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.
How to talk to patients reluctant to get a COVID-19 vaccine
Family physician Mitchell A. Kaminski, MD, MBA, was still awash in feelings of joy and relief at recently being vaccinated against COVID-19 when a patient’s comments stopped him cold. The patient, a middle-aged man with several comorbidities had just declined the pneumonia vaccine – and he added, without prompting, that he wouldn’t be getting the COVID vaccine either. This patient had heard getting vaccinated could kill him.
Dr. Kaminski countered with medical facts, including that the very rare side effects hadn’t killed anyone in the United States but COVID was killing thousands of people every day. “Well then, I’ll just risk getting COVID,” Dr. Kaminski recalled the patient saying. Conversation over.
That experience caused Dr. Kaminski, who is program director for population health at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, to rethink the way he talks to patients who are uncertain or skeptical about getting a COVID-19 vaccine. Now, if he saw that patient who seemed fearful of dying from a vaccination, Dr. Kaminski said he would be more curious.
Instead of outright contradicting the beliefs of a patient who is reluctant to get vaccinated, Dr. Kaminski now gently asks about the reasons for their discomfort and offers information about the vaccines. But mostly, he listens.
Conversations between physicians and patients about the risks that come with getting a COVID-19 vaccine are becoming more common in general as eligibility for immunizations expands.
About 80% of Americans say that they are most likely to turn to doctors, nurses and other health professionals for help in deciding whether to get the COVID vaccine, according to research by the Kaiser Family Foundation.
Getting beyond the distrust
While patients often feel a strong connection with their health providers, distrust in the medical establishment still exists, especially among some populations. The Kaiser Family Foundation reported that a third of Black respondents are taking a “wait-and-see” approach, while 23% said they will get it only if it’s required – or not at all.
Distrust persists from historical racist events in medicine, such as the infamous Tuskegee experiments in which treatment was withheld from Black men with syphilis. But physicians shouldn’t assume that all Black patients have the same reasons for vaccine hesitancy, said Krys Foster, MD, MPH, a family physician at Thomas Jefferson University.
“In my experience caring for patients who are uncertain or have concerns about receiving the vaccine, I’ve learned that many are just seeking more information, or even my approval to say that it is safe to proceed given their medical history,” she said.
Sources such as the COVID Racial Data Tracker have found that Black Americans have a higher COVID death rate than other racial or ethnic groups, making vaccination even more vital. Yet fear of the vaccine could be triggered by misinformation that can be found in various places online, Dr. Foster said.
To encourage people to get vaccinated and dispel false information, Dr. Foster takes time to discuss how safe it is to get a COVID-19 vaccine and the vaccines’ side effects, then quickly pivots to discussing how to get vaccinated.
It can be difficult for some people to find appointments or access testing sites. The failure to get the vaccine shouldn’t automatically be attributed to “hesitancy,” she said. “The onus is on the medical community to help fix the health injustices inflicted on communities of color by providing equitable information and access and stop placing blame on them for having the ‘wrong’ vaccine attitude.”
Give your testimonial
Jamie Loehr, MD, of Cayuga Family Medicine in Ithaca, N.Y., said he has always had a higher-than-average number of patients who refused or delayed their children’s vaccines. He does not kick them out of his practice but politely continues to educate them about the vaccines.
When patients ask Dr. Loehr if he trusts the vaccine, he responds with confidence: “I not only believe in it, I got it and I recommend it to anyone who can possibly get it.”
He was surprised recently when a mother who has expressed reluctance to vaccinate her young children came for a checkup and told him she had already received a COVID vaccine. “She made the decision on her own that this was important enough that she wanted to get it,” he said.
Health care worker hesitancy
Some health care workers’ unease about being at the front of the line for vaccines may be another source of vaccine hesitancy among members of the general population that physicians need to address. In a survey of almost 3,500 health care workers conducted in October and November 2020 and published in January 2021 in Vaccines, only about a third (36%) said they would get the vaccine as soon as it became available. By mid- to late-February, 54% of health care workers reported having been vaccinated and another 10% planned to get the vaccine as soon as possible, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation COVID-19 Vaccine Monitor.
Resolving doubts about the vaccines requires a thoughtful approach toward health care colleagues, said Eileen Barrett, MD, MPH, an internist and hospitalist who was a coauthor of the Vaccines paper and who serves on the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. “We should meet people where they are and do our best to hear their concerns, listening thoughtfully without condescension. Validate how important their role is in endorsing vaccination and also validate asking questions.”
There’s power in the strong personal testimonial of physicians and other health care workers – not just to influence patients, but as a model for fellow health professionals, as well, noted Dr. Barrett, who cares for COVID-19 patients and is associate professor in the division of hospital medicine, department of internal medicine, at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.
‘Do it for your loved ones’
The Reagan-Udall Foundation, a nonprofit organization created by Congress to support the Food and Drug Administration, tested some messaging with focus groups. Participants responded favorably to this statement about why the vaccines were developed so quickly: “Vaccine development moved faster than normal because everyone’s making it their highest priority.”
People did not feel motivated to get the vaccine out of a sense of civic duty, said Susan Winckler, RPh, Esq, who is CEO of the foundation. But they did think the following was a good reason to get vaccinated: “By getting a vaccine, I could protect my children, my parents, and other loved ones.”
Physicians also can work with community influencers, such as faith leaders, to build confidence in vaccines. That’s part of the strategy of Roll Up Your Sleeves, a campaign spearheaded by agilon health, a company that partners with physician practices to develop value-based care for Medicare Advantage patients.
For example, Wilmington Health in North Carolina answered questions about the vaccines in Facebook Live events and created a Spanish-language video to boost vaccine confidence in the Latinx community. Additionally, PriMED Physicians in Dayton, Ohio, reached out to Black churches to provide a vaccine-awareness video and a PriMED doctor participated in a webinar sponsored by the Nigerian Women Cultural Organization to help dispel myths about COVID-19 and the vaccines.
“This is a way to deepen our relationship with our patients,” said Ben Kornitzer, MD, chief medical officer of agilon. “It’s helping to walk them through this door where on one side is the pandemic and social isolation and on the other side is a return to their life and loved ones.”
The messages provided by primary care physicians can be powerful and affirming, said Ms. Winckler.
“The path forward is to make a space for people to ask questions,” she continued, noting that the Reagan-Udall Foundation provides charts that show how the timeline for vaccine development was compressed without skipping any steps.
Strategies and background information on how to reinforce confidence in COVID-19 vaccines are also available on a page of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s website.
None of the experts interviewed reported any relevant conflicts of interest. The Reagan-Udall Foundation has received sponsorships from Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca and has had a safety surveillance contract with Pfizer.
Family physician Mitchell A. Kaminski, MD, MBA, was still awash in feelings of joy and relief at recently being vaccinated against COVID-19 when a patient’s comments stopped him cold. The patient, a middle-aged man with several comorbidities had just declined the pneumonia vaccine – and he added, without prompting, that he wouldn’t be getting the COVID vaccine either. This patient had heard getting vaccinated could kill him.
Dr. Kaminski countered with medical facts, including that the very rare side effects hadn’t killed anyone in the United States but COVID was killing thousands of people every day. “Well then, I’ll just risk getting COVID,” Dr. Kaminski recalled the patient saying. Conversation over.
That experience caused Dr. Kaminski, who is program director for population health at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, to rethink the way he talks to patients who are uncertain or skeptical about getting a COVID-19 vaccine. Now, if he saw that patient who seemed fearful of dying from a vaccination, Dr. Kaminski said he would be more curious.
Instead of outright contradicting the beliefs of a patient who is reluctant to get vaccinated, Dr. Kaminski now gently asks about the reasons for their discomfort and offers information about the vaccines. But mostly, he listens.
Conversations between physicians and patients about the risks that come with getting a COVID-19 vaccine are becoming more common in general as eligibility for immunizations expands.
About 80% of Americans say that they are most likely to turn to doctors, nurses and other health professionals for help in deciding whether to get the COVID vaccine, according to research by the Kaiser Family Foundation.
Getting beyond the distrust
While patients often feel a strong connection with their health providers, distrust in the medical establishment still exists, especially among some populations. The Kaiser Family Foundation reported that a third of Black respondents are taking a “wait-and-see” approach, while 23% said they will get it only if it’s required – or not at all.
Distrust persists from historical racist events in medicine, such as the infamous Tuskegee experiments in which treatment was withheld from Black men with syphilis. But physicians shouldn’t assume that all Black patients have the same reasons for vaccine hesitancy, said Krys Foster, MD, MPH, a family physician at Thomas Jefferson University.
“In my experience caring for patients who are uncertain or have concerns about receiving the vaccine, I’ve learned that many are just seeking more information, or even my approval to say that it is safe to proceed given their medical history,” she said.
Sources such as the COVID Racial Data Tracker have found that Black Americans have a higher COVID death rate than other racial or ethnic groups, making vaccination even more vital. Yet fear of the vaccine could be triggered by misinformation that can be found in various places online, Dr. Foster said.
To encourage people to get vaccinated and dispel false information, Dr. Foster takes time to discuss how safe it is to get a COVID-19 vaccine and the vaccines’ side effects, then quickly pivots to discussing how to get vaccinated.
It can be difficult for some people to find appointments or access testing sites. The failure to get the vaccine shouldn’t automatically be attributed to “hesitancy,” she said. “The onus is on the medical community to help fix the health injustices inflicted on communities of color by providing equitable information and access and stop placing blame on them for having the ‘wrong’ vaccine attitude.”
Give your testimonial
Jamie Loehr, MD, of Cayuga Family Medicine in Ithaca, N.Y., said he has always had a higher-than-average number of patients who refused or delayed their children’s vaccines. He does not kick them out of his practice but politely continues to educate them about the vaccines.
When patients ask Dr. Loehr if he trusts the vaccine, he responds with confidence: “I not only believe in it, I got it and I recommend it to anyone who can possibly get it.”
He was surprised recently when a mother who has expressed reluctance to vaccinate her young children came for a checkup and told him she had already received a COVID vaccine. “She made the decision on her own that this was important enough that she wanted to get it,” he said.
Health care worker hesitancy
Some health care workers’ unease about being at the front of the line for vaccines may be another source of vaccine hesitancy among members of the general population that physicians need to address. In a survey of almost 3,500 health care workers conducted in October and November 2020 and published in January 2021 in Vaccines, only about a third (36%) said they would get the vaccine as soon as it became available. By mid- to late-February, 54% of health care workers reported having been vaccinated and another 10% planned to get the vaccine as soon as possible, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation COVID-19 Vaccine Monitor.
Resolving doubts about the vaccines requires a thoughtful approach toward health care colleagues, said Eileen Barrett, MD, MPH, an internist and hospitalist who was a coauthor of the Vaccines paper and who serves on the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. “We should meet people where they are and do our best to hear their concerns, listening thoughtfully without condescension. Validate how important their role is in endorsing vaccination and also validate asking questions.”
There’s power in the strong personal testimonial of physicians and other health care workers – not just to influence patients, but as a model for fellow health professionals, as well, noted Dr. Barrett, who cares for COVID-19 patients and is associate professor in the division of hospital medicine, department of internal medicine, at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.
‘Do it for your loved ones’
The Reagan-Udall Foundation, a nonprofit organization created by Congress to support the Food and Drug Administration, tested some messaging with focus groups. Participants responded favorably to this statement about why the vaccines were developed so quickly: “Vaccine development moved faster than normal because everyone’s making it their highest priority.”
People did not feel motivated to get the vaccine out of a sense of civic duty, said Susan Winckler, RPh, Esq, who is CEO of the foundation. But they did think the following was a good reason to get vaccinated: “By getting a vaccine, I could protect my children, my parents, and other loved ones.”
Physicians also can work with community influencers, such as faith leaders, to build confidence in vaccines. That’s part of the strategy of Roll Up Your Sleeves, a campaign spearheaded by agilon health, a company that partners with physician practices to develop value-based care for Medicare Advantage patients.
For example, Wilmington Health in North Carolina answered questions about the vaccines in Facebook Live events and created a Spanish-language video to boost vaccine confidence in the Latinx community. Additionally, PriMED Physicians in Dayton, Ohio, reached out to Black churches to provide a vaccine-awareness video and a PriMED doctor participated in a webinar sponsored by the Nigerian Women Cultural Organization to help dispel myths about COVID-19 and the vaccines.
“This is a way to deepen our relationship with our patients,” said Ben Kornitzer, MD, chief medical officer of agilon. “It’s helping to walk them through this door where on one side is the pandemic and social isolation and on the other side is a return to their life and loved ones.”
The messages provided by primary care physicians can be powerful and affirming, said Ms. Winckler.
“The path forward is to make a space for people to ask questions,” she continued, noting that the Reagan-Udall Foundation provides charts that show how the timeline for vaccine development was compressed without skipping any steps.
Strategies and background information on how to reinforce confidence in COVID-19 vaccines are also available on a page of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s website.
None of the experts interviewed reported any relevant conflicts of interest. The Reagan-Udall Foundation has received sponsorships from Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca and has had a safety surveillance contract with Pfizer.
Family physician Mitchell A. Kaminski, MD, MBA, was still awash in feelings of joy and relief at recently being vaccinated against COVID-19 when a patient’s comments stopped him cold. The patient, a middle-aged man with several comorbidities had just declined the pneumonia vaccine – and he added, without prompting, that he wouldn’t be getting the COVID vaccine either. This patient had heard getting vaccinated could kill him.
Dr. Kaminski countered with medical facts, including that the very rare side effects hadn’t killed anyone in the United States but COVID was killing thousands of people every day. “Well then, I’ll just risk getting COVID,” Dr. Kaminski recalled the patient saying. Conversation over.
That experience caused Dr. Kaminski, who is program director for population health at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, to rethink the way he talks to patients who are uncertain or skeptical about getting a COVID-19 vaccine. Now, if he saw that patient who seemed fearful of dying from a vaccination, Dr. Kaminski said he would be more curious.
Instead of outright contradicting the beliefs of a patient who is reluctant to get vaccinated, Dr. Kaminski now gently asks about the reasons for their discomfort and offers information about the vaccines. But mostly, he listens.
Conversations between physicians and patients about the risks that come with getting a COVID-19 vaccine are becoming more common in general as eligibility for immunizations expands.
About 80% of Americans say that they are most likely to turn to doctors, nurses and other health professionals for help in deciding whether to get the COVID vaccine, according to research by the Kaiser Family Foundation.
Getting beyond the distrust
While patients often feel a strong connection with their health providers, distrust in the medical establishment still exists, especially among some populations. The Kaiser Family Foundation reported that a third of Black respondents are taking a “wait-and-see” approach, while 23% said they will get it only if it’s required – or not at all.
Distrust persists from historical racist events in medicine, such as the infamous Tuskegee experiments in which treatment was withheld from Black men with syphilis. But physicians shouldn’t assume that all Black patients have the same reasons for vaccine hesitancy, said Krys Foster, MD, MPH, a family physician at Thomas Jefferson University.
“In my experience caring for patients who are uncertain or have concerns about receiving the vaccine, I’ve learned that many are just seeking more information, or even my approval to say that it is safe to proceed given their medical history,” she said.
Sources such as the COVID Racial Data Tracker have found that Black Americans have a higher COVID death rate than other racial or ethnic groups, making vaccination even more vital. Yet fear of the vaccine could be triggered by misinformation that can be found in various places online, Dr. Foster said.
To encourage people to get vaccinated and dispel false information, Dr. Foster takes time to discuss how safe it is to get a COVID-19 vaccine and the vaccines’ side effects, then quickly pivots to discussing how to get vaccinated.
It can be difficult for some people to find appointments or access testing sites. The failure to get the vaccine shouldn’t automatically be attributed to “hesitancy,” she said. “The onus is on the medical community to help fix the health injustices inflicted on communities of color by providing equitable information and access and stop placing blame on them for having the ‘wrong’ vaccine attitude.”
Give your testimonial
Jamie Loehr, MD, of Cayuga Family Medicine in Ithaca, N.Y., said he has always had a higher-than-average number of patients who refused or delayed their children’s vaccines. He does not kick them out of his practice but politely continues to educate them about the vaccines.
When patients ask Dr. Loehr if he trusts the vaccine, he responds with confidence: “I not only believe in it, I got it and I recommend it to anyone who can possibly get it.”
He was surprised recently when a mother who has expressed reluctance to vaccinate her young children came for a checkup and told him she had already received a COVID vaccine. “She made the decision on her own that this was important enough that she wanted to get it,” he said.
Health care worker hesitancy
Some health care workers’ unease about being at the front of the line for vaccines may be another source of vaccine hesitancy among members of the general population that physicians need to address. In a survey of almost 3,500 health care workers conducted in October and November 2020 and published in January 2021 in Vaccines, only about a third (36%) said they would get the vaccine as soon as it became available. By mid- to late-February, 54% of health care workers reported having been vaccinated and another 10% planned to get the vaccine as soon as possible, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation COVID-19 Vaccine Monitor.
Resolving doubts about the vaccines requires a thoughtful approach toward health care colleagues, said Eileen Barrett, MD, MPH, an internist and hospitalist who was a coauthor of the Vaccines paper and who serves on the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. “We should meet people where they are and do our best to hear their concerns, listening thoughtfully without condescension. Validate how important their role is in endorsing vaccination and also validate asking questions.”
There’s power in the strong personal testimonial of physicians and other health care workers – not just to influence patients, but as a model for fellow health professionals, as well, noted Dr. Barrett, who cares for COVID-19 patients and is associate professor in the division of hospital medicine, department of internal medicine, at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.
‘Do it for your loved ones’
The Reagan-Udall Foundation, a nonprofit organization created by Congress to support the Food and Drug Administration, tested some messaging with focus groups. Participants responded favorably to this statement about why the vaccines were developed so quickly: “Vaccine development moved faster than normal because everyone’s making it their highest priority.”
People did not feel motivated to get the vaccine out of a sense of civic duty, said Susan Winckler, RPh, Esq, who is CEO of the foundation. But they did think the following was a good reason to get vaccinated: “By getting a vaccine, I could protect my children, my parents, and other loved ones.”
Physicians also can work with community influencers, such as faith leaders, to build confidence in vaccines. That’s part of the strategy of Roll Up Your Sleeves, a campaign spearheaded by agilon health, a company that partners with physician practices to develop value-based care for Medicare Advantage patients.
For example, Wilmington Health in North Carolina answered questions about the vaccines in Facebook Live events and created a Spanish-language video to boost vaccine confidence in the Latinx community. Additionally, PriMED Physicians in Dayton, Ohio, reached out to Black churches to provide a vaccine-awareness video and a PriMED doctor participated in a webinar sponsored by the Nigerian Women Cultural Organization to help dispel myths about COVID-19 and the vaccines.
“This is a way to deepen our relationship with our patients,” said Ben Kornitzer, MD, chief medical officer of agilon. “It’s helping to walk them through this door where on one side is the pandemic and social isolation and on the other side is a return to their life and loved ones.”
The messages provided by primary care physicians can be powerful and affirming, said Ms. Winckler.
“The path forward is to make a space for people to ask questions,” she continued, noting that the Reagan-Udall Foundation provides charts that show how the timeline for vaccine development was compressed without skipping any steps.
Strategies and background information on how to reinforce confidence in COVID-19 vaccines are also available on a page of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s website.
None of the experts interviewed reported any relevant conflicts of interest. The Reagan-Udall Foundation has received sponsorships from Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca and has had a safety surveillance contract with Pfizer.
Imaging alternative to AVS could boost detection of primary aldosteronism
A noninvasive imaging method for identifying whether the source of a patient’s primary aldosteronism is from unilateral or bilateral adrenal adenomas worked as well as the standard method, invasive adrenal vein sampling, in a head-to-head comparison with 143 patients.
This noninvasive alternative, which also does not require the substantial technical expertise that AVS demands, should make assessment of adenoma laterality in patients with primary aldosteronism (PA) much more widely available and accessible, predicted Dr. Wu, a researcher at Queen Mary University of London.
“It will allow more places to do this, and I think it will definitely allow more patients to be diagnosed” with PA from a unilateral source. AVS “is a real bottleneck,” she said. “We hope metomidate, or molecular imaging using other selective radiotracers, will enable many more patients to be diagnosed and appropriately managed.” Creating new diagnostic options for patients with PA and potentially increasing the number of these patients who are surgical candidates “is the aim of this study.”
Patients with PA develop a curable form of hypertension if their excess aldosterone can be neutralized with a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA), or even more definitively by surgical removal of the adrenal aldosteronoma generating the hormonal excess as long as the adenoma is unilateral. Conventional imaging of the adrenals with CT or MRI has proven unreliable for identifying adrenal nodules noninvasively, which has made the invasive and technically challenging standard option of AVS the only game in town.
But some endocrinologists caution that the results from this one study do not suffice to make 11C-metomidate-based PET-CT imaging a widely used alternative.
‘This is a first step.’
“This study is a first step. It will take lots more data for endocrinologists to buy into a scan over AVS,” commented David A. D’Alessio, MD, professor and chief of the division of endocrinology and metabolism at Duke University in Durham, N.C.
But Dr. D’Alessio also acknowledged the clear benefits from a safe and effective alternative to AVS.
“A reliable, less invasive, and less technical means of lateralizing excess aldosterone production would increase the number of people [with a unilateral PA source] going to surgery. The reality is that, if you are not a patient at the Mayo Clinic . . .or the National Institutes of Health, then AVS is a bit of crap shoot” that is very operator and institution dependent for its accuracy, Dr. D’Alessio said in an interview.
Metomidate specifically binds to key enzymes of the adrenal corticosteroid biosynthetic pathway, making it a precise targeting agent for a radioactive tag as documented almost a decade ago. One limitation is that this radiotracer labeling of metomidate has a 20-minute half life, which means it must be produced on site, thereby making the technology out of reach for locations that can’t set up this capability.
MATCHing imaging against AVS
To test the clinical utility of metomidate-based PET-CT directly against AVS, Dr. Wu and her associates enrolled 143 adults with confirmed PA and hypertension at two centers in London and one in Cambridge, England. The MATCH study cohort averaged 53 years of age; two-thirds were men, 58% were White, and 30% were Black. Their median blood pressure was 147/91 mm Hg, and they were maintained on a median of two antihypertensive drugs.
The researchers assessed every patient with both the imaging method and AVS, performed in random order and blindly scored. They then began each patient on a 1-month regimen with an MRA (usually spironolactone but eplerenone [Inspra] was also an option) to test the responsiveness of each patient’s hypertension to this drug class and to gauge their likely response to adrenalectomy. After the MRA test, the researchers assessed the lateralization tests and determined that 78 patients were appropriate candidates for unilateral adrenalectomy while the remaining 65 patients were not and continued on the MRA regimen. They recommended surgery if patients were clear positives by AVS, by PET-CT imaging, or both.
The study had four primary outcomes to assess the ability of the two diagnostic methods to predict the success of surgery based on four increasingly stringent postsurgical criteria calculated in hierarchical sequence: Partial or complete biochemical success, complete biochemical success, partial or complete clinical success (partial meaning any significant reduction in blood pressure), or complete clinical success (systolic pressure reduced to less than 135 mm Hg). Only one of the 78 patients treated with surgery failed to achieve at least a partial biochemical response.
For each of the four metrics, 11C-metomidate PET-CT produced point estimates of diagnostic accuracy that consistently edged out AVS. While these advantages were not large enough to meet the prespecified threshold for proving superiority, they comfortably showed the noninferiority of this imaging method compared with AVS.
For example, the PET-CT method had 43.6% accuracy for predicting a clinical cure, compared with 39.7% accuracy for AVS. For complete biochemical cure, imaging had 68.8% accuracy, compared with 62.3% for AVS, Dr. Wu reported.
Another notable finding from the study was how strongly a robust blood pressure response to spironolactone predicted the clinical outcome from surgery. Patients whose systolic blood pressure fell below 135 mm Hg on MRA treatment had a nearly 18-fold higher rate of achieving a complete clinical cure following surgery compared with patients who did not have as dramatic a blood pressure response to MRA treatment.
Woefully low rates of PA assessment
But regardless of the success that PET-CT imaging has for identifying surgical candidates, the first step is to identify patients with PA, a diagnosis that’s woefully underperformed worldwide. One example: A separate report at ENDO 2021 retrospectively reviewed nearly 12,000 patients with hypertension and an indication of PA, such as treatment-resistant hypertension or early-onset hypertension, and managed at either of two university outpatient clinics in Michigan during 2010-2019. The report documented that 3% underwent PA assessment.
Diagnosis of patients with PA “is a major problem,” noted Dr. D’Alessio. “I think of PA as an underdiagnosed and undertreated condition, with a huge impact on morbidity and mortality. Any advance in this area is likely to be useful.” But, he added, “I’m dubious whether this [new imaging approach] will increase diagnosis of PA.” What’s needed is “getting more primary care physicians to do more screening” for PA among their patients with hypertension and a suggestion of a PA cause.
“Surgical cures are glamorous, but medical management is also very effective, and we have good, inexpensive drugs to do this,” the MRAs, Dr. D’Alessio said.
The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Wu and her coauthors had no disclosures. Dr. D’Alessio has been a speaker on behalf of Novo Nordisk, a consultant to Intarcia and Lilly, and has received research funding from Lilly and Merck.
A noninvasive imaging method for identifying whether the source of a patient’s primary aldosteronism is from unilateral or bilateral adrenal adenomas worked as well as the standard method, invasive adrenal vein sampling, in a head-to-head comparison with 143 patients.
This noninvasive alternative, which also does not require the substantial technical expertise that AVS demands, should make assessment of adenoma laterality in patients with primary aldosteronism (PA) much more widely available and accessible, predicted Dr. Wu, a researcher at Queen Mary University of London.
“It will allow more places to do this, and I think it will definitely allow more patients to be diagnosed” with PA from a unilateral source. AVS “is a real bottleneck,” she said. “We hope metomidate, or molecular imaging using other selective radiotracers, will enable many more patients to be diagnosed and appropriately managed.” Creating new diagnostic options for patients with PA and potentially increasing the number of these patients who are surgical candidates “is the aim of this study.”
Patients with PA develop a curable form of hypertension if their excess aldosterone can be neutralized with a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA), or even more definitively by surgical removal of the adrenal aldosteronoma generating the hormonal excess as long as the adenoma is unilateral. Conventional imaging of the adrenals with CT or MRI has proven unreliable for identifying adrenal nodules noninvasively, which has made the invasive and technically challenging standard option of AVS the only game in town.
But some endocrinologists caution that the results from this one study do not suffice to make 11C-metomidate-based PET-CT imaging a widely used alternative.
‘This is a first step.’
“This study is a first step. It will take lots more data for endocrinologists to buy into a scan over AVS,” commented David A. D’Alessio, MD, professor and chief of the division of endocrinology and metabolism at Duke University in Durham, N.C.
But Dr. D’Alessio also acknowledged the clear benefits from a safe and effective alternative to AVS.
“A reliable, less invasive, and less technical means of lateralizing excess aldosterone production would increase the number of people [with a unilateral PA source] going to surgery. The reality is that, if you are not a patient at the Mayo Clinic . . .or the National Institutes of Health, then AVS is a bit of crap shoot” that is very operator and institution dependent for its accuracy, Dr. D’Alessio said in an interview.
Metomidate specifically binds to key enzymes of the adrenal corticosteroid biosynthetic pathway, making it a precise targeting agent for a radioactive tag as documented almost a decade ago. One limitation is that this radiotracer labeling of metomidate has a 20-minute half life, which means it must be produced on site, thereby making the technology out of reach for locations that can’t set up this capability.
MATCHing imaging against AVS
To test the clinical utility of metomidate-based PET-CT directly against AVS, Dr. Wu and her associates enrolled 143 adults with confirmed PA and hypertension at two centers in London and one in Cambridge, England. The MATCH study cohort averaged 53 years of age; two-thirds were men, 58% were White, and 30% were Black. Their median blood pressure was 147/91 mm Hg, and they were maintained on a median of two antihypertensive drugs.
The researchers assessed every patient with both the imaging method and AVS, performed in random order and blindly scored. They then began each patient on a 1-month regimen with an MRA (usually spironolactone but eplerenone [Inspra] was also an option) to test the responsiveness of each patient’s hypertension to this drug class and to gauge their likely response to adrenalectomy. After the MRA test, the researchers assessed the lateralization tests and determined that 78 patients were appropriate candidates for unilateral adrenalectomy while the remaining 65 patients were not and continued on the MRA regimen. They recommended surgery if patients were clear positives by AVS, by PET-CT imaging, or both.
The study had four primary outcomes to assess the ability of the two diagnostic methods to predict the success of surgery based on four increasingly stringent postsurgical criteria calculated in hierarchical sequence: Partial or complete biochemical success, complete biochemical success, partial or complete clinical success (partial meaning any significant reduction in blood pressure), or complete clinical success (systolic pressure reduced to less than 135 mm Hg). Only one of the 78 patients treated with surgery failed to achieve at least a partial biochemical response.
For each of the four metrics, 11C-metomidate PET-CT produced point estimates of diagnostic accuracy that consistently edged out AVS. While these advantages were not large enough to meet the prespecified threshold for proving superiority, they comfortably showed the noninferiority of this imaging method compared with AVS.
For example, the PET-CT method had 43.6% accuracy for predicting a clinical cure, compared with 39.7% accuracy for AVS. For complete biochemical cure, imaging had 68.8% accuracy, compared with 62.3% for AVS, Dr. Wu reported.
Another notable finding from the study was how strongly a robust blood pressure response to spironolactone predicted the clinical outcome from surgery. Patients whose systolic blood pressure fell below 135 mm Hg on MRA treatment had a nearly 18-fold higher rate of achieving a complete clinical cure following surgery compared with patients who did not have as dramatic a blood pressure response to MRA treatment.
Woefully low rates of PA assessment
But regardless of the success that PET-CT imaging has for identifying surgical candidates, the first step is to identify patients with PA, a diagnosis that’s woefully underperformed worldwide. One example: A separate report at ENDO 2021 retrospectively reviewed nearly 12,000 patients with hypertension and an indication of PA, such as treatment-resistant hypertension or early-onset hypertension, and managed at either of two university outpatient clinics in Michigan during 2010-2019. The report documented that 3% underwent PA assessment.
Diagnosis of patients with PA “is a major problem,” noted Dr. D’Alessio. “I think of PA as an underdiagnosed and undertreated condition, with a huge impact on morbidity and mortality. Any advance in this area is likely to be useful.” But, he added, “I’m dubious whether this [new imaging approach] will increase diagnosis of PA.” What’s needed is “getting more primary care physicians to do more screening” for PA among their patients with hypertension and a suggestion of a PA cause.
“Surgical cures are glamorous, but medical management is also very effective, and we have good, inexpensive drugs to do this,” the MRAs, Dr. D’Alessio said.
The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Wu and her coauthors had no disclosures. Dr. D’Alessio has been a speaker on behalf of Novo Nordisk, a consultant to Intarcia and Lilly, and has received research funding from Lilly and Merck.
A noninvasive imaging method for identifying whether the source of a patient’s primary aldosteronism is from unilateral or bilateral adrenal adenomas worked as well as the standard method, invasive adrenal vein sampling, in a head-to-head comparison with 143 patients.
This noninvasive alternative, which also does not require the substantial technical expertise that AVS demands, should make assessment of adenoma laterality in patients with primary aldosteronism (PA) much more widely available and accessible, predicted Dr. Wu, a researcher at Queen Mary University of London.
“It will allow more places to do this, and I think it will definitely allow more patients to be diagnosed” with PA from a unilateral source. AVS “is a real bottleneck,” she said. “We hope metomidate, or molecular imaging using other selective radiotracers, will enable many more patients to be diagnosed and appropriately managed.” Creating new diagnostic options for patients with PA and potentially increasing the number of these patients who are surgical candidates “is the aim of this study.”
Patients with PA develop a curable form of hypertension if their excess aldosterone can be neutralized with a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA), or even more definitively by surgical removal of the adrenal aldosteronoma generating the hormonal excess as long as the adenoma is unilateral. Conventional imaging of the adrenals with CT or MRI has proven unreliable for identifying adrenal nodules noninvasively, which has made the invasive and technically challenging standard option of AVS the only game in town.
But some endocrinologists caution that the results from this one study do not suffice to make 11C-metomidate-based PET-CT imaging a widely used alternative.
‘This is a first step.’
“This study is a first step. It will take lots more data for endocrinologists to buy into a scan over AVS,” commented David A. D’Alessio, MD, professor and chief of the division of endocrinology and metabolism at Duke University in Durham, N.C.
But Dr. D’Alessio also acknowledged the clear benefits from a safe and effective alternative to AVS.
“A reliable, less invasive, and less technical means of lateralizing excess aldosterone production would increase the number of people [with a unilateral PA source] going to surgery. The reality is that, if you are not a patient at the Mayo Clinic . . .or the National Institutes of Health, then AVS is a bit of crap shoot” that is very operator and institution dependent for its accuracy, Dr. D’Alessio said in an interview.
Metomidate specifically binds to key enzymes of the adrenal corticosteroid biosynthetic pathway, making it a precise targeting agent for a radioactive tag as documented almost a decade ago. One limitation is that this radiotracer labeling of metomidate has a 20-minute half life, which means it must be produced on site, thereby making the technology out of reach for locations that can’t set up this capability.
MATCHing imaging against AVS
To test the clinical utility of metomidate-based PET-CT directly against AVS, Dr. Wu and her associates enrolled 143 adults with confirmed PA and hypertension at two centers in London and one in Cambridge, England. The MATCH study cohort averaged 53 years of age; two-thirds were men, 58% were White, and 30% were Black. Their median blood pressure was 147/91 mm Hg, and they were maintained on a median of two antihypertensive drugs.
The researchers assessed every patient with both the imaging method and AVS, performed in random order and blindly scored. They then began each patient on a 1-month regimen with an MRA (usually spironolactone but eplerenone [Inspra] was also an option) to test the responsiveness of each patient’s hypertension to this drug class and to gauge their likely response to adrenalectomy. After the MRA test, the researchers assessed the lateralization tests and determined that 78 patients were appropriate candidates for unilateral adrenalectomy while the remaining 65 patients were not and continued on the MRA regimen. They recommended surgery if patients were clear positives by AVS, by PET-CT imaging, or both.
The study had four primary outcomes to assess the ability of the two diagnostic methods to predict the success of surgery based on four increasingly stringent postsurgical criteria calculated in hierarchical sequence: Partial or complete biochemical success, complete biochemical success, partial or complete clinical success (partial meaning any significant reduction in blood pressure), or complete clinical success (systolic pressure reduced to less than 135 mm Hg). Only one of the 78 patients treated with surgery failed to achieve at least a partial biochemical response.
For each of the four metrics, 11C-metomidate PET-CT produced point estimates of diagnostic accuracy that consistently edged out AVS. While these advantages were not large enough to meet the prespecified threshold for proving superiority, they comfortably showed the noninferiority of this imaging method compared with AVS.
For example, the PET-CT method had 43.6% accuracy for predicting a clinical cure, compared with 39.7% accuracy for AVS. For complete biochemical cure, imaging had 68.8% accuracy, compared with 62.3% for AVS, Dr. Wu reported.
Another notable finding from the study was how strongly a robust blood pressure response to spironolactone predicted the clinical outcome from surgery. Patients whose systolic blood pressure fell below 135 mm Hg on MRA treatment had a nearly 18-fold higher rate of achieving a complete clinical cure following surgery compared with patients who did not have as dramatic a blood pressure response to MRA treatment.
Woefully low rates of PA assessment
But regardless of the success that PET-CT imaging has for identifying surgical candidates, the first step is to identify patients with PA, a diagnosis that’s woefully underperformed worldwide. One example: A separate report at ENDO 2021 retrospectively reviewed nearly 12,000 patients with hypertension and an indication of PA, such as treatment-resistant hypertension or early-onset hypertension, and managed at either of two university outpatient clinics in Michigan during 2010-2019. The report documented that 3% underwent PA assessment.
Diagnosis of patients with PA “is a major problem,” noted Dr. D’Alessio. “I think of PA as an underdiagnosed and undertreated condition, with a huge impact on morbidity and mortality. Any advance in this area is likely to be useful.” But, he added, “I’m dubious whether this [new imaging approach] will increase diagnosis of PA.” What’s needed is “getting more primary care physicians to do more screening” for PA among their patients with hypertension and a suggestion of a PA cause.
“Surgical cures are glamorous, but medical management is also very effective, and we have good, inexpensive drugs to do this,” the MRAs, Dr. D’Alessio said.
The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Wu and her coauthors had no disclosures. Dr. D’Alessio has been a speaker on behalf of Novo Nordisk, a consultant to Intarcia and Lilly, and has received research funding from Lilly and Merck.
FROM ENDO 2021
2021 match sets records: Who matched and who didn’t?
A total of 38,106 positions were offered, up 850 spots (2.3%) from 2020. Of those, 35,194 were first-year (PGY-1) positions, which was 928 more than the previous year (2.7%). A record 5,915 programs were part of the Match, 88 more than 2020.
“The application and recruitment cycle was upended as a result of the pandemic, yet the results of the Match continue to demonstrate strong and consistent outcomes for participants,” Donna L. Lamb, DHSc, MBA, BSN, NRMP president and CEO, said in a new release.
The report comes amid a year of Zoom interview fatigue, canceled testing, and virus fears and work-arounds, which the NMRP has never had to wrestle with since it was established in 1952.
Despite challenges, fill rates increased across the board. Of the 38,106 total positions offered, 36,179 were filled, representing a 2.6% increase over 2020. Of the 35,194 first-year positions available, 33,535 were filled, representing a 2.9% increase.
Those rates drove the percentage of all positions filled to 94.9% (up from 94.6%) and the percentage of PGY-1 positions filled to 94.8% (also up from 94.6%). There were 1,927 unfilled positions, a decline of 71 (3.6%) from 2020.
Primary care results strong
Of the first-year positions offered, 17,649 (49.6%) were in family medicine, internal medicine, and pediatrics. That’s an increase of 514 positions (3%) over 2020.
Of first-year positions offered in 2021, 16,860 (95.5%) were filled. U.S. seniors took 11,013 (65.3%) of those slots; that represents a slight decline (0.3%) from 2020. Family medicine saw a gain of 63 U.S. MD seniors who matched, and internal medicine saw a gain of 93 U.S. DO seniors who matched.
Some specialties filled all positions
PGY-1 specialties with 30 positions or more that filled all available positions include dermatology, medicine – emergency medicine, medicine – pediatrics, neurologic surgery, otolaryngology, integrated plastic surgery, and vascular surgery.*
PGY-1 specialties with 30 positions or more that filled more than 90% with U.S. seniors include dermatology (100%), medicine – emergency medicine (93.6%), medicine – pediatrics (93.5%), otolaryngology (93.2%), orthopedic surgery (92.8%), and integrated plastic surgery (90.4%).*
PGY-1 specialties with at least 30 positions that filled less than 50% with U.S. seniors include pathology (41.4 %) and surgery–preliminary (28%).
The number of U.S. citizen international medical graduates who submitted rank-ordered lists was 5,295, an increase of 128 (2.5%) over 2020 and the highest in 6 years; 3,152 of them matched to first-year positions, down two PGY-1 matched applicants over last year.
Full data are available on the NRMP’s website.
Correction, 3/22/21: An earlier version of this article misstated the affected specialties.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A total of 38,106 positions were offered, up 850 spots (2.3%) from 2020. Of those, 35,194 were first-year (PGY-1) positions, which was 928 more than the previous year (2.7%). A record 5,915 programs were part of the Match, 88 more than 2020.
“The application and recruitment cycle was upended as a result of the pandemic, yet the results of the Match continue to demonstrate strong and consistent outcomes for participants,” Donna L. Lamb, DHSc, MBA, BSN, NRMP president and CEO, said in a new release.
The report comes amid a year of Zoom interview fatigue, canceled testing, and virus fears and work-arounds, which the NMRP has never had to wrestle with since it was established in 1952.
Despite challenges, fill rates increased across the board. Of the 38,106 total positions offered, 36,179 were filled, representing a 2.6% increase over 2020. Of the 35,194 first-year positions available, 33,535 were filled, representing a 2.9% increase.
Those rates drove the percentage of all positions filled to 94.9% (up from 94.6%) and the percentage of PGY-1 positions filled to 94.8% (also up from 94.6%). There were 1,927 unfilled positions, a decline of 71 (3.6%) from 2020.
Primary care results strong
Of the first-year positions offered, 17,649 (49.6%) were in family medicine, internal medicine, and pediatrics. That’s an increase of 514 positions (3%) over 2020.
Of first-year positions offered in 2021, 16,860 (95.5%) were filled. U.S. seniors took 11,013 (65.3%) of those slots; that represents a slight decline (0.3%) from 2020. Family medicine saw a gain of 63 U.S. MD seniors who matched, and internal medicine saw a gain of 93 U.S. DO seniors who matched.
Some specialties filled all positions
PGY-1 specialties with 30 positions or more that filled all available positions include dermatology, medicine – emergency medicine, medicine – pediatrics, neurologic surgery, otolaryngology, integrated plastic surgery, and vascular surgery.*
PGY-1 specialties with 30 positions or more that filled more than 90% with U.S. seniors include dermatology (100%), medicine – emergency medicine (93.6%), medicine – pediatrics (93.5%), otolaryngology (93.2%), orthopedic surgery (92.8%), and integrated plastic surgery (90.4%).*
PGY-1 specialties with at least 30 positions that filled less than 50% with U.S. seniors include pathology (41.4 %) and surgery–preliminary (28%).
The number of U.S. citizen international medical graduates who submitted rank-ordered lists was 5,295, an increase of 128 (2.5%) over 2020 and the highest in 6 years; 3,152 of them matched to first-year positions, down two PGY-1 matched applicants over last year.
Full data are available on the NRMP’s website.
Correction, 3/22/21: An earlier version of this article misstated the affected specialties.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A total of 38,106 positions were offered, up 850 spots (2.3%) from 2020. Of those, 35,194 were first-year (PGY-1) positions, which was 928 more than the previous year (2.7%). A record 5,915 programs were part of the Match, 88 more than 2020.
“The application and recruitment cycle was upended as a result of the pandemic, yet the results of the Match continue to demonstrate strong and consistent outcomes for participants,” Donna L. Lamb, DHSc, MBA, BSN, NRMP president and CEO, said in a new release.
The report comes amid a year of Zoom interview fatigue, canceled testing, and virus fears and work-arounds, which the NMRP has never had to wrestle with since it was established in 1952.
Despite challenges, fill rates increased across the board. Of the 38,106 total positions offered, 36,179 were filled, representing a 2.6% increase over 2020. Of the 35,194 first-year positions available, 33,535 were filled, representing a 2.9% increase.
Those rates drove the percentage of all positions filled to 94.9% (up from 94.6%) and the percentage of PGY-1 positions filled to 94.8% (also up from 94.6%). There were 1,927 unfilled positions, a decline of 71 (3.6%) from 2020.
Primary care results strong
Of the first-year positions offered, 17,649 (49.6%) were in family medicine, internal medicine, and pediatrics. That’s an increase of 514 positions (3%) over 2020.
Of first-year positions offered in 2021, 16,860 (95.5%) were filled. U.S. seniors took 11,013 (65.3%) of those slots; that represents a slight decline (0.3%) from 2020. Family medicine saw a gain of 63 U.S. MD seniors who matched, and internal medicine saw a gain of 93 U.S. DO seniors who matched.
Some specialties filled all positions
PGY-1 specialties with 30 positions or more that filled all available positions include dermatology, medicine – emergency medicine, medicine – pediatrics, neurologic surgery, otolaryngology, integrated plastic surgery, and vascular surgery.*
PGY-1 specialties with 30 positions or more that filled more than 90% with U.S. seniors include dermatology (100%), medicine – emergency medicine (93.6%), medicine – pediatrics (93.5%), otolaryngology (93.2%), orthopedic surgery (92.8%), and integrated plastic surgery (90.4%).*
PGY-1 specialties with at least 30 positions that filled less than 50% with U.S. seniors include pathology (41.4 %) and surgery–preliminary (28%).
The number of U.S. citizen international medical graduates who submitted rank-ordered lists was 5,295, an increase of 128 (2.5%) over 2020 and the highest in 6 years; 3,152 of them matched to first-year positions, down two PGY-1 matched applicants over last year.
Full data are available on the NRMP’s website.
Correction, 3/22/21: An earlier version of this article misstated the affected specialties.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Dose-related AFib risk with omega-3 fatty acids?
There may be a dose-related risk for atrial fibrillation (AFib) with omega-3 fatty acid intake, data from four randomized clinical trials suggest.
The latest trial to evaluate the association, the VITAL-RHYTHM study, showed that using a low dose of omega-3 fatty acids or a vitamin D supplement had no significant effect on the risks of developing incident AFib.
The trial, first reported at last year’s American Heart Association meeting, was published online March 16 in the Journal of the American Medical Association.
Together with three other randomized clinical trials, however, these results suggest a possible dose-related effect of omega-3 fatty acids on the risk for AFib, an accompanying “Editor’s Note” suggests.
The note, by JAMA deputy editor Gregory Curfman, MD, points out that in the past 2 years, four randomized clinical trials have provided data on the risk of AFib with omega-3 fatty acid intake.
In the STRENGTH and REDUCE-IT trials, both of which evaluated high doses (4 g/day) of omega-3 fatty acids in patients with heart disease (or at high risk for it), there was a highly statistically significant increase in risk for AFib in the omega-3 groups vs. controls in both trials.
In the OMEMI trial in elderly patients with a recent myocardial infarction, an intermediate dose (1.8 g/day) of omega-3 fatty acids also showed an increase in AFib risk (hazard ratio, 1.84) but this was not significant. And now, the VITAL-RHYTHM trial shows no significant effect of a low dose (840 mg/day) of omega-3 fatty acids on the risk of developing AFib in a primary prevention population.
“Patients who choose to take omega-3 fatty acids, especially in high doses, should be informed of the risk of AF [AFib] and followed up for the possible development of this common and potentially hazardous arrhythmia,” Dr. Curfman concludes.
The authors of the VITAL-RHYTHM trial, led by Christine M. Albert, MD, MPH, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, Calif., explain that the trial was conducted after observational studies had shown that individuals with low blood levels of omega-3 fatty acids, eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), and vitamin D3 have higher risks of incident AFib, but data on dietary or supplemental intake of these nutrients on AFib risk were mixed.
“To our knowledge, this study is the first randomized, placebo-controlled trial to prospectively test the effect of any intervention on incident AF and is the only trial to test alternative upstream preventive agents for AF in a large enough population over a long enough time period to provide an assessment of the plausible benefits and risks,” they write.
The VITAL-RHYTHM study was an ancillary trial embedded within the Vitamin D and Omega-3 (VITAL) trial, which used a 2 x 2 factorial design to evaluate daily supplementation with 2,000 IU of vitamin D3 and/or 840 mg of marine omega-3 fatty acids (460 mg EPA and 380 mg DHA), in the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease and cancer in 25,871 men and women age 50 and older in the United States.
Results showed that over a median 5.3 years of treatment and follow-up, the primary endpoint of incident AFib occurred in 3.6% of the study population. For the omega-3 part of the trial, incident AFib events occurred in 3.7% of patients taking EPA/DHA vs. 3.4% of the placebo group, giving a hazard ratio of 1.09, which was not significant (P = .19).
For the vitamin D3 vs. placebo comparison, results were very similar, with incident AFib events occurring in 3.7% vs. 3.4% of participants, respectively, giving a hazard ratio of 1.09, which was again not significant (P = .19). There was no evidence for interaction between the two study agents.
“Overall, these findings do not support the use of supplemental EPA-DHA or vitamin D3 for the primary prevention of AFib and provide reassurance regarding lack of a major risk of AFib incidence associated with these commonly used supplements at these doses,” the authors conclude.
Noting that significant increases in AFib have been seen with much higher doses of omega-3 fatty acids in the REDUCE-IT and STRENGTH trials, they add: “Potentially, the adverse effect on AF risk may be dose related, and the higher dosages of EPA used in these other studies might account for the significant adverse effect on AF.”
The researchers say that, to their knowledge, this is the only randomized trial to assess the effect of vitamin D3 supplementation on AFib risk and results suggest a null effect. They add that subgroup analyses in patients with vitamin D levels considered deficient (<20 ng/mL) did not suggest a benefit; however, the power to detect a benefit in this much smaller subset of the population was limited.
They point out that, while there were no significant differences in incident AFib for either omega-3 fatty acid or vitamin D in the overall study population, an increased risk for incident AFib associated with randomized treatment was observed in selected subgroups.
For omega-3 fatty acids, AFib risk was modestly increased in taller individuals, and for vitamin D3, elevations in AFib risk were observed in younger individuals and participants who drank less alcohol.
“Although the hazard ratios and tests for interaction were significant, the P values associated with these subgroup analyses have not been adjusted for multiple comparisons. Thus, these findings should be interpreted with caution and considered hypothesis generating,” they warn.
The VITAL Rhythm Study was supported by a grant from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Albert reported receipt of grants from St Jude Medical, Abbott, and Roche Diagnostics. Dr. Curfman reports no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
There may be a dose-related risk for atrial fibrillation (AFib) with omega-3 fatty acid intake, data from four randomized clinical trials suggest.
The latest trial to evaluate the association, the VITAL-RHYTHM study, showed that using a low dose of omega-3 fatty acids or a vitamin D supplement had no significant effect on the risks of developing incident AFib.
The trial, first reported at last year’s American Heart Association meeting, was published online March 16 in the Journal of the American Medical Association.
Together with three other randomized clinical trials, however, these results suggest a possible dose-related effect of omega-3 fatty acids on the risk for AFib, an accompanying “Editor’s Note” suggests.
The note, by JAMA deputy editor Gregory Curfman, MD, points out that in the past 2 years, four randomized clinical trials have provided data on the risk of AFib with omega-3 fatty acid intake.
In the STRENGTH and REDUCE-IT trials, both of which evaluated high doses (4 g/day) of omega-3 fatty acids in patients with heart disease (or at high risk for it), there was a highly statistically significant increase in risk for AFib in the omega-3 groups vs. controls in both trials.
In the OMEMI trial in elderly patients with a recent myocardial infarction, an intermediate dose (1.8 g/day) of omega-3 fatty acids also showed an increase in AFib risk (hazard ratio, 1.84) but this was not significant. And now, the VITAL-RHYTHM trial shows no significant effect of a low dose (840 mg/day) of omega-3 fatty acids on the risk of developing AFib in a primary prevention population.
“Patients who choose to take omega-3 fatty acids, especially in high doses, should be informed of the risk of AF [AFib] and followed up for the possible development of this common and potentially hazardous arrhythmia,” Dr. Curfman concludes.
The authors of the VITAL-RHYTHM trial, led by Christine M. Albert, MD, MPH, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, Calif., explain that the trial was conducted after observational studies had shown that individuals with low blood levels of omega-3 fatty acids, eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), and vitamin D3 have higher risks of incident AFib, but data on dietary or supplemental intake of these nutrients on AFib risk were mixed.
“To our knowledge, this study is the first randomized, placebo-controlled trial to prospectively test the effect of any intervention on incident AF and is the only trial to test alternative upstream preventive agents for AF in a large enough population over a long enough time period to provide an assessment of the plausible benefits and risks,” they write.
The VITAL-RHYTHM study was an ancillary trial embedded within the Vitamin D and Omega-3 (VITAL) trial, which used a 2 x 2 factorial design to evaluate daily supplementation with 2,000 IU of vitamin D3 and/or 840 mg of marine omega-3 fatty acids (460 mg EPA and 380 mg DHA), in the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease and cancer in 25,871 men and women age 50 and older in the United States.
Results showed that over a median 5.3 years of treatment and follow-up, the primary endpoint of incident AFib occurred in 3.6% of the study population. For the omega-3 part of the trial, incident AFib events occurred in 3.7% of patients taking EPA/DHA vs. 3.4% of the placebo group, giving a hazard ratio of 1.09, which was not significant (P = .19).
For the vitamin D3 vs. placebo comparison, results were very similar, with incident AFib events occurring in 3.7% vs. 3.4% of participants, respectively, giving a hazard ratio of 1.09, which was again not significant (P = .19). There was no evidence for interaction between the two study agents.
“Overall, these findings do not support the use of supplemental EPA-DHA or vitamin D3 for the primary prevention of AFib and provide reassurance regarding lack of a major risk of AFib incidence associated with these commonly used supplements at these doses,” the authors conclude.
Noting that significant increases in AFib have been seen with much higher doses of omega-3 fatty acids in the REDUCE-IT and STRENGTH trials, they add: “Potentially, the adverse effect on AF risk may be dose related, and the higher dosages of EPA used in these other studies might account for the significant adverse effect on AF.”
The researchers say that, to their knowledge, this is the only randomized trial to assess the effect of vitamin D3 supplementation on AFib risk and results suggest a null effect. They add that subgroup analyses in patients with vitamin D levels considered deficient (<20 ng/mL) did not suggest a benefit; however, the power to detect a benefit in this much smaller subset of the population was limited.
They point out that, while there were no significant differences in incident AFib for either omega-3 fatty acid or vitamin D in the overall study population, an increased risk for incident AFib associated with randomized treatment was observed in selected subgroups.
For omega-3 fatty acids, AFib risk was modestly increased in taller individuals, and for vitamin D3, elevations in AFib risk were observed in younger individuals and participants who drank less alcohol.
“Although the hazard ratios and tests for interaction were significant, the P values associated with these subgroup analyses have not been adjusted for multiple comparisons. Thus, these findings should be interpreted with caution and considered hypothesis generating,” they warn.
The VITAL Rhythm Study was supported by a grant from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Albert reported receipt of grants from St Jude Medical, Abbott, and Roche Diagnostics. Dr. Curfman reports no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
There may be a dose-related risk for atrial fibrillation (AFib) with omega-3 fatty acid intake, data from four randomized clinical trials suggest.
The latest trial to evaluate the association, the VITAL-RHYTHM study, showed that using a low dose of omega-3 fatty acids or a vitamin D supplement had no significant effect on the risks of developing incident AFib.
The trial, first reported at last year’s American Heart Association meeting, was published online March 16 in the Journal of the American Medical Association.
Together with three other randomized clinical trials, however, these results suggest a possible dose-related effect of omega-3 fatty acids on the risk for AFib, an accompanying “Editor’s Note” suggests.
The note, by JAMA deputy editor Gregory Curfman, MD, points out that in the past 2 years, four randomized clinical trials have provided data on the risk of AFib with omega-3 fatty acid intake.
In the STRENGTH and REDUCE-IT trials, both of which evaluated high doses (4 g/day) of omega-3 fatty acids in patients with heart disease (or at high risk for it), there was a highly statistically significant increase in risk for AFib in the omega-3 groups vs. controls in both trials.
In the OMEMI trial in elderly patients with a recent myocardial infarction, an intermediate dose (1.8 g/day) of omega-3 fatty acids also showed an increase in AFib risk (hazard ratio, 1.84) but this was not significant. And now, the VITAL-RHYTHM trial shows no significant effect of a low dose (840 mg/day) of omega-3 fatty acids on the risk of developing AFib in a primary prevention population.
“Patients who choose to take omega-3 fatty acids, especially in high doses, should be informed of the risk of AF [AFib] and followed up for the possible development of this common and potentially hazardous arrhythmia,” Dr. Curfman concludes.
The authors of the VITAL-RHYTHM trial, led by Christine M. Albert, MD, MPH, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, Calif., explain that the trial was conducted after observational studies had shown that individuals with low blood levels of omega-3 fatty acids, eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), and vitamin D3 have higher risks of incident AFib, but data on dietary or supplemental intake of these nutrients on AFib risk were mixed.
“To our knowledge, this study is the first randomized, placebo-controlled trial to prospectively test the effect of any intervention on incident AF and is the only trial to test alternative upstream preventive agents for AF in a large enough population over a long enough time period to provide an assessment of the plausible benefits and risks,” they write.
The VITAL-RHYTHM study was an ancillary trial embedded within the Vitamin D and Omega-3 (VITAL) trial, which used a 2 x 2 factorial design to evaluate daily supplementation with 2,000 IU of vitamin D3 and/or 840 mg of marine omega-3 fatty acids (460 mg EPA and 380 mg DHA), in the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease and cancer in 25,871 men and women age 50 and older in the United States.
Results showed that over a median 5.3 years of treatment and follow-up, the primary endpoint of incident AFib occurred in 3.6% of the study population. For the omega-3 part of the trial, incident AFib events occurred in 3.7% of patients taking EPA/DHA vs. 3.4% of the placebo group, giving a hazard ratio of 1.09, which was not significant (P = .19).
For the vitamin D3 vs. placebo comparison, results were very similar, with incident AFib events occurring in 3.7% vs. 3.4% of participants, respectively, giving a hazard ratio of 1.09, which was again not significant (P = .19). There was no evidence for interaction between the two study agents.
“Overall, these findings do not support the use of supplemental EPA-DHA or vitamin D3 for the primary prevention of AFib and provide reassurance regarding lack of a major risk of AFib incidence associated with these commonly used supplements at these doses,” the authors conclude.
Noting that significant increases in AFib have been seen with much higher doses of omega-3 fatty acids in the REDUCE-IT and STRENGTH trials, they add: “Potentially, the adverse effect on AF risk may be dose related, and the higher dosages of EPA used in these other studies might account for the significant adverse effect on AF.”
The researchers say that, to their knowledge, this is the only randomized trial to assess the effect of vitamin D3 supplementation on AFib risk and results suggest a null effect. They add that subgroup analyses in patients with vitamin D levels considered deficient (<20 ng/mL) did not suggest a benefit; however, the power to detect a benefit in this much smaller subset of the population was limited.
They point out that, while there were no significant differences in incident AFib for either omega-3 fatty acid or vitamin D in the overall study population, an increased risk for incident AFib associated with randomized treatment was observed in selected subgroups.
For omega-3 fatty acids, AFib risk was modestly increased in taller individuals, and for vitamin D3, elevations in AFib risk were observed in younger individuals and participants who drank less alcohol.
“Although the hazard ratios and tests for interaction were significant, the P values associated with these subgroup analyses have not been adjusted for multiple comparisons. Thus, these findings should be interpreted with caution and considered hypothesis generating,” they warn.
The VITAL Rhythm Study was supported by a grant from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Albert reported receipt of grants from St Jude Medical, Abbott, and Roche Diagnostics. Dr. Curfman reports no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
High obesity rates in Southern states magnify COVID threats
In January, as Mississippi health officials planned for their incoming shipments of COVID-19 vaccine, they assessed the state’s most vulnerable: health care workers, of course, and elderly people in nursing homes. But among those who needed urgent protection from the virus ripping across the Magnolia State were 1 million Mississippians with obesity.
Obesity and weight-related illnesses have been deadly liabilities in the COVID era. A report released this month by the World Obesity Federation found that increased body weight is the second-greatest predictor of COVID-related hospitalization and death across the globe, trailing only old age as a risk factor.
As a fixture of life in the American South – home to 9 of the nation’s 12 heaviest states – obesity is playing a role not only in COVID outcomes, but in the calculus of the vaccination rollout. Mississippi was one of the first states to add a body mass index of 30 or more (a rough gauge of obesity tied to height and weight) to the list of qualifying medical conditions for a shot. About 40% of the state’s adults meet that definition, according to federal health survey data, and combined with the risk group already eligible for vaccination – residents 65 and older – that means fully half of Mississippi’s adults are entitled to vie for a restricted allotment of shots.
At least 29 states have green-lighted obesity for inclusion in the first phases of the vaccine rollout, according to KFF – a vast widening of eligibility that has the potential to overwhelm government efforts and heighten competition for scarce doses.
“We have a lifesaving intervention, and we don’t have enough of it,” said Jen Kates, PhD, director of global health and HIV policy for Kaiser Family Foundation. “Hard choices are being made about who should go first, and there is no right answer.”
The sheer prevalence of obesity in the nation – two in three Americans exceed what is considered a healthy weight – was a public health concern well before the pandemic. But COVID-19 dramatically fast-tracked the discussion from warnings about the long-term damage excess fat tissue can pose to heart, lung and metabolic functions to far more immediate threats.
In the United Kingdom, for example, overweight COVID patients were 67% more likely to require intensive care, and obese patients three times likelier, according to the World Obesity Federation report. A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study released Monday found a similar trend among U.S. patients and noted that the risk of COVID-related hospitalization, ventilation and death increased with patients’ obesity level.
The counties that hug the southern Mississippi River are home to some of the most concentrated pockets of extreme obesity in the United States. Coronavirus infections began surging in Southern states early last summer, and hospitalizations rose in step.
Deaths in rural stretches of Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Tennessee have been overshadowed by the sheer number of deaths in metropolitan areas like New York, Los Angeles, and Essex County, N.J. But as a share of the population, the coronavirus has been similarly unsparing in many Southern communities. In sparsely populated Claiborne County, Miss., on the floodplains of the Mississippi River, 30 residents – about 1 in 300 – had died as of early March. In East Feliciana Parish, La., north of Baton Rouge, with 106 deaths, about 1 in 180 had died by then.
“It’s just math. If the population is more obese and obesity clearly contributes to worse outcomes, then neighborhoods, cities, states and countries that are more obese will have a greater toll from COVID,” said Dr. James de Lemos, MD, a professor of internal medicine at UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas who led a study of hospitalized COVID patients published in the medical journal Circulation.
And, because in the U.S. obesity rates tend to be relatively high among African Americans and Latinos who are poor, with diminished access to health care, “it’s a triple whammy,” Dr. de Lemos said. “All these things intersect.”
Poverty and limited access to medical care are common features in the South, where residents like Michelle Antonyshyn, a former registered nurse and mother of seven in Salem, Ark., say they are afraid of the virus. Ms. Antonyshyn, 49, has obesity and debilitating pain in her knees and back, though she does not have high blood pressure or diabetes, two underlying conditions that federal health officials have determined are added risk factors for severe cases of COVID-19.
Still, she said, she “was very concerned just knowing that being obese puts you more at risk for bad outcomes such as being on a ventilator and death.” As a precaution, Ms. Antonyshyn said, she and her large brood locked down early and stopped attending church services in person, watching online instead.
“It’s not the same as having fellowship, but the risk for me was enough,” said Ms. Antonyshyn.
Governors throughout the South seem to recognize that weight can contribute to COVID-19 complications and have pushed for vaccine eligibility rules that prioritize obesity. But on the ground, local health officials are girding for having to tell newly eligible people who qualify as obese that there aren’t enough shots to go around.
In Port Gibson, Miss., Mheja Williams, MD, medical director of the Claiborne County Family Health Center, has been receiving barely enough doses to inoculate the health workers and oldest seniors in her county of 9,600. One week in early February, she received 100 doses.
Obesity and extreme obesity are endemic in Claiborne County, and health officials say the “normalization” of obesity means people often don’t register their weight as a risk factor, whether for COVID or other health issues. The risks are exacerbated by a general flouting of pandemic etiquette: Dr. Williams said that middle-aged and younger residents are not especially vigilant about physical distancing and that mask use is rare.
The rise of obesity in the United States is well documented over the past half-century, as the nation turned from a diet of fruits, vegetables and limited meats to one laden with ultra-processed foods and rich with salt, fat, sugar, and flavorings, along with copious amounts of meat, fast food, and soda. The U.S. has generally led the global obesity race, setting records as even toddlers and young children grew implausibly, dangerously overweight.
Well before COVID, obesity was a leading cause of preventable death in the United States. The National Institutes of Health declared it a disease in 1998, one that fosters heart disease, stroke, type 2 diabetes, and breast, colon, and other cancers.
Researchers say it is no coincidence that nations like the United States, the United Kingdom, and Italy, with relatively high obesity rates, have proved particularly vulnerable to the novel coronavirus.
They believe the virus may exploit underlying metabolic and physiological impairments that often exist in concert with obesity. Extra fat can lead to a cascade of metabolic disruptions, chronic systemic inflammation, and hormonal dysregulation that may thwart the body’s response to infection.
Other respiratory viruses, like influenza and SARS, which appeared in China in 2002, rely on cholesterol to spread enveloped RNA virus to neighboring cells, and researchers have proposed that a similar mechanism may play a role in the spread of the novel coronavirus.
There are also practical problems for coronavirus patients with obesity admitted to the hospital. They can be more difficult to intubate because of excess central weight pressing down on the diaphragm, making breathing with infected lungs even more difficult.
Physicians who specialize in treating patients with obesity say public health officials need to be more forthright and urgent in their messaging, telegraphing the risks of this COVID era.
“It should be explicit and direct,” said Fatima Stanford, MD, an obesity medicine specialist at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and a Harvard Medical School instructor.
Dr. Stanford denounces the fat-shaming and bullying that people with obesity often experience. But telling patients – and the public – that obesity increases the risk of hospitalization and death is crucial, she said.
“I don’t think it’s stigmatizing,” she said. “If you tell them in that way, it’s not to scare you, it’s just giving information. Sometimes people are just unaware.”
KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.
In January, as Mississippi health officials planned for their incoming shipments of COVID-19 vaccine, they assessed the state’s most vulnerable: health care workers, of course, and elderly people in nursing homes. But among those who needed urgent protection from the virus ripping across the Magnolia State were 1 million Mississippians with obesity.
Obesity and weight-related illnesses have been deadly liabilities in the COVID era. A report released this month by the World Obesity Federation found that increased body weight is the second-greatest predictor of COVID-related hospitalization and death across the globe, trailing only old age as a risk factor.
As a fixture of life in the American South – home to 9 of the nation’s 12 heaviest states – obesity is playing a role not only in COVID outcomes, but in the calculus of the vaccination rollout. Mississippi was one of the first states to add a body mass index of 30 or more (a rough gauge of obesity tied to height and weight) to the list of qualifying medical conditions for a shot. About 40% of the state’s adults meet that definition, according to federal health survey data, and combined with the risk group already eligible for vaccination – residents 65 and older – that means fully half of Mississippi’s adults are entitled to vie for a restricted allotment of shots.
At least 29 states have green-lighted obesity for inclusion in the first phases of the vaccine rollout, according to KFF – a vast widening of eligibility that has the potential to overwhelm government efforts and heighten competition for scarce doses.
“We have a lifesaving intervention, and we don’t have enough of it,” said Jen Kates, PhD, director of global health and HIV policy for Kaiser Family Foundation. “Hard choices are being made about who should go first, and there is no right answer.”
The sheer prevalence of obesity in the nation – two in three Americans exceed what is considered a healthy weight – was a public health concern well before the pandemic. But COVID-19 dramatically fast-tracked the discussion from warnings about the long-term damage excess fat tissue can pose to heart, lung and metabolic functions to far more immediate threats.
In the United Kingdom, for example, overweight COVID patients were 67% more likely to require intensive care, and obese patients three times likelier, according to the World Obesity Federation report. A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study released Monday found a similar trend among U.S. patients and noted that the risk of COVID-related hospitalization, ventilation and death increased with patients’ obesity level.
The counties that hug the southern Mississippi River are home to some of the most concentrated pockets of extreme obesity in the United States. Coronavirus infections began surging in Southern states early last summer, and hospitalizations rose in step.
Deaths in rural stretches of Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Tennessee have been overshadowed by the sheer number of deaths in metropolitan areas like New York, Los Angeles, and Essex County, N.J. But as a share of the population, the coronavirus has been similarly unsparing in many Southern communities. In sparsely populated Claiborne County, Miss., on the floodplains of the Mississippi River, 30 residents – about 1 in 300 – had died as of early March. In East Feliciana Parish, La., north of Baton Rouge, with 106 deaths, about 1 in 180 had died by then.
“It’s just math. If the population is more obese and obesity clearly contributes to worse outcomes, then neighborhoods, cities, states and countries that are more obese will have a greater toll from COVID,” said Dr. James de Lemos, MD, a professor of internal medicine at UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas who led a study of hospitalized COVID patients published in the medical journal Circulation.
And, because in the U.S. obesity rates tend to be relatively high among African Americans and Latinos who are poor, with diminished access to health care, “it’s a triple whammy,” Dr. de Lemos said. “All these things intersect.”
Poverty and limited access to medical care are common features in the South, where residents like Michelle Antonyshyn, a former registered nurse and mother of seven in Salem, Ark., say they are afraid of the virus. Ms. Antonyshyn, 49, has obesity and debilitating pain in her knees and back, though she does not have high blood pressure or diabetes, two underlying conditions that federal health officials have determined are added risk factors for severe cases of COVID-19.
Still, she said, she “was very concerned just knowing that being obese puts you more at risk for bad outcomes such as being on a ventilator and death.” As a precaution, Ms. Antonyshyn said, she and her large brood locked down early and stopped attending church services in person, watching online instead.
“It’s not the same as having fellowship, but the risk for me was enough,” said Ms. Antonyshyn.
Governors throughout the South seem to recognize that weight can contribute to COVID-19 complications and have pushed for vaccine eligibility rules that prioritize obesity. But on the ground, local health officials are girding for having to tell newly eligible people who qualify as obese that there aren’t enough shots to go around.
In Port Gibson, Miss., Mheja Williams, MD, medical director of the Claiborne County Family Health Center, has been receiving barely enough doses to inoculate the health workers and oldest seniors in her county of 9,600. One week in early February, she received 100 doses.
Obesity and extreme obesity are endemic in Claiborne County, and health officials say the “normalization” of obesity means people often don’t register their weight as a risk factor, whether for COVID or other health issues. The risks are exacerbated by a general flouting of pandemic etiquette: Dr. Williams said that middle-aged and younger residents are not especially vigilant about physical distancing and that mask use is rare.
The rise of obesity in the United States is well documented over the past half-century, as the nation turned from a diet of fruits, vegetables and limited meats to one laden with ultra-processed foods and rich with salt, fat, sugar, and flavorings, along with copious amounts of meat, fast food, and soda. The U.S. has generally led the global obesity race, setting records as even toddlers and young children grew implausibly, dangerously overweight.
Well before COVID, obesity was a leading cause of preventable death in the United States. The National Institutes of Health declared it a disease in 1998, one that fosters heart disease, stroke, type 2 diabetes, and breast, colon, and other cancers.
Researchers say it is no coincidence that nations like the United States, the United Kingdom, and Italy, with relatively high obesity rates, have proved particularly vulnerable to the novel coronavirus.
They believe the virus may exploit underlying metabolic and physiological impairments that often exist in concert with obesity. Extra fat can lead to a cascade of metabolic disruptions, chronic systemic inflammation, and hormonal dysregulation that may thwart the body’s response to infection.
Other respiratory viruses, like influenza and SARS, which appeared in China in 2002, rely on cholesterol to spread enveloped RNA virus to neighboring cells, and researchers have proposed that a similar mechanism may play a role in the spread of the novel coronavirus.
There are also practical problems for coronavirus patients with obesity admitted to the hospital. They can be more difficult to intubate because of excess central weight pressing down on the diaphragm, making breathing with infected lungs even more difficult.
Physicians who specialize in treating patients with obesity say public health officials need to be more forthright and urgent in their messaging, telegraphing the risks of this COVID era.
“It should be explicit and direct,” said Fatima Stanford, MD, an obesity medicine specialist at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and a Harvard Medical School instructor.
Dr. Stanford denounces the fat-shaming and bullying that people with obesity often experience. But telling patients – and the public – that obesity increases the risk of hospitalization and death is crucial, she said.
“I don’t think it’s stigmatizing,” she said. “If you tell them in that way, it’s not to scare you, it’s just giving information. Sometimes people are just unaware.”
KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.
In January, as Mississippi health officials planned for their incoming shipments of COVID-19 vaccine, they assessed the state’s most vulnerable: health care workers, of course, and elderly people in nursing homes. But among those who needed urgent protection from the virus ripping across the Magnolia State were 1 million Mississippians with obesity.
Obesity and weight-related illnesses have been deadly liabilities in the COVID era. A report released this month by the World Obesity Federation found that increased body weight is the second-greatest predictor of COVID-related hospitalization and death across the globe, trailing only old age as a risk factor.
As a fixture of life in the American South – home to 9 of the nation’s 12 heaviest states – obesity is playing a role not only in COVID outcomes, but in the calculus of the vaccination rollout. Mississippi was one of the first states to add a body mass index of 30 or more (a rough gauge of obesity tied to height and weight) to the list of qualifying medical conditions for a shot. About 40% of the state’s adults meet that definition, according to federal health survey data, and combined with the risk group already eligible for vaccination – residents 65 and older – that means fully half of Mississippi’s adults are entitled to vie for a restricted allotment of shots.
At least 29 states have green-lighted obesity for inclusion in the first phases of the vaccine rollout, according to KFF – a vast widening of eligibility that has the potential to overwhelm government efforts and heighten competition for scarce doses.
“We have a lifesaving intervention, and we don’t have enough of it,” said Jen Kates, PhD, director of global health and HIV policy for Kaiser Family Foundation. “Hard choices are being made about who should go first, and there is no right answer.”
The sheer prevalence of obesity in the nation – two in three Americans exceed what is considered a healthy weight – was a public health concern well before the pandemic. But COVID-19 dramatically fast-tracked the discussion from warnings about the long-term damage excess fat tissue can pose to heart, lung and metabolic functions to far more immediate threats.
In the United Kingdom, for example, overweight COVID patients were 67% more likely to require intensive care, and obese patients three times likelier, according to the World Obesity Federation report. A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study released Monday found a similar trend among U.S. patients and noted that the risk of COVID-related hospitalization, ventilation and death increased with patients’ obesity level.
The counties that hug the southern Mississippi River are home to some of the most concentrated pockets of extreme obesity in the United States. Coronavirus infections began surging in Southern states early last summer, and hospitalizations rose in step.
Deaths in rural stretches of Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Tennessee have been overshadowed by the sheer number of deaths in metropolitan areas like New York, Los Angeles, and Essex County, N.J. But as a share of the population, the coronavirus has been similarly unsparing in many Southern communities. In sparsely populated Claiborne County, Miss., on the floodplains of the Mississippi River, 30 residents – about 1 in 300 – had died as of early March. In East Feliciana Parish, La., north of Baton Rouge, with 106 deaths, about 1 in 180 had died by then.
“It’s just math. If the population is more obese and obesity clearly contributes to worse outcomes, then neighborhoods, cities, states and countries that are more obese will have a greater toll from COVID,” said Dr. James de Lemos, MD, a professor of internal medicine at UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas who led a study of hospitalized COVID patients published in the medical journal Circulation.
And, because in the U.S. obesity rates tend to be relatively high among African Americans and Latinos who are poor, with diminished access to health care, “it’s a triple whammy,” Dr. de Lemos said. “All these things intersect.”
Poverty and limited access to medical care are common features in the South, where residents like Michelle Antonyshyn, a former registered nurse and mother of seven in Salem, Ark., say they are afraid of the virus. Ms. Antonyshyn, 49, has obesity and debilitating pain in her knees and back, though she does not have high blood pressure or diabetes, two underlying conditions that federal health officials have determined are added risk factors for severe cases of COVID-19.
Still, she said, she “was very concerned just knowing that being obese puts you more at risk for bad outcomes such as being on a ventilator and death.” As a precaution, Ms. Antonyshyn said, she and her large brood locked down early and stopped attending church services in person, watching online instead.
“It’s not the same as having fellowship, but the risk for me was enough,” said Ms. Antonyshyn.
Governors throughout the South seem to recognize that weight can contribute to COVID-19 complications and have pushed for vaccine eligibility rules that prioritize obesity. But on the ground, local health officials are girding for having to tell newly eligible people who qualify as obese that there aren’t enough shots to go around.
In Port Gibson, Miss., Mheja Williams, MD, medical director of the Claiborne County Family Health Center, has been receiving barely enough doses to inoculate the health workers and oldest seniors in her county of 9,600. One week in early February, she received 100 doses.
Obesity and extreme obesity are endemic in Claiborne County, and health officials say the “normalization” of obesity means people often don’t register their weight as a risk factor, whether for COVID or other health issues. The risks are exacerbated by a general flouting of pandemic etiquette: Dr. Williams said that middle-aged and younger residents are not especially vigilant about physical distancing and that mask use is rare.
The rise of obesity in the United States is well documented over the past half-century, as the nation turned from a diet of fruits, vegetables and limited meats to one laden with ultra-processed foods and rich with salt, fat, sugar, and flavorings, along with copious amounts of meat, fast food, and soda. The U.S. has generally led the global obesity race, setting records as even toddlers and young children grew implausibly, dangerously overweight.
Well before COVID, obesity was a leading cause of preventable death in the United States. The National Institutes of Health declared it a disease in 1998, one that fosters heart disease, stroke, type 2 diabetes, and breast, colon, and other cancers.
Researchers say it is no coincidence that nations like the United States, the United Kingdom, and Italy, with relatively high obesity rates, have proved particularly vulnerable to the novel coronavirus.
They believe the virus may exploit underlying metabolic and physiological impairments that often exist in concert with obesity. Extra fat can lead to a cascade of metabolic disruptions, chronic systemic inflammation, and hormonal dysregulation that may thwart the body’s response to infection.
Other respiratory viruses, like influenza and SARS, which appeared in China in 2002, rely on cholesterol to spread enveloped RNA virus to neighboring cells, and researchers have proposed that a similar mechanism may play a role in the spread of the novel coronavirus.
There are also practical problems for coronavirus patients with obesity admitted to the hospital. They can be more difficult to intubate because of excess central weight pressing down on the diaphragm, making breathing with infected lungs even more difficult.
Physicians who specialize in treating patients with obesity say public health officials need to be more forthright and urgent in their messaging, telegraphing the risks of this COVID era.
“It should be explicit and direct,” said Fatima Stanford, MD, an obesity medicine specialist at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and a Harvard Medical School instructor.
Dr. Stanford denounces the fat-shaming and bullying that people with obesity often experience. But telling patients – and the public – that obesity increases the risk of hospitalization and death is crucial, she said.
“I don’t think it’s stigmatizing,” she said. “If you tell them in that way, it’s not to scare you, it’s just giving information. Sometimes people are just unaware.”
KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.
Type 2 diabetes linked to increased risk for Parkinson’s
New analyses of both observational and genetic data have provided “convincing evidence” that type 2 diabetes is associated with an increased risk for Parkinson’s disease.
“The fact that we see the same effects in both types of analysis separately makes it more likely that these results are real – that type 2 diabetes really is a driver of Parkinson’s disease risk,” Alastair Noyce, PhD, senior author of the new studies, said in an interview.
The two analyses are reported in one paper published online March 8 in the journal Movement Disorders.
Dr. Noyce, clinical senior lecturer in the preventive neurology unit at the Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, explained that his group is interested in risk factors for Parkinson’s disease, particularly those relevant at the population level and which might be modifiable.
“Several studies have looked at diabetes as a risk factor for Parkinson’s but very few have focused on type 2 diabetes, and, as this is such a growing health issue, we wanted to look at that in more detail,” he said.
The researchers performed two different analyses: a meta-analysis of observational studies investigating an association between type 2 diabetes and Parkinson’s; and a separate Mendelian randomization analysis of genetic data on the two conditions.
They found similar results in both studies, with the observational data suggesting type 2 diabetes was associated with a 21% increased risk for Parkinson’s disease and the genetic data suggesting an 8% increased risk. There were also hints that type 2 diabetes might also be associated with faster progression of Parkinson’s symptoms.
“I don’t think type 2 diabetes is a major cause of Parkinson’s, but it probably makes some contribution and may increase the risk of a more aggressive form of the condition,” Dr. Noyce said.
“I would say the increased risk of Parkinson’s disease attributable to type 2 diabetes may be similar to that of head injury or pesticide exposure, but it is important, as type 2 diabetes is very prevalent and is increasing,” he added. “As we see the growth in type 2 diabetes, this could lead to a later increase in Parkinson’s, which is already one of the fastest-growing diseases worldwide.”
For the meta-analysis of observational data, the researchers included nine studies that investigated preceding type 2 diabetes specifically and its effect on the risk for Parkinson’s disease and progression.
The pooled effect estimates showed that type 2 diabetes was associated with an increased risk for Parkinson’s disease (odds ratio, 1.21; 95% confidence interval, 1.07-1.36), and there was some evidence that type 2 diabetes was associated with faster progression of motor symptoms (standardized mean difference [SMD], 0.55) and cognitive decline (SMD, −0.92).
The observational meta-analysis included seven cohort studies and two case-control studies, and these different types of studies showed different results in regard to the association between diabetes and Parkinson’s. While the cohort studies showed a detrimental effect of diabetes on Parkinson’s risk (OR, 1.29), the case-control studies suggested protective effect (OR, 0.51).
Addressing this, Dr. Noyce noted that the case-control studies may be less reliable as they suffered more from survivor bias. “Diabetes may cause deaths in mid-life before people go on to develop Parkinson’s, and this would cause a protective effect to be seen, but we believe this to be a spurious result. Cohort studies are generally more reliable and are less susceptible to survivor bias,” he said.
For the genetic analysis, the researchers combined results from two large publicly available genome-wide association studies – one for type 2 diabetes and one for Parkinson’s disease to assess whether individuals with a genetic tendency to type 2 diabetes had a higher risk of developing Parkinson’s.
Results showed an increased risk for Parkinson’s in those individuals with genetic variants associated with type 2 diabetes, with an odds ratio of 1.08 (P = .010). There was also some evidence of an effect on motor progression (OR, 1.10; P = .032) but not on cognitive progression.
On the possible mechanism behind this observation, Dr. Noyce noted type 2 diabetes and Parkinson’s have some similarities in biology, including abnormal protein aggregation.
In the study, the authors also suggest that circulating insulin may have a neuroprotective role, whereas systemic and local insulin resistance can influence pathways known to be important in Parkinson’s pathogenesis, including those that relate to mitochondrial dysfunction, neuroinflammation, synaptic plasticity, and mitochondrial dysfunction.
Dr. Noyce further pointed out that several drugs used for the treatment of type 2 diabetes have been repurposed as possible treatments for Parkinson’s disease and are now being tested for this new indication. “Our results support that approach and raise the idea that some of these drugs may even prevent Parkinson’s in people at risk,” he said.
Most people who have type 2 diabetes won’t get Parkinson’s disease, he added. Other outcomes such as heart disease, kidney disease, and microvascular complications are far more likely, and the main aim of preventing and treating type 2 diabetes is to prevent these far more common outcomes. “But our data suggests that this could also have a possible benefit in reducing future Parkinson’s risk,” he said.
Not on the horizon at present is the possibility of screening patients with type 2 diabetes for signs of early Parkinson’s, Dr. Noyce said.
“There isn’t a test for identifying presymptomatic neurodegenerative diseases such as Parkinson’s yet, but perhaps in the future there will be, and type 2 diabetes may be one risk factor to take into account when considering such screening,” he added.
This work was financially supported by grants from The Michael J. Fox Foundation; the Canadian Consortium on Neurodegeneration in Aging (CCNA); the Canada First Research Excellence Fund (CFREF), awarded to McGill University for the Healthy Brains for Healthy Lives (HBHL) initiative; and Parkinson Canada, and the Intramural Research Program of the NIH, National Institute on Aging.
Dr. Noyce reports grants from the Barts Charity, Parkinson’s UK, Aligning Science Across Parkinson’s and Michael J. Fox Foundation, and the Virginia Keiley Benefaction; and personal fees/honoraria from Britannia, BIAL, AbbVie, Global Kinetics Corporation, Profile, Biogen, Roche, and UCB outside of the submitted work.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
New analyses of both observational and genetic data have provided “convincing evidence” that type 2 diabetes is associated with an increased risk for Parkinson’s disease.
“The fact that we see the same effects in both types of analysis separately makes it more likely that these results are real – that type 2 diabetes really is a driver of Parkinson’s disease risk,” Alastair Noyce, PhD, senior author of the new studies, said in an interview.
The two analyses are reported in one paper published online March 8 in the journal Movement Disorders.
Dr. Noyce, clinical senior lecturer in the preventive neurology unit at the Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, explained that his group is interested in risk factors for Parkinson’s disease, particularly those relevant at the population level and which might be modifiable.
“Several studies have looked at diabetes as a risk factor for Parkinson’s but very few have focused on type 2 diabetes, and, as this is such a growing health issue, we wanted to look at that in more detail,” he said.
The researchers performed two different analyses: a meta-analysis of observational studies investigating an association between type 2 diabetes and Parkinson’s; and a separate Mendelian randomization analysis of genetic data on the two conditions.
They found similar results in both studies, with the observational data suggesting type 2 diabetes was associated with a 21% increased risk for Parkinson’s disease and the genetic data suggesting an 8% increased risk. There were also hints that type 2 diabetes might also be associated with faster progression of Parkinson’s symptoms.
“I don’t think type 2 diabetes is a major cause of Parkinson’s, but it probably makes some contribution and may increase the risk of a more aggressive form of the condition,” Dr. Noyce said.
“I would say the increased risk of Parkinson’s disease attributable to type 2 diabetes may be similar to that of head injury or pesticide exposure, but it is important, as type 2 diabetes is very prevalent and is increasing,” he added. “As we see the growth in type 2 diabetes, this could lead to a later increase in Parkinson’s, which is already one of the fastest-growing diseases worldwide.”
For the meta-analysis of observational data, the researchers included nine studies that investigated preceding type 2 diabetes specifically and its effect on the risk for Parkinson’s disease and progression.
The pooled effect estimates showed that type 2 diabetes was associated with an increased risk for Parkinson’s disease (odds ratio, 1.21; 95% confidence interval, 1.07-1.36), and there was some evidence that type 2 diabetes was associated with faster progression of motor symptoms (standardized mean difference [SMD], 0.55) and cognitive decline (SMD, −0.92).
The observational meta-analysis included seven cohort studies and two case-control studies, and these different types of studies showed different results in regard to the association between diabetes and Parkinson’s. While the cohort studies showed a detrimental effect of diabetes on Parkinson’s risk (OR, 1.29), the case-control studies suggested protective effect (OR, 0.51).
Addressing this, Dr. Noyce noted that the case-control studies may be less reliable as they suffered more from survivor bias. “Diabetes may cause deaths in mid-life before people go on to develop Parkinson’s, and this would cause a protective effect to be seen, but we believe this to be a spurious result. Cohort studies are generally more reliable and are less susceptible to survivor bias,” he said.
For the genetic analysis, the researchers combined results from two large publicly available genome-wide association studies – one for type 2 diabetes and one for Parkinson’s disease to assess whether individuals with a genetic tendency to type 2 diabetes had a higher risk of developing Parkinson’s.
Results showed an increased risk for Parkinson’s in those individuals with genetic variants associated with type 2 diabetes, with an odds ratio of 1.08 (P = .010). There was also some evidence of an effect on motor progression (OR, 1.10; P = .032) but not on cognitive progression.
On the possible mechanism behind this observation, Dr. Noyce noted type 2 diabetes and Parkinson’s have some similarities in biology, including abnormal protein aggregation.
In the study, the authors also suggest that circulating insulin may have a neuroprotective role, whereas systemic and local insulin resistance can influence pathways known to be important in Parkinson’s pathogenesis, including those that relate to mitochondrial dysfunction, neuroinflammation, synaptic plasticity, and mitochondrial dysfunction.
Dr. Noyce further pointed out that several drugs used for the treatment of type 2 diabetes have been repurposed as possible treatments for Parkinson’s disease and are now being tested for this new indication. “Our results support that approach and raise the idea that some of these drugs may even prevent Parkinson’s in people at risk,” he said.
Most people who have type 2 diabetes won’t get Parkinson’s disease, he added. Other outcomes such as heart disease, kidney disease, and microvascular complications are far more likely, and the main aim of preventing and treating type 2 diabetes is to prevent these far more common outcomes. “But our data suggests that this could also have a possible benefit in reducing future Parkinson’s risk,” he said.
Not on the horizon at present is the possibility of screening patients with type 2 diabetes for signs of early Parkinson’s, Dr. Noyce said.
“There isn’t a test for identifying presymptomatic neurodegenerative diseases such as Parkinson’s yet, but perhaps in the future there will be, and type 2 diabetes may be one risk factor to take into account when considering such screening,” he added.
This work was financially supported by grants from The Michael J. Fox Foundation; the Canadian Consortium on Neurodegeneration in Aging (CCNA); the Canada First Research Excellence Fund (CFREF), awarded to McGill University for the Healthy Brains for Healthy Lives (HBHL) initiative; and Parkinson Canada, and the Intramural Research Program of the NIH, National Institute on Aging.
Dr. Noyce reports grants from the Barts Charity, Parkinson’s UK, Aligning Science Across Parkinson’s and Michael J. Fox Foundation, and the Virginia Keiley Benefaction; and personal fees/honoraria from Britannia, BIAL, AbbVie, Global Kinetics Corporation, Profile, Biogen, Roche, and UCB outside of the submitted work.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
New analyses of both observational and genetic data have provided “convincing evidence” that type 2 diabetes is associated with an increased risk for Parkinson’s disease.
“The fact that we see the same effects in both types of analysis separately makes it more likely that these results are real – that type 2 diabetes really is a driver of Parkinson’s disease risk,” Alastair Noyce, PhD, senior author of the new studies, said in an interview.
The two analyses are reported in one paper published online March 8 in the journal Movement Disorders.
Dr. Noyce, clinical senior lecturer in the preventive neurology unit at the Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, explained that his group is interested in risk factors for Parkinson’s disease, particularly those relevant at the population level and which might be modifiable.
“Several studies have looked at diabetes as a risk factor for Parkinson’s but very few have focused on type 2 diabetes, and, as this is such a growing health issue, we wanted to look at that in more detail,” he said.
The researchers performed two different analyses: a meta-analysis of observational studies investigating an association between type 2 diabetes and Parkinson’s; and a separate Mendelian randomization analysis of genetic data on the two conditions.
They found similar results in both studies, with the observational data suggesting type 2 diabetes was associated with a 21% increased risk for Parkinson’s disease and the genetic data suggesting an 8% increased risk. There were also hints that type 2 diabetes might also be associated with faster progression of Parkinson’s symptoms.
“I don’t think type 2 diabetes is a major cause of Parkinson’s, but it probably makes some contribution and may increase the risk of a more aggressive form of the condition,” Dr. Noyce said.
“I would say the increased risk of Parkinson’s disease attributable to type 2 diabetes may be similar to that of head injury or pesticide exposure, but it is important, as type 2 diabetes is very prevalent and is increasing,” he added. “As we see the growth in type 2 diabetes, this could lead to a later increase in Parkinson’s, which is already one of the fastest-growing diseases worldwide.”
For the meta-analysis of observational data, the researchers included nine studies that investigated preceding type 2 diabetes specifically and its effect on the risk for Parkinson’s disease and progression.
The pooled effect estimates showed that type 2 diabetes was associated with an increased risk for Parkinson’s disease (odds ratio, 1.21; 95% confidence interval, 1.07-1.36), and there was some evidence that type 2 diabetes was associated with faster progression of motor symptoms (standardized mean difference [SMD], 0.55) and cognitive decline (SMD, −0.92).
The observational meta-analysis included seven cohort studies and two case-control studies, and these different types of studies showed different results in regard to the association between diabetes and Parkinson’s. While the cohort studies showed a detrimental effect of diabetes on Parkinson’s risk (OR, 1.29), the case-control studies suggested protective effect (OR, 0.51).
Addressing this, Dr. Noyce noted that the case-control studies may be less reliable as they suffered more from survivor bias. “Diabetes may cause deaths in mid-life before people go on to develop Parkinson’s, and this would cause a protective effect to be seen, but we believe this to be a spurious result. Cohort studies are generally more reliable and are less susceptible to survivor bias,” he said.
For the genetic analysis, the researchers combined results from two large publicly available genome-wide association studies – one for type 2 diabetes and one for Parkinson’s disease to assess whether individuals with a genetic tendency to type 2 diabetes had a higher risk of developing Parkinson’s.
Results showed an increased risk for Parkinson’s in those individuals with genetic variants associated with type 2 diabetes, with an odds ratio of 1.08 (P = .010). There was also some evidence of an effect on motor progression (OR, 1.10; P = .032) but not on cognitive progression.
On the possible mechanism behind this observation, Dr. Noyce noted type 2 diabetes and Parkinson’s have some similarities in biology, including abnormal protein aggregation.
In the study, the authors also suggest that circulating insulin may have a neuroprotective role, whereas systemic and local insulin resistance can influence pathways known to be important in Parkinson’s pathogenesis, including those that relate to mitochondrial dysfunction, neuroinflammation, synaptic plasticity, and mitochondrial dysfunction.
Dr. Noyce further pointed out that several drugs used for the treatment of type 2 diabetes have been repurposed as possible treatments for Parkinson’s disease and are now being tested for this new indication. “Our results support that approach and raise the idea that some of these drugs may even prevent Parkinson’s in people at risk,” he said.
Most people who have type 2 diabetes won’t get Parkinson’s disease, he added. Other outcomes such as heart disease, kidney disease, and microvascular complications are far more likely, and the main aim of preventing and treating type 2 diabetes is to prevent these far more common outcomes. “But our data suggests that this could also have a possible benefit in reducing future Parkinson’s risk,” he said.
Not on the horizon at present is the possibility of screening patients with type 2 diabetes for signs of early Parkinson’s, Dr. Noyce said.
“There isn’t a test for identifying presymptomatic neurodegenerative diseases such as Parkinson’s yet, but perhaps in the future there will be, and type 2 diabetes may be one risk factor to take into account when considering such screening,” he added.
This work was financially supported by grants from The Michael J. Fox Foundation; the Canadian Consortium on Neurodegeneration in Aging (CCNA); the Canada First Research Excellence Fund (CFREF), awarded to McGill University for the Healthy Brains for Healthy Lives (HBHL) initiative; and Parkinson Canada, and the Intramural Research Program of the NIH, National Institute on Aging.
Dr. Noyce reports grants from the Barts Charity, Parkinson’s UK, Aligning Science Across Parkinson’s and Michael J. Fox Foundation, and the Virginia Keiley Benefaction; and personal fees/honoraria from Britannia, BIAL, AbbVie, Global Kinetics Corporation, Profile, Biogen, Roche, and UCB outside of the submitted work.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Colchicine before PCI for acute MI fails to improve major outcomes
In a placebo-controlled randomized trial, a preprocedural dose of colchicine administered immediately before percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for an acute ST-segment elevated myocardial infarction (STEMI) did not reduce the no-reflow phenomenon or improve outcomes.
No-reflow, in which insufficient myocardial perfusion is present even though the coronary artery appears patent, was the primary outcome, and the proportion of patients experiencing this event was exactly the same (14.4%) in the colchicine and placebo groups, reported Yaser Jenab, MD, at CRT 2021 sponsored by MedStar Heart & Vascular Institute.
The hypothesis that colchicine would offer benefit in this setting was largely based on the Colchicine Cardiovascular Outcomes Trial (COLCOT). In that study, colchicine was associated with a 23% reduction in risk for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) relative to placebo when administered within 30 days after a myocardial infarction (hazard ratio, 0.77; P = .02).
The benefit in that trial was attributed to an anti-inflammatory effect, according to Dr. Jenab, associate professor of cardiology at Tehran (Iran) Heart Center. In particular as it relates to vascular disease, he cited experimental studies associating colchicine with a reduction in neutrophil activation and adherence to vascular endothelium.
The rationale for a preprocedural approach to colchicine was supplied by a subsequent time-to-treatment COLCOT analysis. In this study, MACE risk reduction for colchicine climbed to 48% (HR 0.52) for those treated within 3 days of the MI but largely disappeared (HR 0.96) if treatment was started at least 8 days post MI.
PodCAST-PCI trial
In the preprocedural study, called the PodCAST-PCI trial, 321 acute STEMI patients were randomized. Patients received a 1-mg dose of oral colchicine or placebo at the time PCI was scheduled. Another dose of colchicine (0.5 mg) or placebo was administered 1 hour after the procedure.
Of secondary outcomes, which included MACE at 1 month and 1 year, ST-segment resolution at 1 month, and change in inflammatory markers at 1 month, none were significant. Few even trended for significance.
For MACE, which included cardiac death, stroke, nonfatal MI, new hospitalization due to heart failure, or target vessel revascularization, the rates were lower in the colchicine group at 1 month (4.3% vs. 7.5%) and 1 year (9.3% vs. 11.2%), but neither approached significance.
For ST-segment resolution, the proportions were generally comparable among the colchicine and placebo groups, respectively, for the proportion below 50% (18.6% vs. 23.1%), between 50% and 70% (16.8% vs. 15.6%), and above 70% (64.6% vs. 61.3%).
The average troponin levels were nonsignificantly lower at 6 hours (1,847 vs. 2,883 ng/mL) in the colchicine group but higher at 48 hours (1,197 vs. 1,147 ng/mL). The average C-reactive protein (CRP) levels at 48 hours were nonsignificantly lower on colchicine (176.5 vs. 244.5 mg/L).
There were no significant differences in postprocedural perfusion, as measured with TIMI blood flow, or in the rate of stent thrombosis, which occurred in roughly 3% of each group of patients.
The small sample size was one limitation of this study, Dr. Jenab acknowledged. For this and other reasons, he cautioned that these data are not definitive and do not preclude a benefit on clinical outcomes in a study with a larger size, a different design, or different dosing.
Timing might be the issue
However, even if colchicine has a potential benefit in this setting, timing might be a major obstacle, according to Binata Shah, MD, associate director of research for the Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory at New York University.
“We have learned from our rheumatology colleagues that peak plasma levels of colchicine are not achieved for at least 1 hour after the full loading dose,” Dr. Shah said. “With us moving so quickly in a primary PCI setting, it is hard to imagine that colchicine would have had time to really kick in and exert its anti-inflammatory effect.”
Indeed, the problem might be worse than reaching the peak plasma level.
“Even though peak plasma levels occur as early as 1 hour after a full loading dose, we see that it takes about 24 hours to really see the effects translate downstream into more systemic inflammatory markers such as CRP and interleukin-6,” she added. If lowering these signals of inflammation is predictive of benefit, than this might be the biggest obstacle to benefit from colchicine in an urgent treatment setting.
Dr. Jenab and Dr. Shah reported no potential conflicts of interest.
In a placebo-controlled randomized trial, a preprocedural dose of colchicine administered immediately before percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for an acute ST-segment elevated myocardial infarction (STEMI) did not reduce the no-reflow phenomenon or improve outcomes.
No-reflow, in which insufficient myocardial perfusion is present even though the coronary artery appears patent, was the primary outcome, and the proportion of patients experiencing this event was exactly the same (14.4%) in the colchicine and placebo groups, reported Yaser Jenab, MD, at CRT 2021 sponsored by MedStar Heart & Vascular Institute.
The hypothesis that colchicine would offer benefit in this setting was largely based on the Colchicine Cardiovascular Outcomes Trial (COLCOT). In that study, colchicine was associated with a 23% reduction in risk for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) relative to placebo when administered within 30 days after a myocardial infarction (hazard ratio, 0.77; P = .02).
The benefit in that trial was attributed to an anti-inflammatory effect, according to Dr. Jenab, associate professor of cardiology at Tehran (Iran) Heart Center. In particular as it relates to vascular disease, he cited experimental studies associating colchicine with a reduction in neutrophil activation and adherence to vascular endothelium.
The rationale for a preprocedural approach to colchicine was supplied by a subsequent time-to-treatment COLCOT analysis. In this study, MACE risk reduction for colchicine climbed to 48% (HR 0.52) for those treated within 3 days of the MI but largely disappeared (HR 0.96) if treatment was started at least 8 days post MI.
PodCAST-PCI trial
In the preprocedural study, called the PodCAST-PCI trial, 321 acute STEMI patients were randomized. Patients received a 1-mg dose of oral colchicine or placebo at the time PCI was scheduled. Another dose of colchicine (0.5 mg) or placebo was administered 1 hour after the procedure.
Of secondary outcomes, which included MACE at 1 month and 1 year, ST-segment resolution at 1 month, and change in inflammatory markers at 1 month, none were significant. Few even trended for significance.
For MACE, which included cardiac death, stroke, nonfatal MI, new hospitalization due to heart failure, or target vessel revascularization, the rates were lower in the colchicine group at 1 month (4.3% vs. 7.5%) and 1 year (9.3% vs. 11.2%), but neither approached significance.
For ST-segment resolution, the proportions were generally comparable among the colchicine and placebo groups, respectively, for the proportion below 50% (18.6% vs. 23.1%), between 50% and 70% (16.8% vs. 15.6%), and above 70% (64.6% vs. 61.3%).
The average troponin levels were nonsignificantly lower at 6 hours (1,847 vs. 2,883 ng/mL) in the colchicine group but higher at 48 hours (1,197 vs. 1,147 ng/mL). The average C-reactive protein (CRP) levels at 48 hours were nonsignificantly lower on colchicine (176.5 vs. 244.5 mg/L).
There were no significant differences in postprocedural perfusion, as measured with TIMI blood flow, or in the rate of stent thrombosis, which occurred in roughly 3% of each group of patients.
The small sample size was one limitation of this study, Dr. Jenab acknowledged. For this and other reasons, he cautioned that these data are not definitive and do not preclude a benefit on clinical outcomes in a study with a larger size, a different design, or different dosing.
Timing might be the issue
However, even if colchicine has a potential benefit in this setting, timing might be a major obstacle, according to Binata Shah, MD, associate director of research for the Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory at New York University.
“We have learned from our rheumatology colleagues that peak plasma levels of colchicine are not achieved for at least 1 hour after the full loading dose,” Dr. Shah said. “With us moving so quickly in a primary PCI setting, it is hard to imagine that colchicine would have had time to really kick in and exert its anti-inflammatory effect.”
Indeed, the problem might be worse than reaching the peak plasma level.
“Even though peak plasma levels occur as early as 1 hour after a full loading dose, we see that it takes about 24 hours to really see the effects translate downstream into more systemic inflammatory markers such as CRP and interleukin-6,” she added. If lowering these signals of inflammation is predictive of benefit, than this might be the biggest obstacle to benefit from colchicine in an urgent treatment setting.
Dr. Jenab and Dr. Shah reported no potential conflicts of interest.
In a placebo-controlled randomized trial, a preprocedural dose of colchicine administered immediately before percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for an acute ST-segment elevated myocardial infarction (STEMI) did not reduce the no-reflow phenomenon or improve outcomes.
No-reflow, in which insufficient myocardial perfusion is present even though the coronary artery appears patent, was the primary outcome, and the proportion of patients experiencing this event was exactly the same (14.4%) in the colchicine and placebo groups, reported Yaser Jenab, MD, at CRT 2021 sponsored by MedStar Heart & Vascular Institute.
The hypothesis that colchicine would offer benefit in this setting was largely based on the Colchicine Cardiovascular Outcomes Trial (COLCOT). In that study, colchicine was associated with a 23% reduction in risk for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) relative to placebo when administered within 30 days after a myocardial infarction (hazard ratio, 0.77; P = .02).
The benefit in that trial was attributed to an anti-inflammatory effect, according to Dr. Jenab, associate professor of cardiology at Tehran (Iran) Heart Center. In particular as it relates to vascular disease, he cited experimental studies associating colchicine with a reduction in neutrophil activation and adherence to vascular endothelium.
The rationale for a preprocedural approach to colchicine was supplied by a subsequent time-to-treatment COLCOT analysis. In this study, MACE risk reduction for colchicine climbed to 48% (HR 0.52) for those treated within 3 days of the MI but largely disappeared (HR 0.96) if treatment was started at least 8 days post MI.
PodCAST-PCI trial
In the preprocedural study, called the PodCAST-PCI trial, 321 acute STEMI patients were randomized. Patients received a 1-mg dose of oral colchicine or placebo at the time PCI was scheduled. Another dose of colchicine (0.5 mg) or placebo was administered 1 hour after the procedure.
Of secondary outcomes, which included MACE at 1 month and 1 year, ST-segment resolution at 1 month, and change in inflammatory markers at 1 month, none were significant. Few even trended for significance.
For MACE, which included cardiac death, stroke, nonfatal MI, new hospitalization due to heart failure, or target vessel revascularization, the rates were lower in the colchicine group at 1 month (4.3% vs. 7.5%) and 1 year (9.3% vs. 11.2%), but neither approached significance.
For ST-segment resolution, the proportions were generally comparable among the colchicine and placebo groups, respectively, for the proportion below 50% (18.6% vs. 23.1%), between 50% and 70% (16.8% vs. 15.6%), and above 70% (64.6% vs. 61.3%).
The average troponin levels were nonsignificantly lower at 6 hours (1,847 vs. 2,883 ng/mL) in the colchicine group but higher at 48 hours (1,197 vs. 1,147 ng/mL). The average C-reactive protein (CRP) levels at 48 hours were nonsignificantly lower on colchicine (176.5 vs. 244.5 mg/L).
There were no significant differences in postprocedural perfusion, as measured with TIMI blood flow, or in the rate of stent thrombosis, which occurred in roughly 3% of each group of patients.
The small sample size was one limitation of this study, Dr. Jenab acknowledged. For this and other reasons, he cautioned that these data are not definitive and do not preclude a benefit on clinical outcomes in a study with a larger size, a different design, or different dosing.
Timing might be the issue
However, even if colchicine has a potential benefit in this setting, timing might be a major obstacle, according to Binata Shah, MD, associate director of research for the Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory at New York University.
“We have learned from our rheumatology colleagues that peak plasma levels of colchicine are not achieved for at least 1 hour after the full loading dose,” Dr. Shah said. “With us moving so quickly in a primary PCI setting, it is hard to imagine that colchicine would have had time to really kick in and exert its anti-inflammatory effect.”
Indeed, the problem might be worse than reaching the peak plasma level.
“Even though peak plasma levels occur as early as 1 hour after a full loading dose, we see that it takes about 24 hours to really see the effects translate downstream into more systemic inflammatory markers such as CRP and interleukin-6,” she added. If lowering these signals of inflammation is predictive of benefit, than this might be the biggest obstacle to benefit from colchicine in an urgent treatment setting.
Dr. Jenab and Dr. Shah reported no potential conflicts of interest.
FROM CRT 2021
‘Major update’ of BP guidance for kidney disease; treat to 120 mm Hg
The new 2021 Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) clinical practice guideline for blood pressure management for adults with chronic kidney disease (CKD) who are not receiving dialysis advises treating to a target systolic blood pressure of less than 120 mm Hg, provided measurements are “standardized” and that blood pressure is “measured properly.”
This blood pressure target – largely based on evidence from the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) – represents “a major update” from the 2012 KDIGO guideline, which advised clinicians to treat to a target blood pressure of less than or equal to 130/80 mm Hg for patients with albuminuria or less than or equal to 140/90 mm Hg for patients without albuminuria.
The new goal is also lower than the less than 130/80 mm Hg target in the 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guideline.
In a study of the public health implications of the guideline, Kathryn Foti, PhD, and colleagues determined that 70% of U.S. adults with CKD would now be eligible for treatment to lower blood pressure, as opposed to 50% under the previous KDIGO guideline and 56% under the ACC/AHA guideline.
“This is a major update of an influential set of guidelines for chronic kidney disease patients” at a time when blood pressure control is worsening in the United States, Dr. Foti, a postdoctoral researcher in the department of epidemiology at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, said in a statement from her institution.
The 2021 KDIGO blood pressure guideline and executive summary and the public health implications study are published online in Kidney International.
First, ‘take blood pressure well’
The cochair of the new KDIGO guidelines, Alfred K. Cheung, MD, from the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, said in an interview that the guideline has “two important points.”
First, “take that blood pressure well,” he said. “That has a lot to do with patient preparation rather than any fancy instrument,” he emphasized.
Second, the guideline proposes a systolic blood pressure target of less than 120 mm Hg for most people with CKD not receiving dialysis, except for children and kidney transplant recipients. This target is “contingent on ‘standardized’ blood pressure measurement.”
The document provides a checklist for obtaining a standardized blood pressure measurement, adapted from the 2017 ACC/AHA blood pressure guidelines. It starts with the patient relaxed and sitting on a chair for more than 5 minutes.
In contrast to this measurement, a “routine” or “casual” office blood pressure measurement could be off by plus or minus 10 mm Hg, Dr. Cheung noted.
In a typical scenario, he continued, a patient cannot find a place to park, rushes into the clinic, and has his or her blood pressure checked right away, which would provide a “totally unreliable” reading. Adding a “fudge factor” (correction factor) would not provide an accurate reading.
Clinicians “would not settle for a potassium measurement that is 5.0 mmol/L plus or minus a few decimal points” to guide treatment, he pointed out.
Second, target 120, properly measured
“The very first chapter of the guidelines is devoted to blood pressure measurement, because we recognize if we’re going to do 120 [mm Hg] – the emphasis is on 120 measured properly – so we try to drive that point home,” Tara I. Chang, MD, guideline second author and a coauthor of the public health implications study, pointed out in an interview.
“There are a lot of other things that we base clinical decisions on where we really require some degree of precision, and blood pressure is important enough that to us it’s kind of in the same boat,” said Dr. Chang, from Stanford (Calif.) University.
“In SPRINT, people were randomized to less than less than 120 vs. less than 140 (they weren’t randomized to <130),” she noted.
“The recommendation should be widely adopted in clinical practice,” the guideline authors write, “since accurate measurements will ensure that proper guidance is being applied to the management of BP, as it is to the management of other risk factors.”
Still need individual treatment
Nevertheless, patients still need individualized treatment, the document stresses. “Not every patient with CKD will be appropriate to target to less than 120,” Dr. Chang said. However, “we want people to at least consider less than 120,” she added, to avoid therapeutic inertia.
“If you take the blood pressure in a standardized manner – such as in the ACCORD trial and in the SPRINT trial – even patients over 75 years old, or people over 80 years old, they have very little side effects,” Dr. Cheung noted.
“In the overall cohort,” he continued, “they do not have a significant increase in serious adverse events, do not have adverse events of postural hypotension, syncope, bradycardia, injurious falls – so people are worried about it, but it’s not borne out by the data.
“That said, I have two cautions,” Dr. Cheung noted. “One. If you drop somebody’s blood pressure rapidly over a week, you may be more likely to get in trouble. If you drop the blood pressure gradually over several weeks, several months, you’re much less likely to get into trouble.”
“Two. If the patient is old, you know the patient has carotid stenosis and already has postural dizziness, you may not want to try on that patient – but just because the patient is old is not the reason not to target 120.”
ACE inhibitors and ARBs beneficial in albuminuria, underused
“How do you get to less than 120? The short answer is, use whatever medications you need to – there is no necessarily right cocktail,” Dr. Chang said.
“We’ve known that angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and ARBs [angiotensin II receptor blockers] are beneficial in patients with CKD and in particular those with heavier albuminuria,” she continued. “We’ve known this for over 20 years.”
Yet, the study identified underutilization – “a persistent gap, just like blood pressure control and awareness,” she noted. “We’re just not making much headway.
“We are not recommending ACE inhibitors or ARBs for all the patients,” Dr. Cheung clarified. “If you are diabetic and have heavy proteinuria, that’s when the use of ACE inhibitors and ARBs are most indicated.”
Public health implications
SPRINT showed that treating to a systolic blood pressure of less than 120 mm Hg vs. less than 140 mm Hg reduced the risk for cardiovascular disease by 25% and all-cause mortality by 27% for participants with and those without CKD, Dr. Foti and colleagues stress.
They aimed to estimate how the new guideline would affect (1) the number of U.S. patients with CKD who would be eligible for blood pressure lowering treatment, and (2) the proportion of those with albuminuria who would be eligible for an ACE inhibitor or an ARB.
The researchers analyzed data from 1,699 adults with CKD (estimated glomerular filtration rate, 15-59 mL/min/1.73 m2 or a urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio of ≥30 mg/g) who participated in the 2015-2018 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.
Both the 2021 and 2012 KDIGO guidelines recommend that patients with albuminuria and blood pressure higher than the target value who are not kidney transplant recipients should be treated with an ACE inhibitor or an ARB.
On the basis of the new target, 78% of patients with CKD and albuminuria were eligible for ACE inhibitor/ARB treatment by the 2021 KDIGO guideline, compared with 71% by the 2012 KDIGO guideline. However, only 39% were taking one of these drugs.
These findings show that “with the new guideline and with the lower blood pressure target, you potentially have an even larger pool of people who have blood pressure that’s not under control, and a potential larger group of people who may benefit from ACE inhibitors and ARBs,” Dr. Chang said.
“Our paper is not the only one to show that we haven’t made a whole lot of progress,” she said, “and now that the bar has been lowered, there [have] to be some renewed efforts on controlling blood pressure, because we know that blood pressure control is such an important risk factor for cardiovascular outcomes.”
Dr. Foti is supported by an NIH/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute grant. Dr. Cheung has received consultancy fees from Amgen, Bard, Boehringer Ingelheim, Calliditas, Tricida, and UpToDate, and grant/research support from the National Institutes of Health for SPRINT (monies paid to institution). Dr. Chang has received consultancy fees from Bayer, Gilead, Janssen Research and Development, Novo Nordisk, Tricida, and Vascular Dynamics; grant/research support from AstraZeneca and Satellite Healthcare (monies paid to institution), the NIH, and the American Heart Association; is on advisory boards for AstraZeneca and Fresenius Medical Care Renal Therapies Group; and has received workshop honoraria from Fresenius. Disclosures of relevant financial relationships of the other authors are listed in the original articles.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The new 2021 Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) clinical practice guideline for blood pressure management for adults with chronic kidney disease (CKD) who are not receiving dialysis advises treating to a target systolic blood pressure of less than 120 mm Hg, provided measurements are “standardized” and that blood pressure is “measured properly.”
This blood pressure target – largely based on evidence from the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) – represents “a major update” from the 2012 KDIGO guideline, which advised clinicians to treat to a target blood pressure of less than or equal to 130/80 mm Hg for patients with albuminuria or less than or equal to 140/90 mm Hg for patients without albuminuria.
The new goal is also lower than the less than 130/80 mm Hg target in the 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guideline.
In a study of the public health implications of the guideline, Kathryn Foti, PhD, and colleagues determined that 70% of U.S. adults with CKD would now be eligible for treatment to lower blood pressure, as opposed to 50% under the previous KDIGO guideline and 56% under the ACC/AHA guideline.
“This is a major update of an influential set of guidelines for chronic kidney disease patients” at a time when blood pressure control is worsening in the United States, Dr. Foti, a postdoctoral researcher in the department of epidemiology at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, said in a statement from her institution.
The 2021 KDIGO blood pressure guideline and executive summary and the public health implications study are published online in Kidney International.
First, ‘take blood pressure well’
The cochair of the new KDIGO guidelines, Alfred K. Cheung, MD, from the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, said in an interview that the guideline has “two important points.”
First, “take that blood pressure well,” he said. “That has a lot to do with patient preparation rather than any fancy instrument,” he emphasized.
Second, the guideline proposes a systolic blood pressure target of less than 120 mm Hg for most people with CKD not receiving dialysis, except for children and kidney transplant recipients. This target is “contingent on ‘standardized’ blood pressure measurement.”
The document provides a checklist for obtaining a standardized blood pressure measurement, adapted from the 2017 ACC/AHA blood pressure guidelines. It starts with the patient relaxed and sitting on a chair for more than 5 minutes.
In contrast to this measurement, a “routine” or “casual” office blood pressure measurement could be off by plus or minus 10 mm Hg, Dr. Cheung noted.
In a typical scenario, he continued, a patient cannot find a place to park, rushes into the clinic, and has his or her blood pressure checked right away, which would provide a “totally unreliable” reading. Adding a “fudge factor” (correction factor) would not provide an accurate reading.
Clinicians “would not settle for a potassium measurement that is 5.0 mmol/L plus or minus a few decimal points” to guide treatment, he pointed out.
Second, target 120, properly measured
“The very first chapter of the guidelines is devoted to blood pressure measurement, because we recognize if we’re going to do 120 [mm Hg] – the emphasis is on 120 measured properly – so we try to drive that point home,” Tara I. Chang, MD, guideline second author and a coauthor of the public health implications study, pointed out in an interview.
“There are a lot of other things that we base clinical decisions on where we really require some degree of precision, and blood pressure is important enough that to us it’s kind of in the same boat,” said Dr. Chang, from Stanford (Calif.) University.
“In SPRINT, people were randomized to less than less than 120 vs. less than 140 (they weren’t randomized to <130),” she noted.
“The recommendation should be widely adopted in clinical practice,” the guideline authors write, “since accurate measurements will ensure that proper guidance is being applied to the management of BP, as it is to the management of other risk factors.”
Still need individual treatment
Nevertheless, patients still need individualized treatment, the document stresses. “Not every patient with CKD will be appropriate to target to less than 120,” Dr. Chang said. However, “we want people to at least consider less than 120,” she added, to avoid therapeutic inertia.
“If you take the blood pressure in a standardized manner – such as in the ACCORD trial and in the SPRINT trial – even patients over 75 years old, or people over 80 years old, they have very little side effects,” Dr. Cheung noted.
“In the overall cohort,” he continued, “they do not have a significant increase in serious adverse events, do not have adverse events of postural hypotension, syncope, bradycardia, injurious falls – so people are worried about it, but it’s not borne out by the data.
“That said, I have two cautions,” Dr. Cheung noted. “One. If you drop somebody’s blood pressure rapidly over a week, you may be more likely to get in trouble. If you drop the blood pressure gradually over several weeks, several months, you’re much less likely to get into trouble.”
“Two. If the patient is old, you know the patient has carotid stenosis and already has postural dizziness, you may not want to try on that patient – but just because the patient is old is not the reason not to target 120.”
ACE inhibitors and ARBs beneficial in albuminuria, underused
“How do you get to less than 120? The short answer is, use whatever medications you need to – there is no necessarily right cocktail,” Dr. Chang said.
“We’ve known that angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and ARBs [angiotensin II receptor blockers] are beneficial in patients with CKD and in particular those with heavier albuminuria,” she continued. “We’ve known this for over 20 years.”
Yet, the study identified underutilization – “a persistent gap, just like blood pressure control and awareness,” she noted. “We’re just not making much headway.
“We are not recommending ACE inhibitors or ARBs for all the patients,” Dr. Cheung clarified. “If you are diabetic and have heavy proteinuria, that’s when the use of ACE inhibitors and ARBs are most indicated.”
Public health implications
SPRINT showed that treating to a systolic blood pressure of less than 120 mm Hg vs. less than 140 mm Hg reduced the risk for cardiovascular disease by 25% and all-cause mortality by 27% for participants with and those without CKD, Dr. Foti and colleagues stress.
They aimed to estimate how the new guideline would affect (1) the number of U.S. patients with CKD who would be eligible for blood pressure lowering treatment, and (2) the proportion of those with albuminuria who would be eligible for an ACE inhibitor or an ARB.
The researchers analyzed data from 1,699 adults with CKD (estimated glomerular filtration rate, 15-59 mL/min/1.73 m2 or a urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio of ≥30 mg/g) who participated in the 2015-2018 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.
Both the 2021 and 2012 KDIGO guidelines recommend that patients with albuminuria and blood pressure higher than the target value who are not kidney transplant recipients should be treated with an ACE inhibitor or an ARB.
On the basis of the new target, 78% of patients with CKD and albuminuria were eligible for ACE inhibitor/ARB treatment by the 2021 KDIGO guideline, compared with 71% by the 2012 KDIGO guideline. However, only 39% were taking one of these drugs.
These findings show that “with the new guideline and with the lower blood pressure target, you potentially have an even larger pool of people who have blood pressure that’s not under control, and a potential larger group of people who may benefit from ACE inhibitors and ARBs,” Dr. Chang said.
“Our paper is not the only one to show that we haven’t made a whole lot of progress,” she said, “and now that the bar has been lowered, there [have] to be some renewed efforts on controlling blood pressure, because we know that blood pressure control is such an important risk factor for cardiovascular outcomes.”
Dr. Foti is supported by an NIH/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute grant. Dr. Cheung has received consultancy fees from Amgen, Bard, Boehringer Ingelheim, Calliditas, Tricida, and UpToDate, and grant/research support from the National Institutes of Health for SPRINT (monies paid to institution). Dr. Chang has received consultancy fees from Bayer, Gilead, Janssen Research and Development, Novo Nordisk, Tricida, and Vascular Dynamics; grant/research support from AstraZeneca and Satellite Healthcare (monies paid to institution), the NIH, and the American Heart Association; is on advisory boards for AstraZeneca and Fresenius Medical Care Renal Therapies Group; and has received workshop honoraria from Fresenius. Disclosures of relevant financial relationships of the other authors are listed in the original articles.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The new 2021 Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) clinical practice guideline for blood pressure management for adults with chronic kidney disease (CKD) who are not receiving dialysis advises treating to a target systolic blood pressure of less than 120 mm Hg, provided measurements are “standardized” and that blood pressure is “measured properly.”
This blood pressure target – largely based on evidence from the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) – represents “a major update” from the 2012 KDIGO guideline, which advised clinicians to treat to a target blood pressure of less than or equal to 130/80 mm Hg for patients with albuminuria or less than or equal to 140/90 mm Hg for patients without albuminuria.
The new goal is also lower than the less than 130/80 mm Hg target in the 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guideline.
In a study of the public health implications of the guideline, Kathryn Foti, PhD, and colleagues determined that 70% of U.S. adults with CKD would now be eligible for treatment to lower blood pressure, as opposed to 50% under the previous KDIGO guideline and 56% under the ACC/AHA guideline.
“This is a major update of an influential set of guidelines for chronic kidney disease patients” at a time when blood pressure control is worsening in the United States, Dr. Foti, a postdoctoral researcher in the department of epidemiology at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, said in a statement from her institution.
The 2021 KDIGO blood pressure guideline and executive summary and the public health implications study are published online in Kidney International.
First, ‘take blood pressure well’
The cochair of the new KDIGO guidelines, Alfred K. Cheung, MD, from the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, said in an interview that the guideline has “two important points.”
First, “take that blood pressure well,” he said. “That has a lot to do with patient preparation rather than any fancy instrument,” he emphasized.
Second, the guideline proposes a systolic blood pressure target of less than 120 mm Hg for most people with CKD not receiving dialysis, except for children and kidney transplant recipients. This target is “contingent on ‘standardized’ blood pressure measurement.”
The document provides a checklist for obtaining a standardized blood pressure measurement, adapted from the 2017 ACC/AHA blood pressure guidelines. It starts with the patient relaxed and sitting on a chair for more than 5 minutes.
In contrast to this measurement, a “routine” or “casual” office blood pressure measurement could be off by plus or minus 10 mm Hg, Dr. Cheung noted.
In a typical scenario, he continued, a patient cannot find a place to park, rushes into the clinic, and has his or her blood pressure checked right away, which would provide a “totally unreliable” reading. Adding a “fudge factor” (correction factor) would not provide an accurate reading.
Clinicians “would not settle for a potassium measurement that is 5.0 mmol/L plus or minus a few decimal points” to guide treatment, he pointed out.
Second, target 120, properly measured
“The very first chapter of the guidelines is devoted to blood pressure measurement, because we recognize if we’re going to do 120 [mm Hg] – the emphasis is on 120 measured properly – so we try to drive that point home,” Tara I. Chang, MD, guideline second author and a coauthor of the public health implications study, pointed out in an interview.
“There are a lot of other things that we base clinical decisions on where we really require some degree of precision, and blood pressure is important enough that to us it’s kind of in the same boat,” said Dr. Chang, from Stanford (Calif.) University.
“In SPRINT, people were randomized to less than less than 120 vs. less than 140 (they weren’t randomized to <130),” she noted.
“The recommendation should be widely adopted in clinical practice,” the guideline authors write, “since accurate measurements will ensure that proper guidance is being applied to the management of BP, as it is to the management of other risk factors.”
Still need individual treatment
Nevertheless, patients still need individualized treatment, the document stresses. “Not every patient with CKD will be appropriate to target to less than 120,” Dr. Chang said. However, “we want people to at least consider less than 120,” she added, to avoid therapeutic inertia.
“If you take the blood pressure in a standardized manner – such as in the ACCORD trial and in the SPRINT trial – even patients over 75 years old, or people over 80 years old, they have very little side effects,” Dr. Cheung noted.
“In the overall cohort,” he continued, “they do not have a significant increase in serious adverse events, do not have adverse events of postural hypotension, syncope, bradycardia, injurious falls – so people are worried about it, but it’s not borne out by the data.
“That said, I have two cautions,” Dr. Cheung noted. “One. If you drop somebody’s blood pressure rapidly over a week, you may be more likely to get in trouble. If you drop the blood pressure gradually over several weeks, several months, you’re much less likely to get into trouble.”
“Two. If the patient is old, you know the patient has carotid stenosis and already has postural dizziness, you may not want to try on that patient – but just because the patient is old is not the reason not to target 120.”
ACE inhibitors and ARBs beneficial in albuminuria, underused
“How do you get to less than 120? The short answer is, use whatever medications you need to – there is no necessarily right cocktail,” Dr. Chang said.
“We’ve known that angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and ARBs [angiotensin II receptor blockers] are beneficial in patients with CKD and in particular those with heavier albuminuria,” she continued. “We’ve known this for over 20 years.”
Yet, the study identified underutilization – “a persistent gap, just like blood pressure control and awareness,” she noted. “We’re just not making much headway.
“We are not recommending ACE inhibitors or ARBs for all the patients,” Dr. Cheung clarified. “If you are diabetic and have heavy proteinuria, that’s when the use of ACE inhibitors and ARBs are most indicated.”
Public health implications
SPRINT showed that treating to a systolic blood pressure of less than 120 mm Hg vs. less than 140 mm Hg reduced the risk for cardiovascular disease by 25% and all-cause mortality by 27% for participants with and those without CKD, Dr. Foti and colleagues stress.
They aimed to estimate how the new guideline would affect (1) the number of U.S. patients with CKD who would be eligible for blood pressure lowering treatment, and (2) the proportion of those with albuminuria who would be eligible for an ACE inhibitor or an ARB.
The researchers analyzed data from 1,699 adults with CKD (estimated glomerular filtration rate, 15-59 mL/min/1.73 m2 or a urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio of ≥30 mg/g) who participated in the 2015-2018 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.
Both the 2021 and 2012 KDIGO guidelines recommend that patients with albuminuria and blood pressure higher than the target value who are not kidney transplant recipients should be treated with an ACE inhibitor or an ARB.
On the basis of the new target, 78% of patients with CKD and albuminuria were eligible for ACE inhibitor/ARB treatment by the 2021 KDIGO guideline, compared with 71% by the 2012 KDIGO guideline. However, only 39% were taking one of these drugs.
These findings show that “with the new guideline and with the lower blood pressure target, you potentially have an even larger pool of people who have blood pressure that’s not under control, and a potential larger group of people who may benefit from ACE inhibitors and ARBs,” Dr. Chang said.
“Our paper is not the only one to show that we haven’t made a whole lot of progress,” she said, “and now that the bar has been lowered, there [have] to be some renewed efforts on controlling blood pressure, because we know that blood pressure control is such an important risk factor for cardiovascular outcomes.”
Dr. Foti is supported by an NIH/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute grant. Dr. Cheung has received consultancy fees from Amgen, Bard, Boehringer Ingelheim, Calliditas, Tricida, and UpToDate, and grant/research support from the National Institutes of Health for SPRINT (monies paid to institution). Dr. Chang has received consultancy fees from Bayer, Gilead, Janssen Research and Development, Novo Nordisk, Tricida, and Vascular Dynamics; grant/research support from AstraZeneca and Satellite Healthcare (monies paid to institution), the NIH, and the American Heart Association; is on advisory boards for AstraZeneca and Fresenius Medical Care Renal Therapies Group; and has received workshop honoraria from Fresenius. Disclosures of relevant financial relationships of the other authors are listed in the original articles.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Target-lesion failure reduced 2 years after MI with biodegradable stent
For a primary composite target-lesion failure outcome, a biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent showed superiority at 2 years over a durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent in patients undergoing percutaneous intervention (PCI) for an ST-segment elevated acute myocardial infarction (STEMI), according to a late-breaking trial presentation at CRT 2021.
As in the previously reported 1-year results from the BIOSTEMI trial, the advantage of the biodegradable device was “driven by lower rates of target-lesion revascularization,” reported Thomas Pilgrim, MD, of the University of Bern (Switzerland).
Drug-eluting stents have already been established as superior to bare-metal stents, but the question asked in this study is whether the polymer that carries antiproliferative drugs, such as sirolimus or everolimus, improves lesion-based outcomes if it is biodegradable rather than durable, Dr. Pilgrim explained.
The composite primary outcome was target-lesion failure defined by cardiac death, target-lesion MI, or clinically indicated target-lesion revascularization.
After 2 years of follow-up, the rates of target-lesion failure were 5.1% and 8.1% for the biodegradable and durable polymer stents, respectively. This 0.58 rate ratio was statistically significant, favoring the biodegradable stent.
The investigator-initiated BIOSTEMI trial randomized 1,300 patients to one of two drug-eluting stents with ultrathin struts. One was the Orsiro stent that employs a biodegradable polymer to deliver sirolimus. The other was the Xience Prime/Xpedition that uses a durable polymer stent to deliver everolimus.
The strut thicknesses of the Orsiro stent are 60 mcm for stents of 3.0 mm in diameter or smaller and 80 mcm for those with a larger diameter. The strut thickness of the Xience stent is 81 mcm regardless of diameter.
“Patients with an acute myocardial infarction are at increased risk of stent-related events due to exacerbated inflammatory response and delayed arterial healing,” Dr. Pilgrim said. The theoretical advantages of polymer that biodegrades include “mitigation of the arterial injury, facilitation of endothelialization, and reduced intimal hyperplasia,” he explained at the meeting sponsored by MedStar Heart & Vascular Institute.
The rates of cardiac death (2.9% vs. 3.2%) and target-vessel MI (2.9% vs. 3.2%) were lower for the biodegradable polymer stent, but not significantly. However, the rates of target-vessel revascularization at 2 years were 2.5% versus 5.1%. The associated rate ratio of 0.52 favoring the biodegradable stent was significant.
Similar results favoring the biodegradable polymer stent were observed at 1 year, but those earlier results factored in historical data from the BIOSCIENCE trial, using a Bayesian analysis, to improve the power of the comparison. In this 2-year analysis, the superiority of the biodegradable polymer stent to the durable polymer stent remained statistically significant even when excluding those historical controls.
The advantage of the biodegradable polymer stent was confined to “device-oriented” outcomes, according to Dr. Pilgrim. When compared for important patient-oriented outcomes at 2 years, there were no significant differences. Rather, several were numerically more common, including death (4.2% vs. 3.8%) and MI (3.7% vs. 3.1%) in those who were randomized to the biodegradable polymer stent.
But these types of clinical outcomes are not necessarily related to stent assignment because “up to one-half of all events over the 2 years of follow-up were unrelated to the stent implanted,” Dr. Pilgrim said. He noted that high rates of events unrelated to the implanted stent have also been seen in follow-up of other comparative stent trials.
The superiority of the biodegradable stent is noteworthy. Although Dr. Pilgrim described the BIOSTEMI trial as “the first head-to-head comparison of two new-generation drug-eluting stents in patients undergoing a primary percutaneous intervention for acute myocardial infarction,” there have been several studies comparing stents for other indications. Significant differences have been uncommon.
“Over the last 10 years, we have seen a number of noninferiority stent trials, but only now are we seeing some superiority differences. This is a move in the right direction,” commented Sripal Bangalore, MD, director of the cardiovascular outcomes group, New York University.
However, he, like others, questioned whether the difference in outcomes in this trial could be fully attributed to the type of polymer. He noted that all stents could be characterized by multiple small and large differences in design and composition. Any specific characteristic, such as biodegradable polymer, might be an important contributor but not an isolated factor in the outcomes observed.
On the day that the 2-year results of the BIOSTEMI trial were presented at the CRT 2021 meeting they were simultaneously published in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions.
Dr. Pilgrim reports financial relationships with several companies that make stent devices, including Biotronik and Boston Scientific. Dr. Bangalore reports no potential conflicts of interest.
For a primary composite target-lesion failure outcome, a biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent showed superiority at 2 years over a durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent in patients undergoing percutaneous intervention (PCI) for an ST-segment elevated acute myocardial infarction (STEMI), according to a late-breaking trial presentation at CRT 2021.
As in the previously reported 1-year results from the BIOSTEMI trial, the advantage of the biodegradable device was “driven by lower rates of target-lesion revascularization,” reported Thomas Pilgrim, MD, of the University of Bern (Switzerland).
Drug-eluting stents have already been established as superior to bare-metal stents, but the question asked in this study is whether the polymer that carries antiproliferative drugs, such as sirolimus or everolimus, improves lesion-based outcomes if it is biodegradable rather than durable, Dr. Pilgrim explained.
The composite primary outcome was target-lesion failure defined by cardiac death, target-lesion MI, or clinically indicated target-lesion revascularization.
After 2 years of follow-up, the rates of target-lesion failure were 5.1% and 8.1% for the biodegradable and durable polymer stents, respectively. This 0.58 rate ratio was statistically significant, favoring the biodegradable stent.
The investigator-initiated BIOSTEMI trial randomized 1,300 patients to one of two drug-eluting stents with ultrathin struts. One was the Orsiro stent that employs a biodegradable polymer to deliver sirolimus. The other was the Xience Prime/Xpedition that uses a durable polymer stent to deliver everolimus.
The strut thicknesses of the Orsiro stent are 60 mcm for stents of 3.0 mm in diameter or smaller and 80 mcm for those with a larger diameter. The strut thickness of the Xience stent is 81 mcm regardless of diameter.
“Patients with an acute myocardial infarction are at increased risk of stent-related events due to exacerbated inflammatory response and delayed arterial healing,” Dr. Pilgrim said. The theoretical advantages of polymer that biodegrades include “mitigation of the arterial injury, facilitation of endothelialization, and reduced intimal hyperplasia,” he explained at the meeting sponsored by MedStar Heart & Vascular Institute.
The rates of cardiac death (2.9% vs. 3.2%) and target-vessel MI (2.9% vs. 3.2%) were lower for the biodegradable polymer stent, but not significantly. However, the rates of target-vessel revascularization at 2 years were 2.5% versus 5.1%. The associated rate ratio of 0.52 favoring the biodegradable stent was significant.
Similar results favoring the biodegradable polymer stent were observed at 1 year, but those earlier results factored in historical data from the BIOSCIENCE trial, using a Bayesian analysis, to improve the power of the comparison. In this 2-year analysis, the superiority of the biodegradable polymer stent to the durable polymer stent remained statistically significant even when excluding those historical controls.
The advantage of the biodegradable polymer stent was confined to “device-oriented” outcomes, according to Dr. Pilgrim. When compared for important patient-oriented outcomes at 2 years, there were no significant differences. Rather, several were numerically more common, including death (4.2% vs. 3.8%) and MI (3.7% vs. 3.1%) in those who were randomized to the biodegradable polymer stent.
But these types of clinical outcomes are not necessarily related to stent assignment because “up to one-half of all events over the 2 years of follow-up were unrelated to the stent implanted,” Dr. Pilgrim said. He noted that high rates of events unrelated to the implanted stent have also been seen in follow-up of other comparative stent trials.
The superiority of the biodegradable stent is noteworthy. Although Dr. Pilgrim described the BIOSTEMI trial as “the first head-to-head comparison of two new-generation drug-eluting stents in patients undergoing a primary percutaneous intervention for acute myocardial infarction,” there have been several studies comparing stents for other indications. Significant differences have been uncommon.
“Over the last 10 years, we have seen a number of noninferiority stent trials, but only now are we seeing some superiority differences. This is a move in the right direction,” commented Sripal Bangalore, MD, director of the cardiovascular outcomes group, New York University.
However, he, like others, questioned whether the difference in outcomes in this trial could be fully attributed to the type of polymer. He noted that all stents could be characterized by multiple small and large differences in design and composition. Any specific characteristic, such as biodegradable polymer, might be an important contributor but not an isolated factor in the outcomes observed.
On the day that the 2-year results of the BIOSTEMI trial were presented at the CRT 2021 meeting they were simultaneously published in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions.
Dr. Pilgrim reports financial relationships with several companies that make stent devices, including Biotronik and Boston Scientific. Dr. Bangalore reports no potential conflicts of interest.
For a primary composite target-lesion failure outcome, a biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent showed superiority at 2 years over a durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent in patients undergoing percutaneous intervention (PCI) for an ST-segment elevated acute myocardial infarction (STEMI), according to a late-breaking trial presentation at CRT 2021.
As in the previously reported 1-year results from the BIOSTEMI trial, the advantage of the biodegradable device was “driven by lower rates of target-lesion revascularization,” reported Thomas Pilgrim, MD, of the University of Bern (Switzerland).
Drug-eluting stents have already been established as superior to bare-metal stents, but the question asked in this study is whether the polymer that carries antiproliferative drugs, such as sirolimus or everolimus, improves lesion-based outcomes if it is biodegradable rather than durable, Dr. Pilgrim explained.
The composite primary outcome was target-lesion failure defined by cardiac death, target-lesion MI, or clinically indicated target-lesion revascularization.
After 2 years of follow-up, the rates of target-lesion failure were 5.1% and 8.1% for the biodegradable and durable polymer stents, respectively. This 0.58 rate ratio was statistically significant, favoring the biodegradable stent.
The investigator-initiated BIOSTEMI trial randomized 1,300 patients to one of two drug-eluting stents with ultrathin struts. One was the Orsiro stent that employs a biodegradable polymer to deliver sirolimus. The other was the Xience Prime/Xpedition that uses a durable polymer stent to deliver everolimus.
The strut thicknesses of the Orsiro stent are 60 mcm for stents of 3.0 mm in diameter or smaller and 80 mcm for those with a larger diameter. The strut thickness of the Xience stent is 81 mcm regardless of diameter.
“Patients with an acute myocardial infarction are at increased risk of stent-related events due to exacerbated inflammatory response and delayed arterial healing,” Dr. Pilgrim said. The theoretical advantages of polymer that biodegrades include “mitigation of the arterial injury, facilitation of endothelialization, and reduced intimal hyperplasia,” he explained at the meeting sponsored by MedStar Heart & Vascular Institute.
The rates of cardiac death (2.9% vs. 3.2%) and target-vessel MI (2.9% vs. 3.2%) were lower for the biodegradable polymer stent, but not significantly. However, the rates of target-vessel revascularization at 2 years were 2.5% versus 5.1%. The associated rate ratio of 0.52 favoring the biodegradable stent was significant.
Similar results favoring the biodegradable polymer stent were observed at 1 year, but those earlier results factored in historical data from the BIOSCIENCE trial, using a Bayesian analysis, to improve the power of the comparison. In this 2-year analysis, the superiority of the biodegradable polymer stent to the durable polymer stent remained statistically significant even when excluding those historical controls.
The advantage of the biodegradable polymer stent was confined to “device-oriented” outcomes, according to Dr. Pilgrim. When compared for important patient-oriented outcomes at 2 years, there were no significant differences. Rather, several were numerically more common, including death (4.2% vs. 3.8%) and MI (3.7% vs. 3.1%) in those who were randomized to the biodegradable polymer stent.
But these types of clinical outcomes are not necessarily related to stent assignment because “up to one-half of all events over the 2 years of follow-up were unrelated to the stent implanted,” Dr. Pilgrim said. He noted that high rates of events unrelated to the implanted stent have also been seen in follow-up of other comparative stent trials.
The superiority of the biodegradable stent is noteworthy. Although Dr. Pilgrim described the BIOSTEMI trial as “the first head-to-head comparison of two new-generation drug-eluting stents in patients undergoing a primary percutaneous intervention for acute myocardial infarction,” there have been several studies comparing stents for other indications. Significant differences have been uncommon.
“Over the last 10 years, we have seen a number of noninferiority stent trials, but only now are we seeing some superiority differences. This is a move in the right direction,” commented Sripal Bangalore, MD, director of the cardiovascular outcomes group, New York University.
However, he, like others, questioned whether the difference in outcomes in this trial could be fully attributed to the type of polymer. He noted that all stents could be characterized by multiple small and large differences in design and composition. Any specific characteristic, such as biodegradable polymer, might be an important contributor but not an isolated factor in the outcomes observed.
On the day that the 2-year results of the BIOSTEMI trial were presented at the CRT 2021 meeting they were simultaneously published in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions.
Dr. Pilgrim reports financial relationships with several companies that make stent devices, including Biotronik and Boston Scientific. Dr. Bangalore reports no potential conflicts of interest.
FROM CRT 2021
First pill for COVID-19 could be ready by year’s end
New pills to treat patients with COVID-19 are currently in midstage clinical trials and, if successful, could be ready by the end of the year.
Only one treatment – remdesivir (Veklury) – has been fully approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for patients in the hospital and it must be administered intravenously.
Hopes for a day when patients with COVID-19 can take a pill to rid their bodies of the virus got a boost when early trial results were presented at a medical conference.
Interim phase 2 results for the oral experimental COVID-19 drug molnupiravir, designed to do for patients with COVID-19 what oseltamivir (Tamiflu) can do for patients with the flu, were presented at the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections 2021 Annual Meeting, as reported by this news organization.
In the small study, the pill significantly reduced infectious virus in patients who were symptomatic and had tested positive for COVID-19 during the previous 4 days but were not hospitalized.
After 5 days of treatment, no participants who received molnupiravir had detectable virus, whereas 24% who received placebo did.
Two other oral agents are being developed by RedHill Biopharma: one for severe COVID-19 infection for hospitalized patients and one for patients at home with mild infection.
The first, opaganib (Yeliva), proceeded to a phase 2/3 global trial for hospitalized patients after the company announced top-line safety and efficacy data in December. In phase 2, the drug was shown to be safe in patients requiring oxygen and effectively reduced the need for oxygen by the end of the treatment period.
A key feature is that it is both an antiviral and an anti-inflammatory, Gilead Raday, RedHill’s chief operating officer, said in an interview. Data are expected midyear on its performance in 464 patients. The drug is being tested on top of remdesivir or in addition to dexamethasone.
The second, upamostat (RHB-107), is currently undergoing a phase 2/3 trial in the United States and is being investigated for use in nonhospitalized COVID-19 patients.
“I would expect data to be available in the second half of this year,” Mr. Raday said.
Upamostat is a novel serine protease inhibitor expected to be effective against emerging variants because it targets human cell factors involved in viral entry, according to the company.
Other drugs are being investigated in trials that are in earlier stages.
Urgent need for oral agents
Infectious disease specialists are watching the move toward a COVID-19 pill enthusiastically.
“We badly need an oral treatment option for COVID,” said Sarah Doernberg, MD, an infectious disease specialist from the University of California, San Francisco.
“It’s a real gap in our armamentarium for COVID in outpatient treatment, which is where most who contract COVID-19 will seek care,” she said in an interview.
Although some studies have shown the benefit of monoclonal antibodies for prevention and early treatment, there are major logistical issues because all the current options require IV administration, she explained.
“If we had a pill to treat early COVID, especially in high-risk patients, it would fill a gap,” she said, noting that a pill could help people get better faster and prevent hospital stays.
Studies of molnupiravir suggest that it decreases viral shedding in the first few days after COVID infection, Dr. Doernberg reported.
There is excitement around the drug, but it will be important to see whether the results translate into fewer people requiring hospital admission and whether people feel better faster.
“I want to see the clinical data,” Dr. Doernberg said.
She will also be watching for the upamostat and opaganib results in the coming weeks.
“If these drugs are successful, I think it’s possible we could use them – maybe under an emergency use authorization – this year,” she said.
Once antiviral pills are a viable option for COVID-19 treatment, questions will arise about their use, she said.
One question is whether patients who are getting remdesivir in the hospital and are ready to leave after 5 days should continue treatment with antiviral pills at home.
Another is whether the pills – if they are shown to be effective – will be helpful for COVID post exposure. That use would be important for people who do not have COVID-19 but who are in close contact with someone who does, such as a member of their household.
“We have that model,” Dr. Doernberg said. “We know that oseltamivir can be used for postexposure prophylaxis and can help to prevent development of clinical disease.”
But she cautioned that a challenge with COVID is that people are contagious very early. A pill would need to come with the ability to test for COVID-19 early and get patients linked to care immediately.
“Those are not small challenges,” she said.
Vaccines alone won’t end the COVID threat
Treatments are part of the “belt-and-suspenders” approach, along with vaccines to combat COVID-19, Dr. Doernberg said.
“We’re not going to eradicate COVID,” she said. “We’re still going to need treatments for people who either don’t respond to the vaccine or haven’t gotten the vaccine or developed disease despite the vaccine.”
Oral formulations are desperately needed, agreed Kenneth Johnson, PhD, professor of molecular biosciences at the University of Texas at Austin.
Right now, remdesivir treatments involve patients being hooked up to an IV for 30-120 minutes each day for 5 days. And the cost of a 5-day course of remdesivir ranges from $2340 to $3120 in the United States.
“We’re hoping we can come up with something that is a little bit easier to administer, and without as many concerns for toxic side effects,” he said.
Dr. Johnson’s team at UT-Austin recently made a key discovery about the way remdesivir stops the replication of viral RNA.
The understanding of where the virus starts to replicate in the infection chain of events and how and where it reacts with remdesivir might lead to the development of better, more concentrated pill forms of antivirals in the future, with fewer toxicities, he said.
The team used a lab dish to recreate the step-by-step process that occurs when a patient who is infected with SARS-CoV-2 receives remdesivir.
The discovery was published online in Molecular Cell in January and will be printed in the April issue of the journal.
The discovery won’t lead to an effective COVID-19 pill for our current crisis, but will be important for the next generation of drugs needed to deal with future coronaviruses, Dr. Johnson explained.
And there will be other coronaviruses, he said, noting that this one is the third in 20 years to jump from animals to humans. “It’s just a matter of time,” he said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
New pills to treat patients with COVID-19 are currently in midstage clinical trials and, if successful, could be ready by the end of the year.
Only one treatment – remdesivir (Veklury) – has been fully approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for patients in the hospital and it must be administered intravenously.
Hopes for a day when patients with COVID-19 can take a pill to rid their bodies of the virus got a boost when early trial results were presented at a medical conference.
Interim phase 2 results for the oral experimental COVID-19 drug molnupiravir, designed to do for patients with COVID-19 what oseltamivir (Tamiflu) can do for patients with the flu, were presented at the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections 2021 Annual Meeting, as reported by this news organization.
In the small study, the pill significantly reduced infectious virus in patients who were symptomatic and had tested positive for COVID-19 during the previous 4 days but were not hospitalized.
After 5 days of treatment, no participants who received molnupiravir had detectable virus, whereas 24% who received placebo did.
Two other oral agents are being developed by RedHill Biopharma: one for severe COVID-19 infection for hospitalized patients and one for patients at home with mild infection.
The first, opaganib (Yeliva), proceeded to a phase 2/3 global trial for hospitalized patients after the company announced top-line safety and efficacy data in December. In phase 2, the drug was shown to be safe in patients requiring oxygen and effectively reduced the need for oxygen by the end of the treatment period.
A key feature is that it is both an antiviral and an anti-inflammatory, Gilead Raday, RedHill’s chief operating officer, said in an interview. Data are expected midyear on its performance in 464 patients. The drug is being tested on top of remdesivir or in addition to dexamethasone.
The second, upamostat (RHB-107), is currently undergoing a phase 2/3 trial in the United States and is being investigated for use in nonhospitalized COVID-19 patients.
“I would expect data to be available in the second half of this year,” Mr. Raday said.
Upamostat is a novel serine protease inhibitor expected to be effective against emerging variants because it targets human cell factors involved in viral entry, according to the company.
Other drugs are being investigated in trials that are in earlier stages.
Urgent need for oral agents
Infectious disease specialists are watching the move toward a COVID-19 pill enthusiastically.
“We badly need an oral treatment option for COVID,” said Sarah Doernberg, MD, an infectious disease specialist from the University of California, San Francisco.
“It’s a real gap in our armamentarium for COVID in outpatient treatment, which is where most who contract COVID-19 will seek care,” she said in an interview.
Although some studies have shown the benefit of monoclonal antibodies for prevention and early treatment, there are major logistical issues because all the current options require IV administration, she explained.
“If we had a pill to treat early COVID, especially in high-risk patients, it would fill a gap,” she said, noting that a pill could help people get better faster and prevent hospital stays.
Studies of molnupiravir suggest that it decreases viral shedding in the first few days after COVID infection, Dr. Doernberg reported.
There is excitement around the drug, but it will be important to see whether the results translate into fewer people requiring hospital admission and whether people feel better faster.
“I want to see the clinical data,” Dr. Doernberg said.
She will also be watching for the upamostat and opaganib results in the coming weeks.
“If these drugs are successful, I think it’s possible we could use them – maybe under an emergency use authorization – this year,” she said.
Once antiviral pills are a viable option for COVID-19 treatment, questions will arise about their use, she said.
One question is whether patients who are getting remdesivir in the hospital and are ready to leave after 5 days should continue treatment with antiviral pills at home.
Another is whether the pills – if they are shown to be effective – will be helpful for COVID post exposure. That use would be important for people who do not have COVID-19 but who are in close contact with someone who does, such as a member of their household.
“We have that model,” Dr. Doernberg said. “We know that oseltamivir can be used for postexposure prophylaxis and can help to prevent development of clinical disease.”
But she cautioned that a challenge with COVID is that people are contagious very early. A pill would need to come with the ability to test for COVID-19 early and get patients linked to care immediately.
“Those are not small challenges,” she said.
Vaccines alone won’t end the COVID threat
Treatments are part of the “belt-and-suspenders” approach, along with vaccines to combat COVID-19, Dr. Doernberg said.
“We’re not going to eradicate COVID,” she said. “We’re still going to need treatments for people who either don’t respond to the vaccine or haven’t gotten the vaccine or developed disease despite the vaccine.”
Oral formulations are desperately needed, agreed Kenneth Johnson, PhD, professor of molecular biosciences at the University of Texas at Austin.
Right now, remdesivir treatments involve patients being hooked up to an IV for 30-120 minutes each day for 5 days. And the cost of a 5-day course of remdesivir ranges from $2340 to $3120 in the United States.
“We’re hoping we can come up with something that is a little bit easier to administer, and without as many concerns for toxic side effects,” he said.
Dr. Johnson’s team at UT-Austin recently made a key discovery about the way remdesivir stops the replication of viral RNA.
The understanding of where the virus starts to replicate in the infection chain of events and how and where it reacts with remdesivir might lead to the development of better, more concentrated pill forms of antivirals in the future, with fewer toxicities, he said.
The team used a lab dish to recreate the step-by-step process that occurs when a patient who is infected with SARS-CoV-2 receives remdesivir.
The discovery was published online in Molecular Cell in January and will be printed in the April issue of the journal.
The discovery won’t lead to an effective COVID-19 pill for our current crisis, but will be important for the next generation of drugs needed to deal with future coronaviruses, Dr. Johnson explained.
And there will be other coronaviruses, he said, noting that this one is the third in 20 years to jump from animals to humans. “It’s just a matter of time,” he said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
New pills to treat patients with COVID-19 are currently in midstage clinical trials and, if successful, could be ready by the end of the year.
Only one treatment – remdesivir (Veklury) – has been fully approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for patients in the hospital and it must be administered intravenously.
Hopes for a day when patients with COVID-19 can take a pill to rid their bodies of the virus got a boost when early trial results were presented at a medical conference.
Interim phase 2 results for the oral experimental COVID-19 drug molnupiravir, designed to do for patients with COVID-19 what oseltamivir (Tamiflu) can do for patients with the flu, were presented at the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections 2021 Annual Meeting, as reported by this news organization.
In the small study, the pill significantly reduced infectious virus in patients who were symptomatic and had tested positive for COVID-19 during the previous 4 days but were not hospitalized.
After 5 days of treatment, no participants who received molnupiravir had detectable virus, whereas 24% who received placebo did.
Two other oral agents are being developed by RedHill Biopharma: one for severe COVID-19 infection for hospitalized patients and one for patients at home with mild infection.
The first, opaganib (Yeliva), proceeded to a phase 2/3 global trial for hospitalized patients after the company announced top-line safety and efficacy data in December. In phase 2, the drug was shown to be safe in patients requiring oxygen and effectively reduced the need for oxygen by the end of the treatment period.
A key feature is that it is both an antiviral and an anti-inflammatory, Gilead Raday, RedHill’s chief operating officer, said in an interview. Data are expected midyear on its performance in 464 patients. The drug is being tested on top of remdesivir or in addition to dexamethasone.
The second, upamostat (RHB-107), is currently undergoing a phase 2/3 trial in the United States and is being investigated for use in nonhospitalized COVID-19 patients.
“I would expect data to be available in the second half of this year,” Mr. Raday said.
Upamostat is a novel serine protease inhibitor expected to be effective against emerging variants because it targets human cell factors involved in viral entry, according to the company.
Other drugs are being investigated in trials that are in earlier stages.
Urgent need for oral agents
Infectious disease specialists are watching the move toward a COVID-19 pill enthusiastically.
“We badly need an oral treatment option for COVID,” said Sarah Doernberg, MD, an infectious disease specialist from the University of California, San Francisco.
“It’s a real gap in our armamentarium for COVID in outpatient treatment, which is where most who contract COVID-19 will seek care,” she said in an interview.
Although some studies have shown the benefit of monoclonal antibodies for prevention and early treatment, there are major logistical issues because all the current options require IV administration, she explained.
“If we had a pill to treat early COVID, especially in high-risk patients, it would fill a gap,” she said, noting that a pill could help people get better faster and prevent hospital stays.
Studies of molnupiravir suggest that it decreases viral shedding in the first few days after COVID infection, Dr. Doernberg reported.
There is excitement around the drug, but it will be important to see whether the results translate into fewer people requiring hospital admission and whether people feel better faster.
“I want to see the clinical data,” Dr. Doernberg said.
She will also be watching for the upamostat and opaganib results in the coming weeks.
“If these drugs are successful, I think it’s possible we could use them – maybe under an emergency use authorization – this year,” she said.
Once antiviral pills are a viable option for COVID-19 treatment, questions will arise about their use, she said.
One question is whether patients who are getting remdesivir in the hospital and are ready to leave after 5 days should continue treatment with antiviral pills at home.
Another is whether the pills – if they are shown to be effective – will be helpful for COVID post exposure. That use would be important for people who do not have COVID-19 but who are in close contact with someone who does, such as a member of their household.
“We have that model,” Dr. Doernberg said. “We know that oseltamivir can be used for postexposure prophylaxis and can help to prevent development of clinical disease.”
But she cautioned that a challenge with COVID is that people are contagious very early. A pill would need to come with the ability to test for COVID-19 early and get patients linked to care immediately.
“Those are not small challenges,” she said.
Vaccines alone won’t end the COVID threat
Treatments are part of the “belt-and-suspenders” approach, along with vaccines to combat COVID-19, Dr. Doernberg said.
“We’re not going to eradicate COVID,” she said. “We’re still going to need treatments for people who either don’t respond to the vaccine or haven’t gotten the vaccine or developed disease despite the vaccine.”
Oral formulations are desperately needed, agreed Kenneth Johnson, PhD, professor of molecular biosciences at the University of Texas at Austin.
Right now, remdesivir treatments involve patients being hooked up to an IV for 30-120 minutes each day for 5 days. And the cost of a 5-day course of remdesivir ranges from $2340 to $3120 in the United States.
“We’re hoping we can come up with something that is a little bit easier to administer, and without as many concerns for toxic side effects,” he said.
Dr. Johnson’s team at UT-Austin recently made a key discovery about the way remdesivir stops the replication of viral RNA.
The understanding of where the virus starts to replicate in the infection chain of events and how and where it reacts with remdesivir might lead to the development of better, more concentrated pill forms of antivirals in the future, with fewer toxicities, he said.
The team used a lab dish to recreate the step-by-step process that occurs when a patient who is infected with SARS-CoV-2 receives remdesivir.
The discovery was published online in Molecular Cell in January and will be printed in the April issue of the journal.
The discovery won’t lead to an effective COVID-19 pill for our current crisis, but will be important for the next generation of drugs needed to deal with future coronaviruses, Dr. Johnson explained.
And there will be other coronaviruses, he said, noting that this one is the third in 20 years to jump from animals to humans. “It’s just a matter of time,” he said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.