bäck said.
As expected, patients in the omega-3 group had pronounced increases in omega-3 fatty acids, including eicosapentaenoic acid and docosahexaenoic acid.
The metabolism of fatty acids also differed markedly between the groups, with a significant decrease in the omega-3 group but not the placebo group in proinflammatory mediators, and an increase in precursors to proresolving mediators, Dr. Bäck noted.
AFib concerns
In a question-and-answer part of the session, a physician who identified herself as “Senya from Russia” questioned the safety of omega-3 treatment in this population, “because recently there was a meta-analysis which showed that omega-3 fatty acids will increase the risk of atrial fibrillation in older adults especially.”
The systematic review and meta-analysis she referred to, published in Circulation and reported on by this news organization, showed that, among 81,210 patients with a mean age of 65 enrolled in seven randomized controlled trials, omega-3 fatty acid supplementation was associated with a 25% increase in risk for atrial fibrillation. This risk appeared to be higher in trials testing doses greater than 1 g/day, according to the paper.
“This was not monitored in this study,” Dr. Bäck replied. “It is true that the meta-analysis showed an increased incidence of atrial fibrillation, so it would be something to monitor in case this trial would be expanded to a larger population.”
The study was supported by the Karolinska Institute. Dr. Bäck disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
results of a small randomized controlled trial suggest.
Results of the study, which included 22 patients with multiple comorbidities, were presented at the European Geriatric Medicine Society annual congress, a hybrid live and online meeting.
The patients, who had a median age of 81 years, were randomized to receive an intravenous infusion of an omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acid (PUFA) emulsion containing 10 g of fish oil per 100 mL or a saline placebo.
Those who received the intravenous infusion had significant decreases from baseline to end of treatment in the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), indicating marked reductions in systemic inflammation.
In contrast, patients randomized to a saline placebo had no significant improvements in NLR, Magnus Bäck, MD, PhD, from the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm reported at the meeting.
“Our lipidomic analysis also showed that omega-3 treatment skewed the lipid response, with reduced levels of proinflammatory lipid mediators, and increased levels of proresolving mediators,” according to a late-breaking abstract, which Dr. Bäck presented during the session.
Omega-3 treatment was not significantly associated with reduction in either C-reactive protein (CRP) or the proinflammatory cytokine interleukin-6, however.
‘Eicosanoid storm’
In a review article published in January 2021 in the open-access journal Frontiers in Physiology, Dr. Bäck and colleagues outlined the rationale for their randomized trial.
“Excessive inflammation has been reported in severe cases with respiratory failure and cardiovascular complications,” they wrote. “In addition to the release of cytokines, referred to as cytokine release syndrome or ‘cytokine storm,’ increased proinflammatory lipid mediators derived from the omega-6 polyunsaturated fatty acid (PUFA) arachidonic acid may cause an ‘eicosanoid storm,’ which contributes to the uncontrolled systemic inflammation.”
Omega-3 PUFA contains proresolving mediators that can limit inflammatory reactions, suggesting the possibility of an inflammation-resolving benefit in patients with COVID-19 without concerns about immunosuppression, the authors hypothesized.
Trial details
In the trial, COVID-Omega-F, they enrolled patients with a COVID-19 diagnosis requiring hospitalization. Patients with an allergy to fish oil or who had contraindications to intravenous PUFA administration (for example, risk for bleeding, shock, or emboli) were excluded.
Ten patients were randomly assigned to receive infusions of the omega-3 PUFA and 12 were assigned to receive infusions of the placebo, once daily for 5 days. The primary outcome measure was change in inflammatory biomarkers, including white blood cell counts, CRP, cytokines, and lipid mediators.
Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics were similar between the two study arms, with a median of about 7 days since the onset of symptoms, and 3.5 days since a diagnosis of COVID-19.
All patients had low lymphocyte responses reflected by a high NLR, a prognostic measure for worse outcomes in patients with COVID-19 infections, Dr. Bäck said.
Inflammation was moderate, with a CRP of 65 mg/L in the placebo group and 62 mg/L in the omega-3 group.
Seven patients in each study arm received concomitant corticoid treatment. Two patients in each arm died in hospital, but there were no serious treatment-related adverse events.
Inflammatory markers improve
As noted before, there was a significant decline in NLR from baseline among patients randomized to omega-3 (P = .02) but no corresponding decrease in patients assigned to placebo infusions.
“The significant decrease was largely driven by an increase in the lymphocyte count in the omega-3 treated group (P = .004), whereas lymphocytes did not significantly change,” Dr. Bäck said.
As expected, patients in the omega-3 group had pronounced increases in omega-3 fatty acids, including eicosapentaenoic acid and docosahexaenoic acid.
The metabolism of fatty acids also differed markedly between the groups, with a significant decrease in the omega-3 group but not the placebo group in proinflammatory mediators, and an increase in precursors to proresolving mediators, Dr. Bäck noted.
AFib concerns
In a question-and-answer part of the session, a physician who identified herself as “Senya from Russia” questioned the safety of omega-3 treatment in this population, “because recently there was a meta-analysis which showed that omega-3 fatty acids will increase the risk of atrial fibrillation in older adults especially.”
The systematic review and meta-analysis she referred to, published in Circulation and reported on by this news organization, showed that, among 81,210 patients with a mean age of 65 enrolled in seven randomized controlled trials, omega-3 fatty acid supplementation was associated with a 25% increase in risk for atrial fibrillation. This risk appeared to be higher in trials testing doses greater than 1 g/day, according to the paper.
“This was not monitored in this study,” Dr. Bäck replied. “It is true that the meta-analysis showed an increased incidence of atrial fibrillation, so it would be something to monitor in case this trial would be expanded to a larger population.”
The study was supported by the Karolinska Institute. Dr. Bäck disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM EUGMS
USPSTF rules out aspirin for over 60s in primary CVD prevention
New draft recommendations from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) on the use of aspirin for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) have been released and appear to limit the population in which it should be considered.
“The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that aspirin use for the primary prevention of CVD events in adults ages 40 to 59 years who have a 10% or greater 10-year CVD risk has a small net benefit,” the recommendation notes. They conclude that for these patients, the decision to use aspirin “should be an individual one.”
“Persons who are not at increased risk for bleeding and are willing to take low-dose aspirin daily are more likely to benefit,” they note.
For older individuals, however, the task force concludes.
The new recommendations were posted online Oct. 12 and will be available for public comment until November 8. Once it is finalized, the recommendation will replace the 2016 USPSTF recommendation on aspirin use to prevent CVD and colorectal cancer (CRC), they note.
In that document, the task force recommended initiating low-dose aspirin for the primary prevention of both CVD and CRC in adults 50-59 years of age who had a 10% or greater 10-year CVD risk, were not at increased risk for bleeding, had a life expectancy of at least 10 years, and were willing to take daily low-dose aspirin for at least 10 years, with the decision to start being an individual one.
For older and younger patients, they found at that time that the evidence was “insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of initiating aspirin use for the primary prevention of CVD and CRC in adults younger than age 50 years or adults aged 70 years or older.”
In the new draft document, “the USPSTF has changed the age ranges and grades of its recommendation on aspirin use.” Besides the recommendations for CVD prevention, they have also changed the previous recommendation of aspirin for the prevention of CRC given evidence generated from large primary CVD prevention trials.
“Based on new analyses of the evidence from primary CVD prevention populations, longer-term follow-up data from the Women’s Health Study (WHS) (JE Buring, personal communication, November 23, 2020), and new trial evidence, the USPSTF concluded that the evidence is inadequate that low-dose aspirin use reduces CRC incidence or mortality,” it states.
Optimum dose
On the optimum dose for primary CVD prevention, the task force says the benefit appears similar for a low dose (≤100 mg/d) and all doses that have been studied in CVD prevention trials (50 to 500 mg/d). “A pragmatic approach would be to use 81 mg/d, which is the most commonly prescribed dose in the United States,” it states.
The USPSTF recommends using the ACC/AHA Pooled Cohort Equations to estimate cardiovascular risk but it points out that these equations are imperfect for risk prediction at the individual level, and suggests using these risk estimates as a starting point to discuss with appropriate candidates their desire for daily aspirin use. The benefits of initiating aspirin use are greater for individuals at higher risk for CVD events (eg, those with >15% or >20% 10-year CVD risk), they note.
“Decisions about initiating aspirin use should be based on shared decision-making between clinicians and patients about the potential benefits and harms. Persons who place a higher value on the potential benefits than the potential harms may choose to initiate low-dose aspirin use. Persons who place a higher value on the potential harms or on the burden of taking a daily preventive medication than the potential benefits may choose not to initiate low-dose aspirin use,” the task force says.
It also points out that the risk for bleeding increases modestly with advancing age. “For persons who have initiated aspirin use, the net benefits continue to accrue over time in the absence of a bleeding event. The net benefits, however, become smaller with advancing age because of an increased risk for bleeding, so modeling data suggest that it may be reasonable to consider stopping aspirin use around age 75 years,” it states.
Systematic review
The updated draft recommendations are based on a new systematic review commissioned by the USPSTF on the effectiveness of aspirin to reduce the risk of CVD events (myocardial infarction and stroke), cardiovascular mortality, and all-cause mortality in persons without a history of CVD.
The systematic review also investigated the effect of aspirin use on CRC incidence and mortality in primary CVD prevention populations, as well as the harms, particularly bleeding harms, associated with aspirin use.
In addition to the systematic evidence review, the USPSTF commissioned a microsimulation modeling study to assess the net balance of benefits and harms from aspirin use for primary prevention of CVD and CRC, stratified by age, sex, and CVD risk level. Modeling study parameter inputs were informed by the results of the systematic review, and the primary outcomes were net benefits expressed as quality-adjusted life-years and life-years.
The USPSTF found 13 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that reported on the benefits of aspirin use for the primary prevention of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. The total number of participants was 161,680, and most trials used low-dose aspirin of 100 mg/d or less or aspirin every other day. The 13 primary prevention trials included a balanced number of male and female participants and included a broad distribution of ages, with mean age ranging from 53 years in the Physicians’ Health Study to 74 years in the ASPREE trial.
This body of evidence shows that aspirin use for primary prevention of CVD is associated with a decreased risk of myocardial infarction and stroke but not cardiovascular mortality or all-cause mortality. Results are quite similar when including studies using all doses of aspirin compared with studies using low-dose aspirin.
The USPSTF reviewed 14 RCTs in CVD primary prevention populations that reported on the bleeding harms of aspirin.
When looking at studies reporting on the harms of low-dose aspirin use (≤100 mg/d), which is most relevant to current practice, a pooled analysis of 10 trials showed that aspirin use was associated with a 58% increase in major gastrointestinal bleeding, and a pooled analysis of 11 trials showed a 31% increase in intracranial bleeds in the aspirin group compared with the control group. Low-dose aspirin use was not associated with a statistically significant increase in risk of fatal hemorrhagic stroke.
Data suggested that the increased risk of bleeding associated with aspirin use occurs relatively quickly after initiating aspirin, and data do not suggest that aspirin has a differential relative bleeding risk based on age, sex, presence of diabetes, level of CVD risk, or race or ethnicity. Although the increase in relative risk does not appear to differ based on age, the absolute risk of bleeding, and thus the magnitude of bleeding harm, does increase with age, and more so in adults age 60 years or older, they note.
The microsimulation model to estimate the magnitude of net benefit of low-dose aspirin use incorporated findings from the systematic review.
Modeling data demonstrated that aspirin use in both men and women ages 40-59 years with 10% or greater 10-year CVD risk generally provides a modest net benefit in both quality-adjusted life-years and life-years gained. Initiation of aspirin use in persons aged 60-69 years results in quality-adjusted life-years gained that range from slightly negative to slightly positive depending on CVD risk level, and life-years gained are generally negative.
In persons aged 70-79 years, initiation of aspirin use results in a loss of both quality-adjusted life-years and life-years at essentially all CVD risk levels modeled (ie, up to 20% 10-year CVD risk).
The USPSTF thus determined that aspirin use has a small net benefit in persons aged 40-59 years with 10% or greater 10-year CVD risk, and initiation of aspirin use has no net benefit in persons age 60 years or older.
When looking at net lifetime benefit of continuous aspirin use until stopping at age 65, 70, 75, 80, or 85 years, modeling data suggest that there is generally little incremental lifetime net benefit in continuing aspirin use beyond the age of 75-80 years.
The task force points out that the net benefit of continuing aspirin use by a person in their 60s or 70s is not the same as the net benefit of initiating aspirin use by a person in their 60s or 70s. This is because, in part, of the fact that CVD risk is heavily influenced by age. Persons who meet the eligibility criteria for aspirin use at a younger age (ie, ≥10% 10-year CVD risk in their 40s or 50s) typically have even higher CVD risk by their 60s or 70s compared with persons who first reach a 10% or greater 10-year CVD risk in their 60s or 70s, and may gain more benefit by continuing aspirin use than a person at lower risk might gain by initiating aspirin use, the USPSTF explains.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
New draft recommendations from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) on the use of aspirin for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) have been released and appear to limit the population in which it should be considered.
“The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that aspirin use for the primary prevention of CVD events in adults ages 40 to 59 years who have a 10% or greater 10-year CVD risk has a small net benefit,” the recommendation notes. They conclude that for these patients, the decision to use aspirin “should be an individual one.”
“Persons who are not at increased risk for bleeding and are willing to take low-dose aspirin daily are more likely to benefit,” they note.
For older individuals, however, the task force concludes.
The new recommendations were posted online Oct. 12 and will be available for public comment until November 8. Once it is finalized, the recommendation will replace the 2016 USPSTF recommendation on aspirin use to prevent CVD and colorectal cancer (CRC), they note.
In that document, the task force recommended initiating low-dose aspirin for the primary prevention of both CVD and CRC in adults 50-59 years of age who had a 10% or greater 10-year CVD risk, were not at increased risk for bleeding, had a life expectancy of at least 10 years, and were willing to take daily low-dose aspirin for at least 10 years, with the decision to start being an individual one.
For older and younger patients, they found at that time that the evidence was “insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of initiating aspirin use for the primary prevention of CVD and CRC in adults younger than age 50 years or adults aged 70 years or older.”
In the new draft document, “the USPSTF has changed the age ranges and grades of its recommendation on aspirin use.” Besides the recommendations for CVD prevention, they have also changed the previous recommendation of aspirin for the prevention of CRC given evidence generated from large primary CVD prevention trials.
“Based on new analyses of the evidence from primary CVD prevention populations, longer-term follow-up data from the Women’s Health Study (WHS) (JE Buring, personal communication, November 23, 2020), and new trial evidence, the USPSTF concluded that the evidence is inadequate that low-dose aspirin use reduces CRC incidence or mortality,” it states.
Optimum dose
On the optimum dose for primary CVD prevention, the task force says the benefit appears similar for a low dose (≤100 mg/d) and all doses that have been studied in CVD prevention trials (50 to 500 mg/d). “A pragmatic approach would be to use 81 mg/d, which is the most commonly prescribed dose in the United States,” it states.
The USPSTF recommends using the ACC/AHA Pooled Cohort Equations to estimate cardiovascular risk but it points out that these equations are imperfect for risk prediction at the individual level, and suggests using these risk estimates as a starting point to discuss with appropriate candidates their desire for daily aspirin use. The benefits of initiating aspirin use are greater for individuals at higher risk for CVD events (eg, those with >15% or >20% 10-year CVD risk), they note.
“Decisions about initiating aspirin use should be based on shared decision-making between clinicians and patients about the potential benefits and harms. Persons who place a higher value on the potential benefits than the potential harms may choose to initiate low-dose aspirin use. Persons who place a higher value on the potential harms or on the burden of taking a daily preventive medication than the potential benefits may choose not to initiate low-dose aspirin use,” the task force says.
It also points out that the risk for bleeding increases modestly with advancing age. “For persons who have initiated aspirin use, the net benefits continue to accrue over time in the absence of a bleeding event. The net benefits, however, become smaller with advancing age because of an increased risk for bleeding, so modeling data suggest that it may be reasonable to consider stopping aspirin use around age 75 years,” it states.
Systematic review
The updated draft recommendations are based on a new systematic review commissioned by the USPSTF on the effectiveness of aspirin to reduce the risk of CVD events (myocardial infarction and stroke), cardiovascular mortality, and all-cause mortality in persons without a history of CVD.
The systematic review also investigated the effect of aspirin use on CRC incidence and mortality in primary CVD prevention populations, as well as the harms, particularly bleeding harms, associated with aspirin use.
In addition to the systematic evidence review, the USPSTF commissioned a microsimulation modeling study to assess the net balance of benefits and harms from aspirin use for primary prevention of CVD and CRC, stratified by age, sex, and CVD risk level. Modeling study parameter inputs were informed by the results of the systematic review, and the primary outcomes were net benefits expressed as quality-adjusted life-years and life-years.
The USPSTF found 13 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that reported on the benefits of aspirin use for the primary prevention of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. The total number of participants was 161,680, and most trials used low-dose aspirin of 100 mg/d or less or aspirin every other day. The 13 primary prevention trials included a balanced number of male and female participants and included a broad distribution of ages, with mean age ranging from 53 years in the Physicians’ Health Study to 74 years in the ASPREE trial.
This body of evidence shows that aspirin use for primary prevention of CVD is associated with a decreased risk of myocardial infarction and stroke but not cardiovascular mortality or all-cause mortality. Results are quite similar when including studies using all doses of aspirin compared with studies using low-dose aspirin.
The USPSTF reviewed 14 RCTs in CVD primary prevention populations that reported on the bleeding harms of aspirin.
When looking at studies reporting on the harms of low-dose aspirin use (≤100 mg/d), which is most relevant to current practice, a pooled analysis of 10 trials showed that aspirin use was associated with a 58% increase in major gastrointestinal bleeding, and a pooled analysis of 11 trials showed a 31% increase in intracranial bleeds in the aspirin group compared with the control group. Low-dose aspirin use was not associated with a statistically significant increase in risk of fatal hemorrhagic stroke.
Data suggested that the increased risk of bleeding associated with aspirin use occurs relatively quickly after initiating aspirin, and data do not suggest that aspirin has a differential relative bleeding risk based on age, sex, presence of diabetes, level of CVD risk, or race or ethnicity. Although the increase in relative risk does not appear to differ based on age, the absolute risk of bleeding, and thus the magnitude of bleeding harm, does increase with age, and more so in adults age 60 years or older, they note.
The microsimulation model to estimate the magnitude of net benefit of low-dose aspirin use incorporated findings from the systematic review.
Modeling data demonstrated that aspirin use in both men and women ages 40-59 years with 10% or greater 10-year CVD risk generally provides a modest net benefit in both quality-adjusted life-years and life-years gained. Initiation of aspirin use in persons aged 60-69 years results in quality-adjusted life-years gained that range from slightly negative to slightly positive depending on CVD risk level, and life-years gained are generally negative.
In persons aged 70-79 years, initiation of aspirin use results in a loss of both quality-adjusted life-years and life-years at essentially all CVD risk levels modeled (ie, up to 20% 10-year CVD risk).
The USPSTF thus determined that aspirin use has a small net benefit in persons aged 40-59 years with 10% or greater 10-year CVD risk, and initiation of aspirin use has no net benefit in persons age 60 years or older.
When looking at net lifetime benefit of continuous aspirin use until stopping at age 65, 70, 75, 80, or 85 years, modeling data suggest that there is generally little incremental lifetime net benefit in continuing aspirin use beyond the age of 75-80 years.
The task force points out that the net benefit of continuing aspirin use by a person in their 60s or 70s is not the same as the net benefit of initiating aspirin use by a person in their 60s or 70s. This is because, in part, of the fact that CVD risk is heavily influenced by age. Persons who meet the eligibility criteria for aspirin use at a younger age (ie, ≥10% 10-year CVD risk in their 40s or 50s) typically have even higher CVD risk by their 60s or 70s compared with persons who first reach a 10% or greater 10-year CVD risk in their 60s or 70s, and may gain more benefit by continuing aspirin use than a person at lower risk might gain by initiating aspirin use, the USPSTF explains.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
New draft recommendations from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) on the use of aspirin for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) have been released and appear to limit the population in which it should be considered.
“The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that aspirin use for the primary prevention of CVD events in adults ages 40 to 59 years who have a 10% or greater 10-year CVD risk has a small net benefit,” the recommendation notes. They conclude that for these patients, the decision to use aspirin “should be an individual one.”
“Persons who are not at increased risk for bleeding and are willing to take low-dose aspirin daily are more likely to benefit,” they note.
For older individuals, however, the task force concludes.
The new recommendations were posted online Oct. 12 and will be available for public comment until November 8. Once it is finalized, the recommendation will replace the 2016 USPSTF recommendation on aspirin use to prevent CVD and colorectal cancer (CRC), they note.
In that document, the task force recommended initiating low-dose aspirin for the primary prevention of both CVD and CRC in adults 50-59 years of age who had a 10% or greater 10-year CVD risk, were not at increased risk for bleeding, had a life expectancy of at least 10 years, and were willing to take daily low-dose aspirin for at least 10 years, with the decision to start being an individual one.
For older and younger patients, they found at that time that the evidence was “insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of initiating aspirin use for the primary prevention of CVD and CRC in adults younger than age 50 years or adults aged 70 years or older.”
In the new draft document, “the USPSTF has changed the age ranges and grades of its recommendation on aspirin use.” Besides the recommendations for CVD prevention, they have also changed the previous recommendation of aspirin for the prevention of CRC given evidence generated from large primary CVD prevention trials.
“Based on new analyses of the evidence from primary CVD prevention populations, longer-term follow-up data from the Women’s Health Study (WHS) (JE Buring, personal communication, November 23, 2020), and new trial evidence, the USPSTF concluded that the evidence is inadequate that low-dose aspirin use reduces CRC incidence or mortality,” it states.
Optimum dose
On the optimum dose for primary CVD prevention, the task force says the benefit appears similar for a low dose (≤100 mg/d) and all doses that have been studied in CVD prevention trials (50 to 500 mg/d). “A pragmatic approach would be to use 81 mg/d, which is the most commonly prescribed dose in the United States,” it states.
The USPSTF recommends using the ACC/AHA Pooled Cohort Equations to estimate cardiovascular risk but it points out that these equations are imperfect for risk prediction at the individual level, and suggests using these risk estimates as a starting point to discuss with appropriate candidates their desire for daily aspirin use. The benefits of initiating aspirin use are greater for individuals at higher risk for CVD events (eg, those with >15% or >20% 10-year CVD risk), they note.
“Decisions about initiating aspirin use should be based on shared decision-making between clinicians and patients about the potential benefits and harms. Persons who place a higher value on the potential benefits than the potential harms may choose to initiate low-dose aspirin use. Persons who place a higher value on the potential harms or on the burden of taking a daily preventive medication than the potential benefits may choose not to initiate low-dose aspirin use,” the task force says.
It also points out that the risk for bleeding increases modestly with advancing age. “For persons who have initiated aspirin use, the net benefits continue to accrue over time in the absence of a bleeding event. The net benefits, however, become smaller with advancing age because of an increased risk for bleeding, so modeling data suggest that it may be reasonable to consider stopping aspirin use around age 75 years,” it states.
Systematic review
The updated draft recommendations are based on a new systematic review commissioned by the USPSTF on the effectiveness of aspirin to reduce the risk of CVD events (myocardial infarction and stroke), cardiovascular mortality, and all-cause mortality in persons without a history of CVD.
The systematic review also investigated the effect of aspirin use on CRC incidence and mortality in primary CVD prevention populations, as well as the harms, particularly bleeding harms, associated with aspirin use.
In addition to the systematic evidence review, the USPSTF commissioned a microsimulation modeling study to assess the net balance of benefits and harms from aspirin use for primary prevention of CVD and CRC, stratified by age, sex, and CVD risk level. Modeling study parameter inputs were informed by the results of the systematic review, and the primary outcomes were net benefits expressed as quality-adjusted life-years and life-years.
The USPSTF found 13 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that reported on the benefits of aspirin use for the primary prevention of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. The total number of participants was 161,680, and most trials used low-dose aspirin of 100 mg/d or less or aspirin every other day. The 13 primary prevention trials included a balanced number of male and female participants and included a broad distribution of ages, with mean age ranging from 53 years in the Physicians’ Health Study to 74 years in the ASPREE trial.
This body of evidence shows that aspirin use for primary prevention of CVD is associated with a decreased risk of myocardial infarction and stroke but not cardiovascular mortality or all-cause mortality. Results are quite similar when including studies using all doses of aspirin compared with studies using low-dose aspirin.
The USPSTF reviewed 14 RCTs in CVD primary prevention populations that reported on the bleeding harms of aspirin.
When looking at studies reporting on the harms of low-dose aspirin use (≤100 mg/d), which is most relevant to current practice, a pooled analysis of 10 trials showed that aspirin use was associated with a 58% increase in major gastrointestinal bleeding, and a pooled analysis of 11 trials showed a 31% increase in intracranial bleeds in the aspirin group compared with the control group. Low-dose aspirin use was not associated with a statistically significant increase in risk of fatal hemorrhagic stroke.
Data suggested that the increased risk of bleeding associated with aspirin use occurs relatively quickly after initiating aspirin, and data do not suggest that aspirin has a differential relative bleeding risk based on age, sex, presence of diabetes, level of CVD risk, or race or ethnicity. Although the increase in relative risk does not appear to differ based on age, the absolute risk of bleeding, and thus the magnitude of bleeding harm, does increase with age, and more so in adults age 60 years or older, they note.
The microsimulation model to estimate the magnitude of net benefit of low-dose aspirin use incorporated findings from the systematic review.
Modeling data demonstrated that aspirin use in both men and women ages 40-59 years with 10% or greater 10-year CVD risk generally provides a modest net benefit in both quality-adjusted life-years and life-years gained. Initiation of aspirin use in persons aged 60-69 years results in quality-adjusted life-years gained that range from slightly negative to slightly positive depending on CVD risk level, and life-years gained are generally negative.
In persons aged 70-79 years, initiation of aspirin use results in a loss of both quality-adjusted life-years and life-years at essentially all CVD risk levels modeled (ie, up to 20% 10-year CVD risk).
The USPSTF thus determined that aspirin use has a small net benefit in persons aged 40-59 years with 10% or greater 10-year CVD risk, and initiation of aspirin use has no net benefit in persons age 60 years or older.
When looking at net lifetime benefit of continuous aspirin use until stopping at age 65, 70, 75, 80, or 85 years, modeling data suggest that there is generally little incremental lifetime net benefit in continuing aspirin use beyond the age of 75-80 years.
The task force points out that the net benefit of continuing aspirin use by a person in their 60s or 70s is not the same as the net benefit of initiating aspirin use by a person in their 60s or 70s. This is because, in part, of the fact that CVD risk is heavily influenced by age. Persons who meet the eligibility criteria for aspirin use at a younger age (ie, ≥10% 10-year CVD risk in their 40s or 50s) typically have even higher CVD risk by their 60s or 70s compared with persons who first reach a 10% or greater 10-year CVD risk in their 60s or 70s, and may gain more benefit by continuing aspirin use than a person at lower risk might gain by initiating aspirin use, the USPSTF explains.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Synthetic chemical in consumer products linked to early death, study says
Daily exposure to phthalates, which are synthetic chemicals founds in many consumer products, may lead to hundreds of thousands of early deaths each year among older adults in the United States, according to a new study published Oct. 12, 2021, in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Pollution.
The chemicals are found in hundreds of types of products, including children’s toys, food storage containers, makeup, perfume, and shampoo. In the study, those with the highest levels of phthalates had a greater risk of death from any cause, especially heart disease.
“This study adds to the growing database on the impact of plastics on the human body and bolsters public health and business cases for reducing or eliminating the use of plastics,” Leonardo Trasande, MD, the lead author and a professor of environmental medicine and population health at New York University Langone Health, told CNN.
Dr. Trasande and colleagues measured the urine concentration of phthalates in more than 5,000 adults aged 55-64 and compared the levels with the risk of early death over an average of 10 years. The research team controlled for preexisting heart diseases, diabetes, cancer, poor eating habits, physical activity, body mass, and other known hormone disruptors such as bisphenol A, or BPA, an industrial chemical that’s been used since the 1950s to make certain plastics and resins, according to the Mayo Clinic
The research team found that phthalates could contribute to 91,000-107,000 premature deaths per year in the United States. These early deaths could cost the nation $40 billion to $47 billion each year in lost economic productivity.
Phthalates interrupt the body’s endocrine system and hormone production. Previous studies have found that the chemicals are linked with developmental, reproductive, and immune system problems, according to NYU Langone Health. They’ve also been linked with asthma, childhood obesity, heart issues, and cancer.
“These chemicals have a rap sheet,” Dr. Trasande told CNN. “And the fact of the matter is that when you look at the entire body of evidence, it provides a haunting pattern of concern.”
Phthalates are often called “everywhere chemicals” because they are so common, CNN reported. Also called “plasticizers,” they are added to products to make them more durable, including PVC plumbing, vinyl flooring, medical tubing, garden hoses, food packaging, detergents, clothing, furniture, and automotive materials.
People are often exposed when they breathe contaminated air or consume food that comes into contact with the chemical, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Children may be exposed by touching plastic items and putting their hands in their mouth.
Dr. Trasande told CNN that it’s possible to lessen exposure to phthalates and other endocrine disruptors such as BPA by using unscented lotions, laundry detergents, and cleaning supplies, as well as substituting glass, stainless steel, ceramic, and wood for plastic food storage.
“First, avoid plastics as much as you can. Never put plastic containers in the microwave or dishwasher, where the heat can break down the linings so they might be absorbed more readily,” he said. “In addition, cooking at home and reducing your use of processed foods can reduce the levels of the chemical exposures you come in contact with.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Daily exposure to phthalates, which are synthetic chemicals founds in many consumer products, may lead to hundreds of thousands of early deaths each year among older adults in the United States, according to a new study published Oct. 12, 2021, in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Pollution.
The chemicals are found in hundreds of types of products, including children’s toys, food storage containers, makeup, perfume, and shampoo. In the study, those with the highest levels of phthalates had a greater risk of death from any cause, especially heart disease.
“This study adds to the growing database on the impact of plastics on the human body and bolsters public health and business cases for reducing or eliminating the use of plastics,” Leonardo Trasande, MD, the lead author and a professor of environmental medicine and population health at New York University Langone Health, told CNN.
Dr. Trasande and colleagues measured the urine concentration of phthalates in more than 5,000 adults aged 55-64 and compared the levels with the risk of early death over an average of 10 years. The research team controlled for preexisting heart diseases, diabetes, cancer, poor eating habits, physical activity, body mass, and other known hormone disruptors such as bisphenol A, or BPA, an industrial chemical that’s been used since the 1950s to make certain plastics and resins, according to the Mayo Clinic
The research team found that phthalates could contribute to 91,000-107,000 premature deaths per year in the United States. These early deaths could cost the nation $40 billion to $47 billion each year in lost economic productivity.
Phthalates interrupt the body’s endocrine system and hormone production. Previous studies have found that the chemicals are linked with developmental, reproductive, and immune system problems, according to NYU Langone Health. They’ve also been linked with asthma, childhood obesity, heart issues, and cancer.
“These chemicals have a rap sheet,” Dr. Trasande told CNN. “And the fact of the matter is that when you look at the entire body of evidence, it provides a haunting pattern of concern.”
Phthalates are often called “everywhere chemicals” because they are so common, CNN reported. Also called “plasticizers,” they are added to products to make them more durable, including PVC plumbing, vinyl flooring, medical tubing, garden hoses, food packaging, detergents, clothing, furniture, and automotive materials.
People are often exposed when they breathe contaminated air or consume food that comes into contact with the chemical, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Children may be exposed by touching plastic items and putting their hands in their mouth.
Dr. Trasande told CNN that it’s possible to lessen exposure to phthalates and other endocrine disruptors such as BPA by using unscented lotions, laundry detergents, and cleaning supplies, as well as substituting glass, stainless steel, ceramic, and wood for plastic food storage.
“First, avoid plastics as much as you can. Never put plastic containers in the microwave or dishwasher, where the heat can break down the linings so they might be absorbed more readily,” he said. “In addition, cooking at home and reducing your use of processed foods can reduce the levels of the chemical exposures you come in contact with.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Daily exposure to phthalates, which are synthetic chemicals founds in many consumer products, may lead to hundreds of thousands of early deaths each year among older adults in the United States, according to a new study published Oct. 12, 2021, in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Pollution.
The chemicals are found in hundreds of types of products, including children’s toys, food storage containers, makeup, perfume, and shampoo. In the study, those with the highest levels of phthalates had a greater risk of death from any cause, especially heart disease.
“This study adds to the growing database on the impact of plastics on the human body and bolsters public health and business cases for reducing or eliminating the use of plastics,” Leonardo Trasande, MD, the lead author and a professor of environmental medicine and population health at New York University Langone Health, told CNN.
Dr. Trasande and colleagues measured the urine concentration of phthalates in more than 5,000 adults aged 55-64 and compared the levels with the risk of early death over an average of 10 years. The research team controlled for preexisting heart diseases, diabetes, cancer, poor eating habits, physical activity, body mass, and other known hormone disruptors such as bisphenol A, or BPA, an industrial chemical that’s been used since the 1950s to make certain plastics and resins, according to the Mayo Clinic
The research team found that phthalates could contribute to 91,000-107,000 premature deaths per year in the United States. These early deaths could cost the nation $40 billion to $47 billion each year in lost economic productivity.
Phthalates interrupt the body’s endocrine system and hormone production. Previous studies have found that the chemicals are linked with developmental, reproductive, and immune system problems, according to NYU Langone Health. They’ve also been linked with asthma, childhood obesity, heart issues, and cancer.
“These chemicals have a rap sheet,” Dr. Trasande told CNN. “And the fact of the matter is that when you look at the entire body of evidence, it provides a haunting pattern of concern.”
Phthalates are often called “everywhere chemicals” because they are so common, CNN reported. Also called “plasticizers,” they are added to products to make them more durable, including PVC plumbing, vinyl flooring, medical tubing, garden hoses, food packaging, detergents, clothing, furniture, and automotive materials.
People are often exposed when they breathe contaminated air or consume food that comes into contact with the chemical, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Children may be exposed by touching plastic items and putting their hands in their mouth.
Dr. Trasande told CNN that it’s possible to lessen exposure to phthalates and other endocrine disruptors such as BPA by using unscented lotions, laundry detergents, and cleaning supplies, as well as substituting glass, stainless steel, ceramic, and wood for plastic food storage.
“First, avoid plastics as much as you can. Never put plastic containers in the microwave or dishwasher, where the heat can break down the linings so they might be absorbed more readily,” he said. “In addition, cooking at home and reducing your use of processed foods can reduce the levels of the chemical exposures you come in contact with.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Rivaroxaban’s single daily dose may lead to higher bleeding risk than other DOACs
The results, which were published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, could help guide DOAC selection for high-risk groups with a prior history of peptic ulcer disease or major GI bleeding, said lead study authors Arnar Bragi Ingason, MD and Einar S. Björnsson, MD, PhD, in an email.
DOACs treat conditions such as atrial fibrillation, venous thromboembolism, and ischemic stroke and are known to cause GI bleeding. Previous studies have suggested that rivaroxaban poses a higher GI-bleeding risk than other DOACs.
These studies, which used large administrative databases, “had an inherent risk of selection bias due to insurance status, age, and comorbidities due to their origin from insurance/administrative databases. In addition, they lacked phenotypic details on GI bleeding events,” said Dr. Björnsson and Dr. Ingason, who are both of Landspitali University Hospital, Reykjavik, Iceland,
Daily dosage may exacerbate risk
Rivaroxaban is administered as a single daily dose, compared with apixaban’s and dabigatran’s twice-daily regimens. “We hypothesized that this may lead to a greater variance in drug plasma concentration, making these patients more susceptible to GI bleeding,” the lead authors said.
Using data from the Icelandic Medicine Registry, a national database of outpatient prescription information, they compared rates of GI bleeding among new users of apixaban, dabigatran, and rivaroxaban from 2014 to 2019. Overall, 5,868 patients receiving one of the DOACs took part in the study. Among these participants, 3,217 received rivaroxaban, 2,157 received apixaban, and 494 received dabigatran. The researchers used inverse probability weighting, Kaplan–Meier survival estimates, and Cox regression to compare GI bleeding.
Compared with dabigatran, rivaroxaban was associated with a 63%-104% higher overall risk for GI bleeding and 39%-95% higher risk for major GI bleeding. Rivaroxaban also had a 40%-42% higher overall risk for GI bleeding and 49%-50% higher risk for major GI bleeding, compared with apixaban.
The investigators were surprised by the low rate of upper GI bleeding for dabigatran, compared with the other two drugs. “However, these results must be interpreted in the context that the dabigatran group was relatively small,” said Dr. Björnsson and Dr. Ingason via email.
Overall, the study cohort was small, compared with previous registry studies.
Investigators also did not account for account for socioeconomic status or lifestyle factors, such as alcohol consumption or smoking. “However, because the cost of all DOACs is similar in Iceland, selection bias due to socioeconomic status is unlikely,” the investigators reported in their paper. “We are currently working on comparing the rates of thromboembolisms and overall major bleeding events between the drugs,” the lead authors said.
Clinicians should consider location of bleeding
Though retrospective, the study by Ingason et. al. “is likely as close as is feasible to a randomized trial as is possible,” said Don C. Rockey, MD, a professor of medicine at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, in an interview.
“From the clinician’s perspective, it is important to take away that there may be differences among the DOACs in terms of where in the GI tract the bleeding occurs,” said Dr. Rockey. In the study, the greatest differences appeared to be in the upper GI tract, with rivaroxaban outpacing apixaban and dabigatran. In patients who are at risk for upper GI bleeding, it may be reasonable to consider use of dabigatran or apixaban, he suggested.
“A limitation of the study is that it is likely underpowered overall,” said Dr. Rockey. It also wasn’t clear how many deaths occurred either directly from GI bleeding or as a complication of GI bleeding, he said.The study also didn’t differentiate major bleeding among DOACs specifically in the upper or lower GI tract, Dr. Rockey added.
Other studies yield similar results
Dr. Ingason and Dr. Björnsson said their work complements previous studies, and Neena S. Abraham, MD, MSc , who has conducted a similar investigation to the new study, agreed with that statement.
Data from the last 4 years overwhelmingly show that rivaroxaban is most likely to cause GI bleeding, said Dr. Abraham, professor of medicine and a consultant with Mayo Clinic’s division of gastroenterology and hepatology, in an interview.
A comparative safety study Dr. Abraham coauthored in 2017 of rivaroxaban, apixaban, and dabigatran in a much larger U.S. cohort of 372,380 patients revealed that rivaroxaban had the worst GI bleeding profile. Apixaban was 66% safer than rivaroxaban and 64% safer than dabigatran to prevent gastrointestinal bleeding.
“I believe our group was the first to conduct this study and show clinically significant differences in GI safety of the available direct oral anticoagulants,” she said. Other investigators have since published similar results, and the topic of the new study needs no further investigation, according to Dr. Abraham.
“It is time for physicians to choose a better choice when prescribing a direct oral anticoagulant to their atrial fibrillation patients, and that choice is not rivaroxaban,” she said.
The Icelandic Centre for Research and the Landspítali University Hospital Research Fund provided funds for this study. Dr. Ingason, Dr. Björnsson, Dr. Rockey, and Dr. Abraham reported no disclosures.
The results, which were published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, could help guide DOAC selection for high-risk groups with a prior history of peptic ulcer disease or major GI bleeding, said lead study authors Arnar Bragi Ingason, MD and Einar S. Björnsson, MD, PhD, in an email.
DOACs treat conditions such as atrial fibrillation, venous thromboembolism, and ischemic stroke and are known to cause GI bleeding. Previous studies have suggested that rivaroxaban poses a higher GI-bleeding risk than other DOACs.
These studies, which used large administrative databases, “had an inherent risk of selection bias due to insurance status, age, and comorbidities due to their origin from insurance/administrative databases. In addition, they lacked phenotypic details on GI bleeding events,” said Dr. Björnsson and Dr. Ingason, who are both of Landspitali University Hospital, Reykjavik, Iceland,
Daily dosage may exacerbate risk
Rivaroxaban is administered as a single daily dose, compared with apixaban’s and dabigatran’s twice-daily regimens. “We hypothesized that this may lead to a greater variance in drug plasma concentration, making these patients more susceptible to GI bleeding,” the lead authors said.
Using data from the Icelandic Medicine Registry, a national database of outpatient prescription information, they compared rates of GI bleeding among new users of apixaban, dabigatran, and rivaroxaban from 2014 to 2019. Overall, 5,868 patients receiving one of the DOACs took part in the study. Among these participants, 3,217 received rivaroxaban, 2,157 received apixaban, and 494 received dabigatran. The researchers used inverse probability weighting, Kaplan–Meier survival estimates, and Cox regression to compare GI bleeding.
Compared with dabigatran, rivaroxaban was associated with a 63%-104% higher overall risk for GI bleeding and 39%-95% higher risk for major GI bleeding. Rivaroxaban also had a 40%-42% higher overall risk for GI bleeding and 49%-50% higher risk for major GI bleeding, compared with apixaban.
The investigators were surprised by the low rate of upper GI bleeding for dabigatran, compared with the other two drugs. “However, these results must be interpreted in the context that the dabigatran group was relatively small,” said Dr. Björnsson and Dr. Ingason via email.
Overall, the study cohort was small, compared with previous registry studies.
Investigators also did not account for account for socioeconomic status or lifestyle factors, such as alcohol consumption or smoking. “However, because the cost of all DOACs is similar in Iceland, selection bias due to socioeconomic status is unlikely,” the investigators reported in their paper. “We are currently working on comparing the rates of thromboembolisms and overall major bleeding events between the drugs,” the lead authors said.
Clinicians should consider location of bleeding
Though retrospective, the study by Ingason et. al. “is likely as close as is feasible to a randomized trial as is possible,” said Don C. Rockey, MD, a professor of medicine at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, in an interview.
“From the clinician’s perspective, it is important to take away that there may be differences among the DOACs in terms of where in the GI tract the bleeding occurs,” said Dr. Rockey. In the study, the greatest differences appeared to be in the upper GI tract, with rivaroxaban outpacing apixaban and dabigatran. In patients who are at risk for upper GI bleeding, it may be reasonable to consider use of dabigatran or apixaban, he suggested.
“A limitation of the study is that it is likely underpowered overall,” said Dr. Rockey. It also wasn’t clear how many deaths occurred either directly from GI bleeding or as a complication of GI bleeding, he said.The study also didn’t differentiate major bleeding among DOACs specifically in the upper or lower GI tract, Dr. Rockey added.
Other studies yield similar results
Dr. Ingason and Dr. Björnsson said their work complements previous studies, and Neena S. Abraham, MD, MSc , who has conducted a similar investigation to the new study, agreed with that statement.
Data from the last 4 years overwhelmingly show that rivaroxaban is most likely to cause GI bleeding, said Dr. Abraham, professor of medicine and a consultant with Mayo Clinic’s division of gastroenterology and hepatology, in an interview.
A comparative safety study Dr. Abraham coauthored in 2017 of rivaroxaban, apixaban, and dabigatran in a much larger U.S. cohort of 372,380 patients revealed that rivaroxaban had the worst GI bleeding profile. Apixaban was 66% safer than rivaroxaban and 64% safer than dabigatran to prevent gastrointestinal bleeding.
“I believe our group was the first to conduct this study and show clinically significant differences in GI safety of the available direct oral anticoagulants,” she said. Other investigators have since published similar results, and the topic of the new study needs no further investigation, according to Dr. Abraham.
“It is time for physicians to choose a better choice when prescribing a direct oral anticoagulant to their atrial fibrillation patients, and that choice is not rivaroxaban,” she said.
The Icelandic Centre for Research and the Landspítali University Hospital Research Fund provided funds for this study. Dr. Ingason, Dr. Björnsson, Dr. Rockey, and Dr. Abraham reported no disclosures.
The results, which were published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, could help guide DOAC selection for high-risk groups with a prior history of peptic ulcer disease or major GI bleeding, said lead study authors Arnar Bragi Ingason, MD and Einar S. Björnsson, MD, PhD, in an email.
DOACs treat conditions such as atrial fibrillation, venous thromboembolism, and ischemic stroke and are known to cause GI bleeding. Previous studies have suggested that rivaroxaban poses a higher GI-bleeding risk than other DOACs.
These studies, which used large administrative databases, “had an inherent risk of selection bias due to insurance status, age, and comorbidities due to their origin from insurance/administrative databases. In addition, they lacked phenotypic details on GI bleeding events,” said Dr. Björnsson and Dr. Ingason, who are both of Landspitali University Hospital, Reykjavik, Iceland,
Daily dosage may exacerbate risk
Rivaroxaban is administered as a single daily dose, compared with apixaban’s and dabigatran’s twice-daily regimens. “We hypothesized that this may lead to a greater variance in drug plasma concentration, making these patients more susceptible to GI bleeding,” the lead authors said.
Using data from the Icelandic Medicine Registry, a national database of outpatient prescription information, they compared rates of GI bleeding among new users of apixaban, dabigatran, and rivaroxaban from 2014 to 2019. Overall, 5,868 patients receiving one of the DOACs took part in the study. Among these participants, 3,217 received rivaroxaban, 2,157 received apixaban, and 494 received dabigatran. The researchers used inverse probability weighting, Kaplan–Meier survival estimates, and Cox regression to compare GI bleeding.
Compared with dabigatran, rivaroxaban was associated with a 63%-104% higher overall risk for GI bleeding and 39%-95% higher risk for major GI bleeding. Rivaroxaban also had a 40%-42% higher overall risk for GI bleeding and 49%-50% higher risk for major GI bleeding, compared with apixaban.
The investigators were surprised by the low rate of upper GI bleeding for dabigatran, compared with the other two drugs. “However, these results must be interpreted in the context that the dabigatran group was relatively small,” said Dr. Björnsson and Dr. Ingason via email.
Overall, the study cohort was small, compared with previous registry studies.
Investigators also did not account for account for socioeconomic status or lifestyle factors, such as alcohol consumption or smoking. “However, because the cost of all DOACs is similar in Iceland, selection bias due to socioeconomic status is unlikely,” the investigators reported in their paper. “We are currently working on comparing the rates of thromboembolisms and overall major bleeding events between the drugs,” the lead authors said.
Clinicians should consider location of bleeding
Though retrospective, the study by Ingason et. al. “is likely as close as is feasible to a randomized trial as is possible,” said Don C. Rockey, MD, a professor of medicine at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, in an interview.
“From the clinician’s perspective, it is important to take away that there may be differences among the DOACs in terms of where in the GI tract the bleeding occurs,” said Dr. Rockey. In the study, the greatest differences appeared to be in the upper GI tract, with rivaroxaban outpacing apixaban and dabigatran. In patients who are at risk for upper GI bleeding, it may be reasonable to consider use of dabigatran or apixaban, he suggested.
“A limitation of the study is that it is likely underpowered overall,” said Dr. Rockey. It also wasn’t clear how many deaths occurred either directly from GI bleeding or as a complication of GI bleeding, he said.The study also didn’t differentiate major bleeding among DOACs specifically in the upper or lower GI tract, Dr. Rockey added.
Other studies yield similar results
Dr. Ingason and Dr. Björnsson said their work complements previous studies, and Neena S. Abraham, MD, MSc , who has conducted a similar investigation to the new study, agreed with that statement.
Data from the last 4 years overwhelmingly show that rivaroxaban is most likely to cause GI bleeding, said Dr. Abraham, professor of medicine and a consultant with Mayo Clinic’s division of gastroenterology and hepatology, in an interview.
A comparative safety study Dr. Abraham coauthored in 2017 of rivaroxaban, apixaban, and dabigatran in a much larger U.S. cohort of 372,380 patients revealed that rivaroxaban had the worst GI bleeding profile. Apixaban was 66% safer than rivaroxaban and 64% safer than dabigatran to prevent gastrointestinal bleeding.
“I believe our group was the first to conduct this study and show clinically significant differences in GI safety of the available direct oral anticoagulants,” she said. Other investigators have since published similar results, and the topic of the new study needs no further investigation, according to Dr. Abraham.
“It is time for physicians to choose a better choice when prescribing a direct oral anticoagulant to their atrial fibrillation patients, and that choice is not rivaroxaban,” she said.
The Icelandic Centre for Research and the Landspítali University Hospital Research Fund provided funds for this study. Dr. Ingason, Dr. Björnsson, Dr. Rockey, and Dr. Abraham reported no disclosures.
FROM ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE
New reports help nail down myocarditis risk with COVID-19 vaccine
Recent literature features new descriptions of myocarditis linked to the two available mRNA vaccines against SARS-CoV-2. They tell a story largely consistent with experience to date, and support what might be its most useful public health message: The associated myocarditis is usually mild and self-limiting, and is far less likely to occur than myocarditis or death in unvaccinated people with COVID-19.
In line with previous research, the new analyses suggest the myocarditis – with onset usually a few days to a week after injection – has an overall incidence that ranges from less than 1 to perhaps 3 per 100,000 people who received at least one of the full mRNA-vaccine regimen’s two injections. Also, as in earlier studies, the incidence climbed higher – sometimes sharply – in certain groups by age and sex, particularly in young men and older male teens.
The new studies “are confirmatory, in terms of the risk being low,” but underscore that clinicians still must be wary of myocarditis as a potential complication of the mRNA vaccines, Biykem Bozkurt, MD, PhD, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, told this news organization.
Dr. Bozkurt, a leading heart failure specialist and researcher, did not contribute to any of the new reports but does study the myocarditis of COVID-19 and was lead author on a recent review of the potential vaccine complication’s features and possible mechanisms.
In the new myocarditis reports, she observed, more than 90% of the cases were mild and “resolved on their own without a major adverse outcome.” Dr. Bozkurt emphasized the need for perspective regarding the risk. For example, the myocarditis associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection is not only more likely than the vaccine-related myocarditis, but it’s also usually far more severe.
Dr. Bozkurt pointed to a recent study in which the mRNA vaccines, compared with no vaccination, appeared to escalate the myocarditis risk by a factor of 3, whereas the risk for myocarditis in SARS-CoV-2 infection was increased 18 times.
In contrast, she observed, the new myocarditis cases reported this week feature a few that are novel or are at least very rare, including the case of a patient who developed cardiogenic shock and another with fulminant myocarditis who died.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in May publicly described the apparent link between myocarditis and the two available mRNA vaccines against SARS-CoV-2: BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) and mRNA-1273 (Moderna). The next month, the Food and Drug Administration added a warning about the risk to the labeling.
Less than 1 case per 100,000
Fifteen confirmed cases of myocarditis were identified among about 2.4 million members of Kaiser Permanente Southern California aged 18 or older who received at least one injection of the Pfizer or Moderna mRNA vaccines between December 2020 and July 2021, in a report published in JAMA Internal Medicine. The study counted cases up to 10 days after the first or second injection, of which there were 2 and 13, respectively.
All eight patients who received the Pfizer BNT162b2 vaccine and the eight given the Moderna mRNA-1273 vaccine were male with a median age of 25 years (interquartile range, 20-32 years).
“The main takeaway messages from our study are that the incidence of myocarditis after COVID-19 mRNA vaccinations is very low, that this condition is primarily observed in young men within a few days after the second dose, and that most patients recover quickly,” senior author Mingsum Lee, MD, PhD, Kaiser Permanente Los Angeles Medical Center, told this news organization.
“The incidence of vaccine-related myocarditis was significantly lower than rates of COVID-19 hospitalization during the same period and population area,” she added.
The group saw a per-million incidence of 0.8 and 5.8 myocarditis cases in the 10 days after first and second injections, respectively. That made for an incidence of 0.58 per 100,000, or 1 case per 172,414 fully vaccinated adults.
The group also considered a cohort of 1,577,741 unvaccinated people with a median age of 39 years (interquartile range, 28-53 years) during the same period. Of the 75 cases of myocarditis, 52% were in men, they reported.
Comparing the vaccinated and unvaccinated cohorts, they saw a 10-day vaccine-associated myocarditis incidence rate ratio of 0.38 (95% confidence interval, 0.05-1.40; P = .15) after the first dose, and 2.7 (95% CI, 1.4-4.8; P = .004) after the second dose.
In a comparison of the vaccinated group with itself using data from a 10-day period in the previous year, the corresponding myocarditis IRRs were 1.0 (P > .99) and 3.3 (P = .03), respectively.
Dr. Lee said none of the 15 patients required admission to an intensive care unit. “All patients with myocarditis responded well to treatment and felt better quickly,” she noted.
Myocarditis after an mRNA vaccine injection is rare and, Dr. Lee said emphatically, and “the benefits of the COVID-19 vaccine greatly outweigh the risks.”
Sex- and age-stratified rates
In a separate analysis of 5,442,696 people given a first dose of the Pfizer BNT162b2 vaccine and 5,125,635 given a second dose, there were 142 cases of myocarditis with onset 21 days after dose 1 and 30 days after dose 2. Of those cases, 136 were documented as “definite or probable” in an Israeli Ministry of Health database that covered up to the end of May 2021.
There were also 40 cases among vaccinated people seen after the 30-day window, which were considered not related to the vaccination, and 101 cases among unvaccinated people; of the latter, 29 had confirmed diagnoses of COVID-19.
Of the 136 people with definite or probable cases, the myocarditis was “generally mild” in 129 and usually resolved on its own, notes the report on the study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, with lead author Dror Mevorach, MD, Hadassah-Hebrew University Medical Center, Jerusalem.
The estimated myocarditis incidence after a second such vaccine dose across the entire Israeli population, based on the current study, was about one per 26,000 males and one per 218,000 females, the group writes. Those figures compare with one case per 10,857 among “the general unvaccinated population.”
Again, the risk was concentrated among younger men and male adolescents. In an analysis limited to vaccinated people aged 16-19 years, myocarditis in the 21 days after a second mRNA injection was seen in about one of 6,637 males and one of 99,853 females, the group reported.
The standardized incidence ratio of 5.34 (95% CI, 4.48-6.40) after a second injection, across all groups, “was driven mostly by the diagnosis of myocarditis in younger male recipients.” Among that male subgroup, the ratios by age group were 13.60 (95% CI, 9.30-19.20) for 16-19 years, 8.53 (95% CI, 5.57-12.50) for 20-24 years, and 6.96 (95% CI, 4.25-10.75) for 25-29 years.
Among people who received a second injection, compared with unvaccinated people, the 30-day rate ratio was 2.35 (95% CI, 1.10-5.02). Again, the effect was concentrated in males aged 16-19 years. Among them, the myocarditis rate ratios in the 30 days after a second mRNA vaccine injection were 8.96 (95% CI, 4.50-17.83) for the 16-19 years group, 6.13 (95% CI, 3.16-11.88) for the 20-24 group, and 3.58 (95% CI, 1.82-7.01) for 25-29 years.
Most of the patients with myocarditis showed “significant clinical improvement,” with a mean hospitalization time of only 3-4 days, the report notes. Treatment consisted of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs “with or without colchicine for presumed pericardial inflammation.”
However, seven patients (4.9%) developed important complications, including left-ventricular dysfunction, ventricular arrhythmias, and heart failure. Among them was a 22-year-old patient who died of fulminant myocarditis within 24 hours of diagnosis, the group wrote.
From an Israeli health care organization
Published by the same journal as the study by Dr. Menvorach and associates, an analysis of a separate database showed largely consistent findings among patients in the largest of Israel’s four health care organizations charged by the government to administer health services.
The report, with authors led by Guy Witberg, MD, Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikva, Israel, focused on members of the health care organization aged 16 years or older who had received at least one Pfizer mRNA vaccine dose by the end of May 2021.
The cohorts from the two separate reports surely overlap substantially, as the Ministry of Health analysis from Dr. Mevorach and colleagues derived from a nationwide database, and – as Dr. Witberg and associates wrote – the health care organization providing their data covers 52% of the Israeli population.
Of 2,558,421 vaccinated people in the analysis, of whom 94% received two doses, 54 developed confirmed myocarditis in the 42 days after the first dose. Their median age was 27 years (interquartile range, 21-35 years) and all but three (94%) were male. Of those 54 cases, 41 were considered mild and 12 intermediate in severity, and one was fulminant with the patient in cardiogenic shock, the group writes. In addition, nonsustained ventricular tachycardia and atrial fibrillation developed in 5% and 3% of cases, respectively.
The estimated myocarditis incidence in the 42 days after administration of at least one mRNA vaccine dose was 2.13 per 100,000 vaccinated people. In that group, Dr. Witberg and colleagues note, the corresponding incidences per 100,000 were 4.12 and 0.23 for males and females, respectively.
Also in the current report, incidences per 100,000 vaccinated people aged 16-29 years, by sex, included 5.49 (95% CI, 3.59-7.39) overall, and 10.69 (95% CI, 6.93-14.46) for males (the highest rate in the report).
There was only one case in a female aged 16-29 years, and two cases in females 30 years or older.
Of note, some authors of the current study are also authors on the high-profile report from Noam Barda, MD, and colleagues published in the New England Journal of Medicine, that used the same database to arrive at an mRNA-vaccine-related incidence of myocarditis of 2.7 per 100,000. Eligibility criteria and follow-up time were different in that report, as were case ascertainment criteria.
The myocarditis risk associated with the two mRNA vaccines is small compared with “the morbidity and mortality of COVID-19 infection, in which up to 28% of hospitalized patients showed signs of myocardial injury,” wrote Vinay Guduguntla, MD, University of California, San Francisco, and Mitchell H. Katz, MD, NYC Health + Hospitals, New York, in an editorial accompanying the report from Dr. Lee and associates.
“Randomized clinical trials show that COVID-19 mRNA vaccines represent a safe and effective method of preventing infection,” they stated. “The identification of rare myocarditis does not change clinical decision-making.”
Dr. Bozkurt, who is immediate past president of the Heart Failure Society of America, has disclosed consulting for Bayer and scPharmaceuticals and serving on a clinical events committee for a trial supported by Abbott Pharmaceuticals and on a data and safety monitoring board for a trial supported by Liva Nova Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Lee and the report’s other authors had no disclosures. Dr. Mevorach discloses consulting for Enlivex Therapeutics; disclosures for the other authors are available at NEJM.org. Dr. Witberg said he has no interests to disclose; disclosures for the other authors are available at NEJM.org. Dr. Guduguntla is an editorial fellow and Dr. Katz a deputy editor at JAMA Internal Medicine; neither had disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Recent literature features new descriptions of myocarditis linked to the two available mRNA vaccines against SARS-CoV-2. They tell a story largely consistent with experience to date, and support what might be its most useful public health message: The associated myocarditis is usually mild and self-limiting, and is far less likely to occur than myocarditis or death in unvaccinated people with COVID-19.
In line with previous research, the new analyses suggest the myocarditis – with onset usually a few days to a week after injection – has an overall incidence that ranges from less than 1 to perhaps 3 per 100,000 people who received at least one of the full mRNA-vaccine regimen’s two injections. Also, as in earlier studies, the incidence climbed higher – sometimes sharply – in certain groups by age and sex, particularly in young men and older male teens.
The new studies “are confirmatory, in terms of the risk being low,” but underscore that clinicians still must be wary of myocarditis as a potential complication of the mRNA vaccines, Biykem Bozkurt, MD, PhD, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, told this news organization.
Dr. Bozkurt, a leading heart failure specialist and researcher, did not contribute to any of the new reports but does study the myocarditis of COVID-19 and was lead author on a recent review of the potential vaccine complication’s features and possible mechanisms.
In the new myocarditis reports, she observed, more than 90% of the cases were mild and “resolved on their own without a major adverse outcome.” Dr. Bozkurt emphasized the need for perspective regarding the risk. For example, the myocarditis associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection is not only more likely than the vaccine-related myocarditis, but it’s also usually far more severe.
Dr. Bozkurt pointed to a recent study in which the mRNA vaccines, compared with no vaccination, appeared to escalate the myocarditis risk by a factor of 3, whereas the risk for myocarditis in SARS-CoV-2 infection was increased 18 times.
In contrast, she observed, the new myocarditis cases reported this week feature a few that are novel or are at least very rare, including the case of a patient who developed cardiogenic shock and another with fulminant myocarditis who died.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in May publicly described the apparent link between myocarditis and the two available mRNA vaccines against SARS-CoV-2: BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) and mRNA-1273 (Moderna). The next month, the Food and Drug Administration added a warning about the risk to the labeling.
Less than 1 case per 100,000
Fifteen confirmed cases of myocarditis were identified among about 2.4 million members of Kaiser Permanente Southern California aged 18 or older who received at least one injection of the Pfizer or Moderna mRNA vaccines between December 2020 and July 2021, in a report published in JAMA Internal Medicine. The study counted cases up to 10 days after the first or second injection, of which there were 2 and 13, respectively.
All eight patients who received the Pfizer BNT162b2 vaccine and the eight given the Moderna mRNA-1273 vaccine were male with a median age of 25 years (interquartile range, 20-32 years).
“The main takeaway messages from our study are that the incidence of myocarditis after COVID-19 mRNA vaccinations is very low, that this condition is primarily observed in young men within a few days after the second dose, and that most patients recover quickly,” senior author Mingsum Lee, MD, PhD, Kaiser Permanente Los Angeles Medical Center, told this news organization.
“The incidence of vaccine-related myocarditis was significantly lower than rates of COVID-19 hospitalization during the same period and population area,” she added.
The group saw a per-million incidence of 0.8 and 5.8 myocarditis cases in the 10 days after first and second injections, respectively. That made for an incidence of 0.58 per 100,000, or 1 case per 172,414 fully vaccinated adults.
The group also considered a cohort of 1,577,741 unvaccinated people with a median age of 39 years (interquartile range, 28-53 years) during the same period. Of the 75 cases of myocarditis, 52% were in men, they reported.
Comparing the vaccinated and unvaccinated cohorts, they saw a 10-day vaccine-associated myocarditis incidence rate ratio of 0.38 (95% confidence interval, 0.05-1.40; P = .15) after the first dose, and 2.7 (95% CI, 1.4-4.8; P = .004) after the second dose.
In a comparison of the vaccinated group with itself using data from a 10-day period in the previous year, the corresponding myocarditis IRRs were 1.0 (P > .99) and 3.3 (P = .03), respectively.
Dr. Lee said none of the 15 patients required admission to an intensive care unit. “All patients with myocarditis responded well to treatment and felt better quickly,” she noted.
Myocarditis after an mRNA vaccine injection is rare and, Dr. Lee said emphatically, and “the benefits of the COVID-19 vaccine greatly outweigh the risks.”
Sex- and age-stratified rates
In a separate analysis of 5,442,696 people given a first dose of the Pfizer BNT162b2 vaccine and 5,125,635 given a second dose, there were 142 cases of myocarditis with onset 21 days after dose 1 and 30 days after dose 2. Of those cases, 136 were documented as “definite or probable” in an Israeli Ministry of Health database that covered up to the end of May 2021.
There were also 40 cases among vaccinated people seen after the 30-day window, which were considered not related to the vaccination, and 101 cases among unvaccinated people; of the latter, 29 had confirmed diagnoses of COVID-19.
Of the 136 people with definite or probable cases, the myocarditis was “generally mild” in 129 and usually resolved on its own, notes the report on the study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, with lead author Dror Mevorach, MD, Hadassah-Hebrew University Medical Center, Jerusalem.
The estimated myocarditis incidence after a second such vaccine dose across the entire Israeli population, based on the current study, was about one per 26,000 males and one per 218,000 females, the group writes. Those figures compare with one case per 10,857 among “the general unvaccinated population.”
Again, the risk was concentrated among younger men and male adolescents. In an analysis limited to vaccinated people aged 16-19 years, myocarditis in the 21 days after a second mRNA injection was seen in about one of 6,637 males and one of 99,853 females, the group reported.
The standardized incidence ratio of 5.34 (95% CI, 4.48-6.40) after a second injection, across all groups, “was driven mostly by the diagnosis of myocarditis in younger male recipients.” Among that male subgroup, the ratios by age group were 13.60 (95% CI, 9.30-19.20) for 16-19 years, 8.53 (95% CI, 5.57-12.50) for 20-24 years, and 6.96 (95% CI, 4.25-10.75) for 25-29 years.
Among people who received a second injection, compared with unvaccinated people, the 30-day rate ratio was 2.35 (95% CI, 1.10-5.02). Again, the effect was concentrated in males aged 16-19 years. Among them, the myocarditis rate ratios in the 30 days after a second mRNA vaccine injection were 8.96 (95% CI, 4.50-17.83) for the 16-19 years group, 6.13 (95% CI, 3.16-11.88) for the 20-24 group, and 3.58 (95% CI, 1.82-7.01) for 25-29 years.
Most of the patients with myocarditis showed “significant clinical improvement,” with a mean hospitalization time of only 3-4 days, the report notes. Treatment consisted of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs “with or without colchicine for presumed pericardial inflammation.”
However, seven patients (4.9%) developed important complications, including left-ventricular dysfunction, ventricular arrhythmias, and heart failure. Among them was a 22-year-old patient who died of fulminant myocarditis within 24 hours of diagnosis, the group wrote.
From an Israeli health care organization
Published by the same journal as the study by Dr. Menvorach and associates, an analysis of a separate database showed largely consistent findings among patients in the largest of Israel’s four health care organizations charged by the government to administer health services.
The report, with authors led by Guy Witberg, MD, Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikva, Israel, focused on members of the health care organization aged 16 years or older who had received at least one Pfizer mRNA vaccine dose by the end of May 2021.
The cohorts from the two separate reports surely overlap substantially, as the Ministry of Health analysis from Dr. Mevorach and colleagues derived from a nationwide database, and – as Dr. Witberg and associates wrote – the health care organization providing their data covers 52% of the Israeli population.
Of 2,558,421 vaccinated people in the analysis, of whom 94% received two doses, 54 developed confirmed myocarditis in the 42 days after the first dose. Their median age was 27 years (interquartile range, 21-35 years) and all but three (94%) were male. Of those 54 cases, 41 were considered mild and 12 intermediate in severity, and one was fulminant with the patient in cardiogenic shock, the group writes. In addition, nonsustained ventricular tachycardia and atrial fibrillation developed in 5% and 3% of cases, respectively.
The estimated myocarditis incidence in the 42 days after administration of at least one mRNA vaccine dose was 2.13 per 100,000 vaccinated people. In that group, Dr. Witberg and colleagues note, the corresponding incidences per 100,000 were 4.12 and 0.23 for males and females, respectively.
Also in the current report, incidences per 100,000 vaccinated people aged 16-29 years, by sex, included 5.49 (95% CI, 3.59-7.39) overall, and 10.69 (95% CI, 6.93-14.46) for males (the highest rate in the report).
There was only one case in a female aged 16-29 years, and two cases in females 30 years or older.
Of note, some authors of the current study are also authors on the high-profile report from Noam Barda, MD, and colleagues published in the New England Journal of Medicine, that used the same database to arrive at an mRNA-vaccine-related incidence of myocarditis of 2.7 per 100,000. Eligibility criteria and follow-up time were different in that report, as were case ascertainment criteria.
The myocarditis risk associated with the two mRNA vaccines is small compared with “the morbidity and mortality of COVID-19 infection, in which up to 28% of hospitalized patients showed signs of myocardial injury,” wrote Vinay Guduguntla, MD, University of California, San Francisco, and Mitchell H. Katz, MD, NYC Health + Hospitals, New York, in an editorial accompanying the report from Dr. Lee and associates.
“Randomized clinical trials show that COVID-19 mRNA vaccines represent a safe and effective method of preventing infection,” they stated. “The identification of rare myocarditis does not change clinical decision-making.”
Dr. Bozkurt, who is immediate past president of the Heart Failure Society of America, has disclosed consulting for Bayer and scPharmaceuticals and serving on a clinical events committee for a trial supported by Abbott Pharmaceuticals and on a data and safety monitoring board for a trial supported by Liva Nova Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Lee and the report’s other authors had no disclosures. Dr. Mevorach discloses consulting for Enlivex Therapeutics; disclosures for the other authors are available at NEJM.org. Dr. Witberg said he has no interests to disclose; disclosures for the other authors are available at NEJM.org. Dr. Guduguntla is an editorial fellow and Dr. Katz a deputy editor at JAMA Internal Medicine; neither had disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Recent literature features new descriptions of myocarditis linked to the two available mRNA vaccines against SARS-CoV-2. They tell a story largely consistent with experience to date, and support what might be its most useful public health message: The associated myocarditis is usually mild and self-limiting, and is far less likely to occur than myocarditis or death in unvaccinated people with COVID-19.
In line with previous research, the new analyses suggest the myocarditis – with onset usually a few days to a week after injection – has an overall incidence that ranges from less than 1 to perhaps 3 per 100,000 people who received at least one of the full mRNA-vaccine regimen’s two injections. Also, as in earlier studies, the incidence climbed higher – sometimes sharply – in certain groups by age and sex, particularly in young men and older male teens.
The new studies “are confirmatory, in terms of the risk being low,” but underscore that clinicians still must be wary of myocarditis as a potential complication of the mRNA vaccines, Biykem Bozkurt, MD, PhD, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, told this news organization.
Dr. Bozkurt, a leading heart failure specialist and researcher, did not contribute to any of the new reports but does study the myocarditis of COVID-19 and was lead author on a recent review of the potential vaccine complication’s features and possible mechanisms.
In the new myocarditis reports, she observed, more than 90% of the cases were mild and “resolved on their own without a major adverse outcome.” Dr. Bozkurt emphasized the need for perspective regarding the risk. For example, the myocarditis associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection is not only more likely than the vaccine-related myocarditis, but it’s also usually far more severe.
Dr. Bozkurt pointed to a recent study in which the mRNA vaccines, compared with no vaccination, appeared to escalate the myocarditis risk by a factor of 3, whereas the risk for myocarditis in SARS-CoV-2 infection was increased 18 times.
In contrast, she observed, the new myocarditis cases reported this week feature a few that are novel or are at least very rare, including the case of a patient who developed cardiogenic shock and another with fulminant myocarditis who died.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in May publicly described the apparent link between myocarditis and the two available mRNA vaccines against SARS-CoV-2: BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) and mRNA-1273 (Moderna). The next month, the Food and Drug Administration added a warning about the risk to the labeling.
Less than 1 case per 100,000
Fifteen confirmed cases of myocarditis were identified among about 2.4 million members of Kaiser Permanente Southern California aged 18 or older who received at least one injection of the Pfizer or Moderna mRNA vaccines between December 2020 and July 2021, in a report published in JAMA Internal Medicine. The study counted cases up to 10 days after the first or second injection, of which there were 2 and 13, respectively.
All eight patients who received the Pfizer BNT162b2 vaccine and the eight given the Moderna mRNA-1273 vaccine were male with a median age of 25 years (interquartile range, 20-32 years).
“The main takeaway messages from our study are that the incidence of myocarditis after COVID-19 mRNA vaccinations is very low, that this condition is primarily observed in young men within a few days after the second dose, and that most patients recover quickly,” senior author Mingsum Lee, MD, PhD, Kaiser Permanente Los Angeles Medical Center, told this news organization.
“The incidence of vaccine-related myocarditis was significantly lower than rates of COVID-19 hospitalization during the same period and population area,” she added.
The group saw a per-million incidence of 0.8 and 5.8 myocarditis cases in the 10 days after first and second injections, respectively. That made for an incidence of 0.58 per 100,000, or 1 case per 172,414 fully vaccinated adults.
The group also considered a cohort of 1,577,741 unvaccinated people with a median age of 39 years (interquartile range, 28-53 years) during the same period. Of the 75 cases of myocarditis, 52% were in men, they reported.
Comparing the vaccinated and unvaccinated cohorts, they saw a 10-day vaccine-associated myocarditis incidence rate ratio of 0.38 (95% confidence interval, 0.05-1.40; P = .15) after the first dose, and 2.7 (95% CI, 1.4-4.8; P = .004) after the second dose.
In a comparison of the vaccinated group with itself using data from a 10-day period in the previous year, the corresponding myocarditis IRRs were 1.0 (P > .99) and 3.3 (P = .03), respectively.
Dr. Lee said none of the 15 patients required admission to an intensive care unit. “All patients with myocarditis responded well to treatment and felt better quickly,” she noted.
Myocarditis after an mRNA vaccine injection is rare and, Dr. Lee said emphatically, and “the benefits of the COVID-19 vaccine greatly outweigh the risks.”
Sex- and age-stratified rates
In a separate analysis of 5,442,696 people given a first dose of the Pfizer BNT162b2 vaccine and 5,125,635 given a second dose, there were 142 cases of myocarditis with onset 21 days after dose 1 and 30 days after dose 2. Of those cases, 136 were documented as “definite or probable” in an Israeli Ministry of Health database that covered up to the end of May 2021.
There were also 40 cases among vaccinated people seen after the 30-day window, which were considered not related to the vaccination, and 101 cases among unvaccinated people; of the latter, 29 had confirmed diagnoses of COVID-19.
Of the 136 people with definite or probable cases, the myocarditis was “generally mild” in 129 and usually resolved on its own, notes the report on the study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, with lead author Dror Mevorach, MD, Hadassah-Hebrew University Medical Center, Jerusalem.
The estimated myocarditis incidence after a second such vaccine dose across the entire Israeli population, based on the current study, was about one per 26,000 males and one per 218,000 females, the group writes. Those figures compare with one case per 10,857 among “the general unvaccinated population.”
Again, the risk was concentrated among younger men and male adolescents. In an analysis limited to vaccinated people aged 16-19 years, myocarditis in the 21 days after a second mRNA injection was seen in about one of 6,637 males and one of 99,853 females, the group reported.
The standardized incidence ratio of 5.34 (95% CI, 4.48-6.40) after a second injection, across all groups, “was driven mostly by the diagnosis of myocarditis in younger male recipients.” Among that male subgroup, the ratios by age group were 13.60 (95% CI, 9.30-19.20) for 16-19 years, 8.53 (95% CI, 5.57-12.50) for 20-24 years, and 6.96 (95% CI, 4.25-10.75) for 25-29 years.
Among people who received a second injection, compared with unvaccinated people, the 30-day rate ratio was 2.35 (95% CI, 1.10-5.02). Again, the effect was concentrated in males aged 16-19 years. Among them, the myocarditis rate ratios in the 30 days after a second mRNA vaccine injection were 8.96 (95% CI, 4.50-17.83) for the 16-19 years group, 6.13 (95% CI, 3.16-11.88) for the 20-24 group, and 3.58 (95% CI, 1.82-7.01) for 25-29 years.
Most of the patients with myocarditis showed “significant clinical improvement,” with a mean hospitalization time of only 3-4 days, the report notes. Treatment consisted of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs “with or without colchicine for presumed pericardial inflammation.”
However, seven patients (4.9%) developed important complications, including left-ventricular dysfunction, ventricular arrhythmias, and heart failure. Among them was a 22-year-old patient who died of fulminant myocarditis within 24 hours of diagnosis, the group wrote.
From an Israeli health care organization
Published by the same journal as the study by Dr. Menvorach and associates, an analysis of a separate database showed largely consistent findings among patients in the largest of Israel’s four health care organizations charged by the government to administer health services.
The report, with authors led by Guy Witberg, MD, Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikva, Israel, focused on members of the health care organization aged 16 years or older who had received at least one Pfizer mRNA vaccine dose by the end of May 2021.
The cohorts from the two separate reports surely overlap substantially, as the Ministry of Health analysis from Dr. Mevorach and colleagues derived from a nationwide database, and – as Dr. Witberg and associates wrote – the health care organization providing their data covers 52% of the Israeli population.
Of 2,558,421 vaccinated people in the analysis, of whom 94% received two doses, 54 developed confirmed myocarditis in the 42 days after the first dose. Their median age was 27 years (interquartile range, 21-35 years) and all but three (94%) were male. Of those 54 cases, 41 were considered mild and 12 intermediate in severity, and one was fulminant with the patient in cardiogenic shock, the group writes. In addition, nonsustained ventricular tachycardia and atrial fibrillation developed in 5% and 3% of cases, respectively.
The estimated myocarditis incidence in the 42 days after administration of at least one mRNA vaccine dose was 2.13 per 100,000 vaccinated people. In that group, Dr. Witberg and colleagues note, the corresponding incidences per 100,000 were 4.12 and 0.23 for males and females, respectively.
Also in the current report, incidences per 100,000 vaccinated people aged 16-29 years, by sex, included 5.49 (95% CI, 3.59-7.39) overall, and 10.69 (95% CI, 6.93-14.46) for males (the highest rate in the report).
There was only one case in a female aged 16-29 years, and two cases in females 30 years or older.
Of note, some authors of the current study are also authors on the high-profile report from Noam Barda, MD, and colleagues published in the New England Journal of Medicine, that used the same database to arrive at an mRNA-vaccine-related incidence of myocarditis of 2.7 per 100,000. Eligibility criteria and follow-up time were different in that report, as were case ascertainment criteria.
The myocarditis risk associated with the two mRNA vaccines is small compared with “the morbidity and mortality of COVID-19 infection, in which up to 28% of hospitalized patients showed signs of myocardial injury,” wrote Vinay Guduguntla, MD, University of California, San Francisco, and Mitchell H. Katz, MD, NYC Health + Hospitals, New York, in an editorial accompanying the report from Dr. Lee and associates.
“Randomized clinical trials show that COVID-19 mRNA vaccines represent a safe and effective method of preventing infection,” they stated. “The identification of rare myocarditis does not change clinical decision-making.”
Dr. Bozkurt, who is immediate past president of the Heart Failure Society of America, has disclosed consulting for Bayer and scPharmaceuticals and serving on a clinical events committee for a trial supported by Abbott Pharmaceuticals and on a data and safety monitoring board for a trial supported by Liva Nova Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Lee and the report’s other authors had no disclosures. Dr. Mevorach discloses consulting for Enlivex Therapeutics; disclosures for the other authors are available at NEJM.org. Dr. Witberg said he has no interests to disclose; disclosures for the other authors are available at NEJM.org. Dr. Guduguntla is an editorial fellow and Dr. Katz a deputy editor at JAMA Internal Medicine; neither had disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Merck seeks FDA authorization for antiviral COVID-19 pill
, an experimental antiviral COVID-19 treatment.
If the FDA grants authorization, the drug would be the first oral antiviral treatment for COVID-19. The capsule, made by Merck and Ridgeback Biotherapeutics, is intended to treat mild to moderate COVID-19 in adults who are at risk of having severe COVID-19 or hospitalization.
“The extraordinary impact of this pandemic demands that we move with unprecedented urgency, and that is what our teams have done by submitting this application for molnupiravir to the FDA within 10 days of receiving the data,” Robert Davis, CEO and president of Merck, said in a statement. On Oct. 1, Merck and Ridgeback released interim data from its phase III clinical trial, which showed that molnupiravir reduced the risk of hospitalization or death by about 50%. About 7% of patients who received the drug were hospitalized within 30 days in the study, as compared with 14% of patients who took a placebo, the company said.
No deaths were reported in the group that received the drug, as compared with eight deaths in the group that received the placebo. None of the trial participants had been vaccinated.
“Medicines and vaccines are both essential to our collective efforts,” Mr. Davis said. “We look forward to working with the FDA on its review of our application, and to working with other regulatory agencies as we do everything we can to bring molnupiravir to patients around the world as quickly as possible.”
Merck has been producing molnupiravir in anticipation of the clinical trial results and FDA authorization. The company expects to produce 10 million courses of treatment by the end of the year, with more expected for 2022.
In June, Merck signed an agreement with the United States to supply 1.7 million courses of molnupiravir once the FDA authorizes the drug. The company has agreed to advance purchase agreements with other countries as well.
Earlier in the year, Merck also announced voluntary licensing agreements with several generics manufacturers in India to provide molnupiravir to more than 100 low- and middle-income countries after approval from local regulatory agencies.
Data from the company’s late-stage clinical trial has not yet been peer-reviewed or published.
Last week, Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said the clinical trial results were “very encouraging” but noted that the FDA should closely scrutinize the drug, CNN reported.
“It is very important that this now must go through the usual process of careful examination of the data by the Food and Drug Administration, both for effectiveness but also for safety, because whenever you introduce a new compound, safety is very important,” Dr. Fauci said, adding that vaccines remain “our best tools against COVID-19.”
A version of this article firsts appeared on WebMD.com.
, an experimental antiviral COVID-19 treatment.
If the FDA grants authorization, the drug would be the first oral antiviral treatment for COVID-19. The capsule, made by Merck and Ridgeback Biotherapeutics, is intended to treat mild to moderate COVID-19 in adults who are at risk of having severe COVID-19 or hospitalization.
“The extraordinary impact of this pandemic demands that we move with unprecedented urgency, and that is what our teams have done by submitting this application for molnupiravir to the FDA within 10 days of receiving the data,” Robert Davis, CEO and president of Merck, said in a statement. On Oct. 1, Merck and Ridgeback released interim data from its phase III clinical trial, which showed that molnupiravir reduced the risk of hospitalization or death by about 50%. About 7% of patients who received the drug were hospitalized within 30 days in the study, as compared with 14% of patients who took a placebo, the company said.
No deaths were reported in the group that received the drug, as compared with eight deaths in the group that received the placebo. None of the trial participants had been vaccinated.
“Medicines and vaccines are both essential to our collective efforts,” Mr. Davis said. “We look forward to working with the FDA on its review of our application, and to working with other regulatory agencies as we do everything we can to bring molnupiravir to patients around the world as quickly as possible.”
Merck has been producing molnupiravir in anticipation of the clinical trial results and FDA authorization. The company expects to produce 10 million courses of treatment by the end of the year, with more expected for 2022.
In June, Merck signed an agreement with the United States to supply 1.7 million courses of molnupiravir once the FDA authorizes the drug. The company has agreed to advance purchase agreements with other countries as well.
Earlier in the year, Merck also announced voluntary licensing agreements with several generics manufacturers in India to provide molnupiravir to more than 100 low- and middle-income countries after approval from local regulatory agencies.
Data from the company’s late-stage clinical trial has not yet been peer-reviewed or published.
Last week, Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said the clinical trial results were “very encouraging” but noted that the FDA should closely scrutinize the drug, CNN reported.
“It is very important that this now must go through the usual process of careful examination of the data by the Food and Drug Administration, both for effectiveness but also for safety, because whenever you introduce a new compound, safety is very important,” Dr. Fauci said, adding that vaccines remain “our best tools against COVID-19.”
A version of this article firsts appeared on WebMD.com.
, an experimental antiviral COVID-19 treatment.
If the FDA grants authorization, the drug would be the first oral antiviral treatment for COVID-19. The capsule, made by Merck and Ridgeback Biotherapeutics, is intended to treat mild to moderate COVID-19 in adults who are at risk of having severe COVID-19 or hospitalization.
“The extraordinary impact of this pandemic demands that we move with unprecedented urgency, and that is what our teams have done by submitting this application for molnupiravir to the FDA within 10 days of receiving the data,” Robert Davis, CEO and president of Merck, said in a statement. On Oct. 1, Merck and Ridgeback released interim data from its phase III clinical trial, which showed that molnupiravir reduced the risk of hospitalization or death by about 50%. About 7% of patients who received the drug were hospitalized within 30 days in the study, as compared with 14% of patients who took a placebo, the company said.
No deaths were reported in the group that received the drug, as compared with eight deaths in the group that received the placebo. None of the trial participants had been vaccinated.
“Medicines and vaccines are both essential to our collective efforts,” Mr. Davis said. “We look forward to working with the FDA on its review of our application, and to working with other regulatory agencies as we do everything we can to bring molnupiravir to patients around the world as quickly as possible.”
Merck has been producing molnupiravir in anticipation of the clinical trial results and FDA authorization. The company expects to produce 10 million courses of treatment by the end of the year, with more expected for 2022.
In June, Merck signed an agreement with the United States to supply 1.7 million courses of molnupiravir once the FDA authorizes the drug. The company has agreed to advance purchase agreements with other countries as well.
Earlier in the year, Merck also announced voluntary licensing agreements with several generics manufacturers in India to provide molnupiravir to more than 100 low- and middle-income countries after approval from local regulatory agencies.
Data from the company’s late-stage clinical trial has not yet been peer-reviewed or published.
Last week, Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said the clinical trial results were “very encouraging” but noted that the FDA should closely scrutinize the drug, CNN reported.
“It is very important that this now must go through the usual process of careful examination of the data by the Food and Drug Administration, both for effectiveness but also for safety, because whenever you introduce a new compound, safety is very important,” Dr. Fauci said, adding that vaccines remain “our best tools against COVID-19.”
A version of this article firsts appeared on WebMD.com.
High-dose omega-3s tied to higher AFib risk
Taking high-doses of marine omega-3 fatty acids, more than 1 gram daily, may raise the risk for atrial fibrillation (AFib), according to a meta-analysis of relevant research.
However, the risk of developing AFib appears to be “relatively small” for those taking 1 gram or less of fish oil per day, Christine M. Albert, MD, chair of the department of cardiology at the Smidt Heart Institute at Cedars-Sinai, Los Angeles, told this news organization.
The study was published online Oct. 6 in the journal Circulation.
It’s estimated that 7.8% of U.S. adults – almost 19 million in all – take fish oil supplements, often unbeknownst to their health care providers, the researchers noted. Yet, the literature on the effects of omega-3 fatty acid supplementation on cardiovascular outcomes are mixed.
“Some, but not all” large-scale randomized controlled trials investigating the effects of marine omega-3 fatty acid supplements on cardiovascular outcomes have reported increased risks for AFib. The potential reasons for differing findings may be dose related, the authors note in their paper.
The goal of this meta-analysis was to “bring clarity, answers, and actionable information” to doctors and patients, said Dr. Albert. The results suggest, however, that there may not be a “straightforward answer” to whether fish oil is good or bad for AFib. Instead, the answer may depend on the dose, she added.
Pooled data
After screening 4,049 articles and abstracts, the researchers included in their analysis seven large-scale randomized controlled trials reporting cardiovascular outcomes of marine omega-3 fatty acids.
The trials reported results for AFib, either as prespecified outcome, adverse event, or a reason for hospitalization. Each had a minimum of 500 patients and a median follow-up of at least 1 year.
Trials examining the effects of omega-3 fatty acids on recurrent AFib in patients with established AFib or postoperative AFib were excluded.
The seven trials enrolled a total of 81,210 patients (mean age, 65 years; 39% women); 72.6% of participants were enrolled in clinical trials testing ≤1 gram of marine omega-3 fatty acids per day and 27.4% were enrolled in clinical trials testing >1 gram of the supplement per day. The weighted average follow-up was 4.9 years.
Overall, use of omega-3 fatty acids was associated with a 25% increased risk for AFib (hazard ratio, 1.25; 95% confidence interval, 1.07-1.46; P = .013).
In analyses stratified by dose, the risk for AFib was “significantly more pronounced” in trials testing high doses of marine omega-3 fatty acid supplements (>1 gram per day: HR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.04-2.15; P = .042) compared with those testing lower doses (≤1 gram per day: HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.03-1.22; P = .024; P for interaction < .001).
In meta-regression, the HR for AFib increased per 1 gram increase in daily omega-3 fatty acid dose (HR. 1.11; 95% CI, 1.06-1.15; P = .001).
Risk-benefit balance
“This meta-analysis adds new evidence regarding the risk of AFib in patients taking marine omega-3 fatty acid supplements,” wrote Dr. Albert and colleagues.
“Since the benefit of omega-3 fatty acids also appears to be dose dependent, the associated risk of AFib should be balanced against the benefit on atherosclerotic cardiovascular outcomes,” they suggested.
They cautioned that the meta-analysis pooled aggregate-level trial data, not individual patient data. Therefore, subgroup analyses by age or other patient level characteristics were not possible.
The risk of developing AFib increases with advancing age and is more common in men than in women. Additional risk factors include elevated blood pressure, coronary artery disease, heart failure, heart valve defects, obesity, and diabetes.
The authors said the potential risk of developing AFib with high doses of omega-3 fatty acid supplements should be discussed with patients and they should know the signs and symptoms of the condition.
The study had no specific funding. Dr. Albert has received grants from St. Jude Medical, Abbott, and Roche Diagnostics.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Taking high-doses of marine omega-3 fatty acids, more than 1 gram daily, may raise the risk for atrial fibrillation (AFib), according to a meta-analysis of relevant research.
However, the risk of developing AFib appears to be “relatively small” for those taking 1 gram or less of fish oil per day, Christine M. Albert, MD, chair of the department of cardiology at the Smidt Heart Institute at Cedars-Sinai, Los Angeles, told this news organization.
The study was published online Oct. 6 in the journal Circulation.
It’s estimated that 7.8% of U.S. adults – almost 19 million in all – take fish oil supplements, often unbeknownst to their health care providers, the researchers noted. Yet, the literature on the effects of omega-3 fatty acid supplementation on cardiovascular outcomes are mixed.
“Some, but not all” large-scale randomized controlled trials investigating the effects of marine omega-3 fatty acid supplements on cardiovascular outcomes have reported increased risks for AFib. The potential reasons for differing findings may be dose related, the authors note in their paper.
The goal of this meta-analysis was to “bring clarity, answers, and actionable information” to doctors and patients, said Dr. Albert. The results suggest, however, that there may not be a “straightforward answer” to whether fish oil is good or bad for AFib. Instead, the answer may depend on the dose, she added.
Pooled data
After screening 4,049 articles and abstracts, the researchers included in their analysis seven large-scale randomized controlled trials reporting cardiovascular outcomes of marine omega-3 fatty acids.
The trials reported results for AFib, either as prespecified outcome, adverse event, or a reason for hospitalization. Each had a minimum of 500 patients and a median follow-up of at least 1 year.
Trials examining the effects of omega-3 fatty acids on recurrent AFib in patients with established AFib or postoperative AFib were excluded.
The seven trials enrolled a total of 81,210 patients (mean age, 65 years; 39% women); 72.6% of participants were enrolled in clinical trials testing ≤1 gram of marine omega-3 fatty acids per day and 27.4% were enrolled in clinical trials testing >1 gram of the supplement per day. The weighted average follow-up was 4.9 years.
Overall, use of omega-3 fatty acids was associated with a 25% increased risk for AFib (hazard ratio, 1.25; 95% confidence interval, 1.07-1.46; P = .013).
In analyses stratified by dose, the risk for AFib was “significantly more pronounced” in trials testing high doses of marine omega-3 fatty acid supplements (>1 gram per day: HR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.04-2.15; P = .042) compared with those testing lower doses (≤1 gram per day: HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.03-1.22; P = .024; P for interaction < .001).
In meta-regression, the HR for AFib increased per 1 gram increase in daily omega-3 fatty acid dose (HR. 1.11; 95% CI, 1.06-1.15; P = .001).
Risk-benefit balance
“This meta-analysis adds new evidence regarding the risk of AFib in patients taking marine omega-3 fatty acid supplements,” wrote Dr. Albert and colleagues.
“Since the benefit of omega-3 fatty acids also appears to be dose dependent, the associated risk of AFib should be balanced against the benefit on atherosclerotic cardiovascular outcomes,” they suggested.
They cautioned that the meta-analysis pooled aggregate-level trial data, not individual patient data. Therefore, subgroup analyses by age or other patient level characteristics were not possible.
The risk of developing AFib increases with advancing age and is more common in men than in women. Additional risk factors include elevated blood pressure, coronary artery disease, heart failure, heart valve defects, obesity, and diabetes.
The authors said the potential risk of developing AFib with high doses of omega-3 fatty acid supplements should be discussed with patients and they should know the signs and symptoms of the condition.
The study had no specific funding. Dr. Albert has received grants from St. Jude Medical, Abbott, and Roche Diagnostics.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Taking high-doses of marine omega-3 fatty acids, more than 1 gram daily, may raise the risk for atrial fibrillation (AFib), according to a meta-analysis of relevant research.
However, the risk of developing AFib appears to be “relatively small” for those taking 1 gram or less of fish oil per day, Christine M. Albert, MD, chair of the department of cardiology at the Smidt Heart Institute at Cedars-Sinai, Los Angeles, told this news organization.
The study was published online Oct. 6 in the journal Circulation.
It’s estimated that 7.8% of U.S. adults – almost 19 million in all – take fish oil supplements, often unbeknownst to their health care providers, the researchers noted. Yet, the literature on the effects of omega-3 fatty acid supplementation on cardiovascular outcomes are mixed.
“Some, but not all” large-scale randomized controlled trials investigating the effects of marine omega-3 fatty acid supplements on cardiovascular outcomes have reported increased risks for AFib. The potential reasons for differing findings may be dose related, the authors note in their paper.
The goal of this meta-analysis was to “bring clarity, answers, and actionable information” to doctors and patients, said Dr. Albert. The results suggest, however, that there may not be a “straightforward answer” to whether fish oil is good or bad for AFib. Instead, the answer may depend on the dose, she added.
Pooled data
After screening 4,049 articles and abstracts, the researchers included in their analysis seven large-scale randomized controlled trials reporting cardiovascular outcomes of marine omega-3 fatty acids.
The trials reported results for AFib, either as prespecified outcome, adverse event, or a reason for hospitalization. Each had a minimum of 500 patients and a median follow-up of at least 1 year.
Trials examining the effects of omega-3 fatty acids on recurrent AFib in patients with established AFib or postoperative AFib were excluded.
The seven trials enrolled a total of 81,210 patients (mean age, 65 years; 39% women); 72.6% of participants were enrolled in clinical trials testing ≤1 gram of marine omega-3 fatty acids per day and 27.4% were enrolled in clinical trials testing >1 gram of the supplement per day. The weighted average follow-up was 4.9 years.
Overall, use of omega-3 fatty acids was associated with a 25% increased risk for AFib (hazard ratio, 1.25; 95% confidence interval, 1.07-1.46; P = .013).
In analyses stratified by dose, the risk for AFib was “significantly more pronounced” in trials testing high doses of marine omega-3 fatty acid supplements (>1 gram per day: HR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.04-2.15; P = .042) compared with those testing lower doses (≤1 gram per day: HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.03-1.22; P = .024; P for interaction < .001).
In meta-regression, the HR for AFib increased per 1 gram increase in daily omega-3 fatty acid dose (HR. 1.11; 95% CI, 1.06-1.15; P = .001).
Risk-benefit balance
“This meta-analysis adds new evidence regarding the risk of AFib in patients taking marine omega-3 fatty acid supplements,” wrote Dr. Albert and colleagues.
“Since the benefit of omega-3 fatty acids also appears to be dose dependent, the associated risk of AFib should be balanced against the benefit on atherosclerotic cardiovascular outcomes,” they suggested.
They cautioned that the meta-analysis pooled aggregate-level trial data, not individual patient data. Therefore, subgroup analyses by age or other patient level characteristics were not possible.
The risk of developing AFib increases with advancing age and is more common in men than in women. Additional risk factors include elevated blood pressure, coronary artery disease, heart failure, heart valve defects, obesity, and diabetes.
The authors said the potential risk of developing AFib with high doses of omega-3 fatty acid supplements should be discussed with patients and they should know the signs and symptoms of the condition.
The study had no specific funding. Dr. Albert has received grants from St. Jude Medical, Abbott, and Roche Diagnostics.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
HEPA filters may clean SARS-CoV-2 from the air: Study
, researchers report in the preprint server medRxiv.
The journal Nature reported Oct. 6 that the research, which has not been peer-reviewed, suggests the filters may help reduce the risk of hospital-acquired SARS-CoV-2.
Researchers, led by intensivist Andrew Conway-Morris, MBChB, PhD, with the division of anaesthesia in the school of clinical medicine at University of Cambridge, United Kingdom, write that earlier experiments assessed air filters’ ability to remove inactive particles in carefully controlled environments, but it was unknown how they would work in a real-world setting.
Co-author Vilas Navapurkar, MBChB, an ICU physician at Addenbrooke’s Hospital in Cambridge, United Kingdom, said that hospitals have used portable air filters when their isolation facilities are full, but evidence was needed as to whether such filters are effective or whether they provide a false sense of security.
The researchers installed the filters in two fully occupied COVID-19 wards — a general ward and an ICU. They chose HEPA filters because they can catch extremely small particles.
The team collected air samples from the wards during a week when the air filters were on and 2 weeks when they were turned off, then compared results.
According to the study, “airborne SARS-CoV-2 was detected in the ward on all five days before activation of air/UV filtration, but on none of the five days when the air/UV filter was operational; SARS-CoV-2 was again detected on four out of five days when the filter was off.”
Airborne SARS-CoV-2 was not frequently detected in the ICU, even when the filters were off.
Cheap and easy
According to the Nature article, the authors suggest several potential explanations for this, “including slower viral replication at later stages of the disease.” Therefore, the authors say, filtering the virus from the air might be more important in general wards than in ICUs.
The filters significantly reduced the other microbial bioaerosols in both the ward (48 pathogens detected before filtration, 2 after, P = .05) and the ICU (45 pathogens detected before filtration, 5 after P = .05).
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) cyclonic aerosol samplers and PCR tests were used to detect airborne SARS-CoV-2 and other microbial bioaerosol.
David Fisman, MD, an epidemiologist at the University of Toronto, who was not involved in the research, said in the Nature article, “This study suggests that HEPA air cleaners, which remain little-used in Canadian hospitals, are a cheap and easy way to reduce risk from airborne pathogens.”This work was supported by a Wellcome senior research fellowship to co-author Stephen Baker. Conway Morris is supported by a Clinician Scientist Fellowship from the Medical Research Council. Dr. Navapurkar is the founder, director, and shareholder of Cambridge Infection Diagnostics Ltd. Dr. Conway-Morris and several co-authors are members of the Scientific Advisory Board of Cambridge Infection Diagnostics Ltd. Co-author Theodore Gouliouris has received a research grant from Shionogi and co-author R. Andres Floto has received research grants and/or consultancy payments from GSK, AstraZeneca, Chiesi, Shionogi, Insmed, and Thirty Technology.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, researchers report in the preprint server medRxiv.
The journal Nature reported Oct. 6 that the research, which has not been peer-reviewed, suggests the filters may help reduce the risk of hospital-acquired SARS-CoV-2.
Researchers, led by intensivist Andrew Conway-Morris, MBChB, PhD, with the division of anaesthesia in the school of clinical medicine at University of Cambridge, United Kingdom, write that earlier experiments assessed air filters’ ability to remove inactive particles in carefully controlled environments, but it was unknown how they would work in a real-world setting.
Co-author Vilas Navapurkar, MBChB, an ICU physician at Addenbrooke’s Hospital in Cambridge, United Kingdom, said that hospitals have used portable air filters when their isolation facilities are full, but evidence was needed as to whether such filters are effective or whether they provide a false sense of security.
The researchers installed the filters in two fully occupied COVID-19 wards — a general ward and an ICU. They chose HEPA filters because they can catch extremely small particles.
The team collected air samples from the wards during a week when the air filters were on and 2 weeks when they were turned off, then compared results.
According to the study, “airborne SARS-CoV-2 was detected in the ward on all five days before activation of air/UV filtration, but on none of the five days when the air/UV filter was operational; SARS-CoV-2 was again detected on four out of five days when the filter was off.”
Airborne SARS-CoV-2 was not frequently detected in the ICU, even when the filters were off.
Cheap and easy
According to the Nature article, the authors suggest several potential explanations for this, “including slower viral replication at later stages of the disease.” Therefore, the authors say, filtering the virus from the air might be more important in general wards than in ICUs.
The filters significantly reduced the other microbial bioaerosols in both the ward (48 pathogens detected before filtration, 2 after, P = .05) and the ICU (45 pathogens detected before filtration, 5 after P = .05).
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) cyclonic aerosol samplers and PCR tests were used to detect airborne SARS-CoV-2 and other microbial bioaerosol.
David Fisman, MD, an epidemiologist at the University of Toronto, who was not involved in the research, said in the Nature article, “This study suggests that HEPA air cleaners, which remain little-used in Canadian hospitals, are a cheap and easy way to reduce risk from airborne pathogens.”This work was supported by a Wellcome senior research fellowship to co-author Stephen Baker. Conway Morris is supported by a Clinician Scientist Fellowship from the Medical Research Council. Dr. Navapurkar is the founder, director, and shareholder of Cambridge Infection Diagnostics Ltd. Dr. Conway-Morris and several co-authors are members of the Scientific Advisory Board of Cambridge Infection Diagnostics Ltd. Co-author Theodore Gouliouris has received a research grant from Shionogi and co-author R. Andres Floto has received research grants and/or consultancy payments from GSK, AstraZeneca, Chiesi, Shionogi, Insmed, and Thirty Technology.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, researchers report in the preprint server medRxiv.
The journal Nature reported Oct. 6 that the research, which has not been peer-reviewed, suggests the filters may help reduce the risk of hospital-acquired SARS-CoV-2.
Researchers, led by intensivist Andrew Conway-Morris, MBChB, PhD, with the division of anaesthesia in the school of clinical medicine at University of Cambridge, United Kingdom, write that earlier experiments assessed air filters’ ability to remove inactive particles in carefully controlled environments, but it was unknown how they would work in a real-world setting.
Co-author Vilas Navapurkar, MBChB, an ICU physician at Addenbrooke’s Hospital in Cambridge, United Kingdom, said that hospitals have used portable air filters when their isolation facilities are full, but evidence was needed as to whether such filters are effective or whether they provide a false sense of security.
The researchers installed the filters in two fully occupied COVID-19 wards — a general ward and an ICU. They chose HEPA filters because they can catch extremely small particles.
The team collected air samples from the wards during a week when the air filters were on and 2 weeks when they were turned off, then compared results.
According to the study, “airborne SARS-CoV-2 was detected in the ward on all five days before activation of air/UV filtration, but on none of the five days when the air/UV filter was operational; SARS-CoV-2 was again detected on four out of five days when the filter was off.”
Airborne SARS-CoV-2 was not frequently detected in the ICU, even when the filters were off.
Cheap and easy
According to the Nature article, the authors suggest several potential explanations for this, “including slower viral replication at later stages of the disease.” Therefore, the authors say, filtering the virus from the air might be more important in general wards than in ICUs.
The filters significantly reduced the other microbial bioaerosols in both the ward (48 pathogens detected before filtration, 2 after, P = .05) and the ICU (45 pathogens detected before filtration, 5 after P = .05).
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) cyclonic aerosol samplers and PCR tests were used to detect airborne SARS-CoV-2 and other microbial bioaerosol.
David Fisman, MD, an epidemiologist at the University of Toronto, who was not involved in the research, said in the Nature article, “This study suggests that HEPA air cleaners, which remain little-used in Canadian hospitals, are a cheap and easy way to reduce risk from airborne pathogens.”This work was supported by a Wellcome senior research fellowship to co-author Stephen Baker. Conway Morris is supported by a Clinician Scientist Fellowship from the Medical Research Council. Dr. Navapurkar is the founder, director, and shareholder of Cambridge Infection Diagnostics Ltd. Dr. Conway-Morris and several co-authors are members of the Scientific Advisory Board of Cambridge Infection Diagnostics Ltd. Co-author Theodore Gouliouris has received a research grant from Shionogi and co-author R. Andres Floto has received research grants and/or consultancy payments from GSK, AstraZeneca, Chiesi, Shionogi, Insmed, and Thirty Technology.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Telehealth for heart failure during pandemic shown effective, safe
The rapid transition to and reliance on telehealth to manage patients with heart failure during the COVID-19 pandemic does not appear to impact clinical outcomes, according to real-world data.
HF outpatients managed with telehealth visits did not show a significantly higher adjusted risk for subsequent ED visits, hospital admissions, intensive care use, or death at 30 and 90 days, the investigators reported in JACC: Heart Failure.
“Telehealth is safe and effective in probably some of our highest-risk patients who traditionally have needed hands-on, in-person assessment and evaluation – those patients who have heart failure – so we shouldn’t be afraid to use it all the time, not when needed as a minimum,” senior author Brett W. Sperry, MD, said in an interview.
Heart failure is a perfect case example to examine telehealth because the chronic condition not only requires continual assessment and medication adjustments, but HF patients are also particularly vulnerable to complications related to COVID-19 infection, he noted. A small, single-center report on telehealth early in Italy’s outbreak showed fewer HF hospitalizations and similar mortality, compared with in-person visits in 2019 but, overall, few data exist.
The current analysis took a wider sweep, comparing HF patients seen from March 15 to June 15, 2020 with those seen during the same time period in 2018 and 2019 at 16 cardiology clinics in Saint Luke’s Health System, which serves the Kansas City metro area and surrounding suburbs in Missouri and Kansas.
Among 8,263 unique patients and 15,421 visits identified, telehealth was not used in 2018 or 2019 but accounted for 88.5% of visits during the study period in 2020, 70% of which were by telephone and 30% of which were by video.
“We had zero telehealth before March 2020 and basically built an entire telehealth apparatus in a week or 2,” explained Dr. Sperry. “Initially it was a lot of telephone visits while we were getting the video stuff figured out, which is reflected in the paper, and then went to mostly video visits.”
Despite the pandemic, however, more outpatients were seen in 2020 than in 2018 and 2019 (4,063 vs. 3675 and 3,619 patients, respectively). This likely reflects the shift of personnel and resources from hospital duties to outpatient virtual visits, which were strongly recommended by the Heart Failure Society of America and other professional societies to manage patients during the pandemic, he said.
Unadjusted analyses demonstrated fewer ED visits and hospital admissions and more ICU admissions and all-cause mortality in 2020 than in previous years.
A propensity-matched analysis involving 4541 pairs of patients, however, showed admissions to the ED or hospital were lower after the telehealth visits than after in-person visits at 30 days (6.8% vs 10.4%; P < .001) and 90 days (17.9% vs. 23.3%; P < .001).
Among hospitalized patients, there was no difference between telehealth and in-patient visits in ICU admissions at 30 or 90 days. Mortality was also similar at 30 days (0.8% vs. 0.7%; P = .465) and 90 days (2.9% vs. 2.4%; P = .133).
Dr. Sperry said the pendulum has swung since 2020 and that the team is back to seeing most people in person, with about 15% of his clinic visits that day done via video. Standardized quality of life assessments prior to outpatient visits can help triage patients to telehealth in-patient visits, but in-person visits will still be needed for cases with greater acuity, older patients, and those with limited or no access to quality telephone videos or the internet.
“It isn’t for everyone,” Dr. Sperry said. “You’re going to need some kind of hybrid model with both in-person and video visits available and be able to offer both for patients and be able to titrate that as the pandemic changes in the future.”
Ankit Bhatia, MD, an advanced HF cardiologist at Christ Hospital in Cincinnati, who was not part of the study, said in an interview the use of telehealth in 85% of patients may be higher than the norm at most centers but that the study provides much-needed data.
“I’m really appreciative of a study like this because we were all in such a rush last year to get patients seen that very few people thought how could we design a study to really ensure we’re treating our patients within an equipoise with prior practices,” he said.
“The fact that they were able to do that [85%] and demonstrate in a propensity-matched analysis that outcomes were similar really just shows that telehealth is a strategy that we can use well in patients with heart failure to extend our ability to take care of them,” said Dr. Bhatia, a member of the American College of Cardiology Health Care Innovation Council.
Even beyond the pandemic, he said, the trend in health care is for patients to want health care delivered closer to home and for health care systems to become more patient centric. “This accelerated that but what I think this study showed me was that it’s okay to have this be part of my care model and I’m not sacrificing on my patient care if I choose to intersperse telehealth with inpatient visits.”
Besides the inherent limitations of retrospective studies, the authors noted that diagnoses in the study were based on ICD-10 codes and that subsequent ED visits or hospitalizations outside the single system may have been underreported. A further limitation is that they could not identify the cause of death or reasons for hospital encounters.
“Further data are needed to confirm the relative safety of a telehealth strategy in the HF population over a more sustained period of time, although we hypothesize that greater risks would be observed early after telehealth visits, where patients’ acuity might be misjudged,” they wrote.
Dr. Sperry is a consultant to Pfizer and Alnylam. Coauthor John A. Spertus is the principal investigator of grants from National Institutes of Health, Abbott Vascular, and the American College of Cardiology Foundation; is a consultant to Janssen, Novartis, Amgen, Myokardia, AstraZeneca, Bayer, and Merck; serves on the scientific advisory board of United Healthcare and the board of directors for Blue Cross Blue Shield of Kansas City; owns the copyright to the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire, Seattle Angina Questionnaire, and Peripheral Artery Questionnaire; and has an equity interest in Health Outcomes Sciences. All other authors and Dr. Bhatia reported no relevant conflicts.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The rapid transition to and reliance on telehealth to manage patients with heart failure during the COVID-19 pandemic does not appear to impact clinical outcomes, according to real-world data.
HF outpatients managed with telehealth visits did not show a significantly higher adjusted risk for subsequent ED visits, hospital admissions, intensive care use, or death at 30 and 90 days, the investigators reported in JACC: Heart Failure.
“Telehealth is safe and effective in probably some of our highest-risk patients who traditionally have needed hands-on, in-person assessment and evaluation – those patients who have heart failure – so we shouldn’t be afraid to use it all the time, not when needed as a minimum,” senior author Brett W. Sperry, MD, said in an interview.
Heart failure is a perfect case example to examine telehealth because the chronic condition not only requires continual assessment and medication adjustments, but HF patients are also particularly vulnerable to complications related to COVID-19 infection, he noted. A small, single-center report on telehealth early in Italy’s outbreak showed fewer HF hospitalizations and similar mortality, compared with in-person visits in 2019 but, overall, few data exist.
The current analysis took a wider sweep, comparing HF patients seen from March 15 to June 15, 2020 with those seen during the same time period in 2018 and 2019 at 16 cardiology clinics in Saint Luke’s Health System, which serves the Kansas City metro area and surrounding suburbs in Missouri and Kansas.
Among 8,263 unique patients and 15,421 visits identified, telehealth was not used in 2018 or 2019 but accounted for 88.5% of visits during the study period in 2020, 70% of which were by telephone and 30% of which were by video.
“We had zero telehealth before March 2020 and basically built an entire telehealth apparatus in a week or 2,” explained Dr. Sperry. “Initially it was a lot of telephone visits while we were getting the video stuff figured out, which is reflected in the paper, and then went to mostly video visits.”
Despite the pandemic, however, more outpatients were seen in 2020 than in 2018 and 2019 (4,063 vs. 3675 and 3,619 patients, respectively). This likely reflects the shift of personnel and resources from hospital duties to outpatient virtual visits, which were strongly recommended by the Heart Failure Society of America and other professional societies to manage patients during the pandemic, he said.
Unadjusted analyses demonstrated fewer ED visits and hospital admissions and more ICU admissions and all-cause mortality in 2020 than in previous years.
A propensity-matched analysis involving 4541 pairs of patients, however, showed admissions to the ED or hospital were lower after the telehealth visits than after in-person visits at 30 days (6.8% vs 10.4%; P < .001) and 90 days (17.9% vs. 23.3%; P < .001).
Among hospitalized patients, there was no difference between telehealth and in-patient visits in ICU admissions at 30 or 90 days. Mortality was also similar at 30 days (0.8% vs. 0.7%; P = .465) and 90 days (2.9% vs. 2.4%; P = .133).
Dr. Sperry said the pendulum has swung since 2020 and that the team is back to seeing most people in person, with about 15% of his clinic visits that day done via video. Standardized quality of life assessments prior to outpatient visits can help triage patients to telehealth in-patient visits, but in-person visits will still be needed for cases with greater acuity, older patients, and those with limited or no access to quality telephone videos or the internet.
“It isn’t for everyone,” Dr. Sperry said. “You’re going to need some kind of hybrid model with both in-person and video visits available and be able to offer both for patients and be able to titrate that as the pandemic changes in the future.”
Ankit Bhatia, MD, an advanced HF cardiologist at Christ Hospital in Cincinnati, who was not part of the study, said in an interview the use of telehealth in 85% of patients may be higher than the norm at most centers but that the study provides much-needed data.
“I’m really appreciative of a study like this because we were all in such a rush last year to get patients seen that very few people thought how could we design a study to really ensure we’re treating our patients within an equipoise with prior practices,” he said.
“The fact that they were able to do that [85%] and demonstrate in a propensity-matched analysis that outcomes were similar really just shows that telehealth is a strategy that we can use well in patients with heart failure to extend our ability to take care of them,” said Dr. Bhatia, a member of the American College of Cardiology Health Care Innovation Council.
Even beyond the pandemic, he said, the trend in health care is for patients to want health care delivered closer to home and for health care systems to become more patient centric. “This accelerated that but what I think this study showed me was that it’s okay to have this be part of my care model and I’m not sacrificing on my patient care if I choose to intersperse telehealth with inpatient visits.”
Besides the inherent limitations of retrospective studies, the authors noted that diagnoses in the study were based on ICD-10 codes and that subsequent ED visits or hospitalizations outside the single system may have been underreported. A further limitation is that they could not identify the cause of death or reasons for hospital encounters.
“Further data are needed to confirm the relative safety of a telehealth strategy in the HF population over a more sustained period of time, although we hypothesize that greater risks would be observed early after telehealth visits, where patients’ acuity might be misjudged,” they wrote.
Dr. Sperry is a consultant to Pfizer and Alnylam. Coauthor John A. Spertus is the principal investigator of grants from National Institutes of Health, Abbott Vascular, and the American College of Cardiology Foundation; is a consultant to Janssen, Novartis, Amgen, Myokardia, AstraZeneca, Bayer, and Merck; serves on the scientific advisory board of United Healthcare and the board of directors for Blue Cross Blue Shield of Kansas City; owns the copyright to the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire, Seattle Angina Questionnaire, and Peripheral Artery Questionnaire; and has an equity interest in Health Outcomes Sciences. All other authors and Dr. Bhatia reported no relevant conflicts.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The rapid transition to and reliance on telehealth to manage patients with heart failure during the COVID-19 pandemic does not appear to impact clinical outcomes, according to real-world data.
HF outpatients managed with telehealth visits did not show a significantly higher adjusted risk for subsequent ED visits, hospital admissions, intensive care use, or death at 30 and 90 days, the investigators reported in JACC: Heart Failure.
“Telehealth is safe and effective in probably some of our highest-risk patients who traditionally have needed hands-on, in-person assessment and evaluation – those patients who have heart failure – so we shouldn’t be afraid to use it all the time, not when needed as a minimum,” senior author Brett W. Sperry, MD, said in an interview.
Heart failure is a perfect case example to examine telehealth because the chronic condition not only requires continual assessment and medication adjustments, but HF patients are also particularly vulnerable to complications related to COVID-19 infection, he noted. A small, single-center report on telehealth early in Italy’s outbreak showed fewer HF hospitalizations and similar mortality, compared with in-person visits in 2019 but, overall, few data exist.
The current analysis took a wider sweep, comparing HF patients seen from March 15 to June 15, 2020 with those seen during the same time period in 2018 and 2019 at 16 cardiology clinics in Saint Luke’s Health System, which serves the Kansas City metro area and surrounding suburbs in Missouri and Kansas.
Among 8,263 unique patients and 15,421 visits identified, telehealth was not used in 2018 or 2019 but accounted for 88.5% of visits during the study period in 2020, 70% of which were by telephone and 30% of which were by video.
“We had zero telehealth before March 2020 and basically built an entire telehealth apparatus in a week or 2,” explained Dr. Sperry. “Initially it was a lot of telephone visits while we were getting the video stuff figured out, which is reflected in the paper, and then went to mostly video visits.”
Despite the pandemic, however, more outpatients were seen in 2020 than in 2018 and 2019 (4,063 vs. 3675 and 3,619 patients, respectively). This likely reflects the shift of personnel and resources from hospital duties to outpatient virtual visits, which were strongly recommended by the Heart Failure Society of America and other professional societies to manage patients during the pandemic, he said.
Unadjusted analyses demonstrated fewer ED visits and hospital admissions and more ICU admissions and all-cause mortality in 2020 than in previous years.
A propensity-matched analysis involving 4541 pairs of patients, however, showed admissions to the ED or hospital were lower after the telehealth visits than after in-person visits at 30 days (6.8% vs 10.4%; P < .001) and 90 days (17.9% vs. 23.3%; P < .001).
Among hospitalized patients, there was no difference between telehealth and in-patient visits in ICU admissions at 30 or 90 days. Mortality was also similar at 30 days (0.8% vs. 0.7%; P = .465) and 90 days (2.9% vs. 2.4%; P = .133).
Dr. Sperry said the pendulum has swung since 2020 and that the team is back to seeing most people in person, with about 15% of his clinic visits that day done via video. Standardized quality of life assessments prior to outpatient visits can help triage patients to telehealth in-patient visits, but in-person visits will still be needed for cases with greater acuity, older patients, and those with limited or no access to quality telephone videos or the internet.
“It isn’t for everyone,” Dr. Sperry said. “You’re going to need some kind of hybrid model with both in-person and video visits available and be able to offer both for patients and be able to titrate that as the pandemic changes in the future.”
Ankit Bhatia, MD, an advanced HF cardiologist at Christ Hospital in Cincinnati, who was not part of the study, said in an interview the use of telehealth in 85% of patients may be higher than the norm at most centers but that the study provides much-needed data.
“I’m really appreciative of a study like this because we were all in such a rush last year to get patients seen that very few people thought how could we design a study to really ensure we’re treating our patients within an equipoise with prior practices,” he said.
“The fact that they were able to do that [85%] and demonstrate in a propensity-matched analysis that outcomes were similar really just shows that telehealth is a strategy that we can use well in patients with heart failure to extend our ability to take care of them,” said Dr. Bhatia, a member of the American College of Cardiology Health Care Innovation Council.
Even beyond the pandemic, he said, the trend in health care is for patients to want health care delivered closer to home and for health care systems to become more patient centric. “This accelerated that but what I think this study showed me was that it’s okay to have this be part of my care model and I’m not sacrificing on my patient care if I choose to intersperse telehealth with inpatient visits.”
Besides the inherent limitations of retrospective studies, the authors noted that diagnoses in the study were based on ICD-10 codes and that subsequent ED visits or hospitalizations outside the single system may have been underreported. A further limitation is that they could not identify the cause of death or reasons for hospital encounters.
“Further data are needed to confirm the relative safety of a telehealth strategy in the HF population over a more sustained period of time, although we hypothesize that greater risks would be observed early after telehealth visits, where patients’ acuity might be misjudged,” they wrote.
Dr. Sperry is a consultant to Pfizer and Alnylam. Coauthor John A. Spertus is the principal investigator of grants from National Institutes of Health, Abbott Vascular, and the American College of Cardiology Foundation; is a consultant to Janssen, Novartis, Amgen, Myokardia, AstraZeneca, Bayer, and Merck; serves on the scientific advisory board of United Healthcare and the board of directors for Blue Cross Blue Shield of Kansas City; owns the copyright to the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire, Seattle Angina Questionnaire, and Peripheral Artery Questionnaire; and has an equity interest in Health Outcomes Sciences. All other authors and Dr. Bhatia reported no relevant conflicts.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.