Cardiology News

The Food and Drug Administration has determined that data collected on the dual SGLT1/2 inhibitor sotagliflozin (Zynquista) for treating patients with type 2 diabetes in the SOLOIST and SCORED pivotal trials can help support a New Drug Application (NDA) submission, according to a statement released on Jan. 14 by Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, the company developing this drug. Lexicon concurrently said that it hopes to potentially file this NDA later in 2021.

The statement said the FDA’s decision related to an NDA for “an indication to reduce the risk of cardiovascular death, hospitalization for heart failure, and urgent visits for heart failure in adult patients with type 2 diabetes with either worsening heart failure or additional risk factors for heart failure.”

Results from SOLOIST and SCORED, first reported in November 2020 at the American Heart Association scientific sessions, showed statistically significant benefits for their respective primary endpoints.

The findings also demonstrated several novel benefits from the first advanced clinical trials of an SGLT inhibitor that blocks both the SGLT2 protein in kidneys as well as the SGLT1 protein, which resides primarily in the gastrointestinal system and is the main route for glucose out of the gut.

In both SOLOIST and SCORED, patient outcomes on sotagliflozin tracked the benefits and adverse effects previously seen with several SGLT2 inhibitors (canagliflozin, dapagliflozin, empagliflozin, and ertugliflozin), but in addition showed several unprecedented benefits: An ability to lower hemoglobin A1c in patients with severely depressed renal function, safe initiation in patients recently hospitalized for heart failure, the first prospective data to show improvements in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, and a higher level of protection against MIs and strokes than the SGLT2 inhibitors.

The FDA’s willingness to consider data from both trials in an NDA was not a given, as the primary endpoints for both trials underwent tweaking while they were underway to compensate for an unexpectedly early end to patient enrollment and follow-up caused by changes in drug company sponsorship and challenges introduced by the COVID-19 pandemic.

In 2019, the FDA denied the NDA for sotagliflozin as a treatment for patients with type 1 diabetes, but this indication received approval in Europe.

SOLOIST and SCORED were sponsored initially by Sanofi, and more recently by Lexicon.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has determined that data collected on the dual SGLT1/2 inhibitor sotagliflozin (Zynquista) for treating patients with type 2 diabetes in the SOLOIST and SCORED pivotal trials can help support a New Drug Application (NDA) submission, according to a statement released on Jan. 14 by Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, the company developing this drug. Lexicon concurrently said that it hopes to potentially file this NDA later in 2021.

The statement said the FDA’s decision related to an NDA for “an indication to reduce the risk of cardiovascular death, hospitalization for heart failure, and urgent visits for heart failure in adult patients with type 2 diabetes with either worsening heart failure or additional risk factors for heart failure.”

Results from SOLOIST and SCORED, first reported in November 2020 at the American Heart Association scientific sessions, showed statistically significant benefits for their respective primary endpoints.

The findings also demonstrated several novel benefits from the first advanced clinical trials of an SGLT inhibitor that blocks both the SGLT2 protein in kidneys as well as the SGLT1 protein, which resides primarily in the gastrointestinal system and is the main route for glucose out of the gut.

In both SOLOIST and SCORED, patient outcomes on sotagliflozin tracked the benefits and adverse effects previously seen with several SGLT2 inhibitors (canagliflozin, dapagliflozin, empagliflozin, and ertugliflozin), but in addition showed several unprecedented benefits: An ability to lower hemoglobin A1c in patients with severely depressed renal function, safe initiation in patients recently hospitalized for heart failure, the first prospective data to show improvements in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, and a higher level of protection against MIs and strokes than the SGLT2 inhibitors.

The FDA’s willingness to consider data from both trials in an NDA was not a given, as the primary endpoints for both trials underwent tweaking while they were underway to compensate for an unexpectedly early end to patient enrollment and follow-up caused by changes in drug company sponsorship and challenges introduced by the COVID-19 pandemic.

In 2019, the FDA denied the NDA for sotagliflozin as a treatment for patients with type 1 diabetes, but this indication received approval in Europe.

SOLOIST and SCORED were sponsored initially by Sanofi, and more recently by Lexicon.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has determined that data collected on the dual SGLT1/2 inhibitor sotagliflozin (Zynquista) for treating patients with type 2 diabetes in the SOLOIST and SCORED pivotal trials can help support a New Drug Application (NDA) submission, according to a statement released on Jan. 14 by Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, the company developing this drug. Lexicon concurrently said that it hopes to potentially file this NDA later in 2021.

The statement said the FDA’s decision related to an NDA for “an indication to reduce the risk of cardiovascular death, hospitalization for heart failure, and urgent visits for heart failure in adult patients with type 2 diabetes with either worsening heart failure or additional risk factors for heart failure.”

Results from SOLOIST and SCORED, first reported in November 2020 at the American Heart Association scientific sessions, showed statistically significant benefits for their respective primary endpoints.

The findings also demonstrated several novel benefits from the first advanced clinical trials of an SGLT inhibitor that blocks both the SGLT2 protein in kidneys as well as the SGLT1 protein, which resides primarily in the gastrointestinal system and is the main route for glucose out of the gut.

In both SOLOIST and SCORED, patient outcomes on sotagliflozin tracked the benefits and adverse effects previously seen with several SGLT2 inhibitors (canagliflozin, dapagliflozin, empagliflozin, and ertugliflozin), but in addition showed several unprecedented benefits: An ability to lower hemoglobin A1c in patients with severely depressed renal function, safe initiation in patients recently hospitalized for heart failure, the first prospective data to show improvements in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, and a higher level of protection against MIs and strokes than the SGLT2 inhibitors.

The FDA’s willingness to consider data from both trials in an NDA was not a given, as the primary endpoints for both trials underwent tweaking while they were underway to compensate for an unexpectedly early end to patient enrollment and follow-up caused by changes in drug company sponsorship and challenges introduced by the COVID-19 pandemic.

In 2019, the FDA denied the NDA for sotagliflozin as a treatment for patients with type 1 diabetes, but this indication received approval in Europe.

SOLOIST and SCORED were sponsored initially by Sanofi, and more recently by Lexicon.

[email protected]

While the direct toll of the COVID-19 pandemic is being tallied and shared on the nightly news, the indirect effects will undoubtedly take years to fully measure.

Floaria Bicher/iStock/Getty Images Plus

In two papers published online Jan. 11 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, researchers have started the process of quantifying the impact of the pandemic on the care of patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD).

In the first study, Rishi Wadhera, MD, MPP, MPhil, and colleagues from the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School in Boston examined population-level data to determine how deaths from cardiovascular causes changed in the United States in the early months of the pandemic relative to the same periods in 2019.

In a second paper, Andrew J. Einstein, MD, PhD, from Columbia University Irving Medical Center/New York–Presbyterian Hospital and colleagues looked at the pandemic’s international impact on the diagnosis of heart disease.

Using data from the National Center for Health Statistics, Dr. Wadhera and colleagues compared death rates from cardiovascular causes in the United States from March 18, 2020, to June 2, 2020, (the first wave of the pandemic) and from Jan. 1, 2020, to March 17, 2020, (the period just before the pandemic started) and compared them to the same periods in 2019. ICD codes were used to identify underlying causes of death.

Relative to 2019, they found a significant increase in deaths from ischemic heart disease nationally (1.11; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.18), as well as an increase in deaths caused by hypertensive disease (1.17; 95% CI, 1.09-1.26). There was no apparent increase in deaths from heart failure, cerebrovascular disease, or other diseases of the circulatory system.

When they looked just at New York City, the area hit hardest during the early part of the pandemic, the relative increases in deaths from ischemic heart disease were more pronounced.

Deaths from ischemic heart disease or hypertensive diseases jumped 139% and 164%, respectively, between March 18, 2020, and June 2, 2020.

More modest increases in deaths were seen in the remainder of New York state, New Jersey, Michigan and Illinois, while Massachusetts and Louisiana did not see a change in cardiovascular deaths.

Several studies from different parts of the world have indicated a 40%-50% drop in hospitalization for myocardial infarction in the initial months of the pandemic, said Dr. Wadhera in an interview.

“We wanted to understand where did all the heart attacks go? And we worried that patients with urgent heart conditions were not seeking the medical care they needed. I think our data suggest that this may have been the case,” reported Dr. Wadhera.  

“This very much reflects the reality of what we’re seeing on the ground,” he told this news organization. “After the initial surge ended, when hospital volumes began to return to normal, we saw patients come into the hospital who clearly had a heart attack during the surge months – and were now experiencing complications of that event – because they had initially not come into the hospital due to concerns about exposure to the virus.”

A limitation of their data, he stressed, is whether some deaths coded as CVD deaths were really deaths from undiagnosed COVID-19. “It’s possible that some portion of the increased deaths we observed really reflect the cardiovascular complications of undiagnosed COVID-19, because we know that testing was quite limited during the early first surge of cases.”

“I think that basically three factors – patients avoiding the health care system because of fear of getting COVID, health care systems being strained and overwhelmed leading to the deferral of cardiovascular care and semi-elective procedures, and the cardiovascular complications of COVID-19 itself – all probably collectively contributed to the rise in cardiovascular deaths that we observed,” said Dr. Wadhera.

In an accompanying editorial, Michael N. Young, MD, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, N.H., and colleagues write that these data, taken together with an earlier study showing an increase in out-of-hospital cardiac arrests at the pandemic peak in New York City, “support the notion of excess fatalities due to unattended comorbid illnesses.” That said, attribution of death in the COVID era “remains problematic.”

In the second article, Andrew Einstein, MD, PhD, and the INCAPS COVID Investigators Group took a broader approach and looked at the impact of COVID-19 on cardiac diagnostic procedures in over 100 countries.

The INCAPS (International Atomic Energy Agency Noninvasive Cardiology Protocols Study) group has for the past decade conducted numerous studies addressing the use of best practices and worldwide practice variation in CVD diagnosis.

For this effort, they sent a survey link to INCAPS participants worldwide, ultimately including 909 survey responses from 108 countries in the final analysis.

Compared with March 2019, overall procedure volume decreased 42% in March 2020 and 64% in April 2020.

The greatest decreases were seen in stress testing (78%) and transesophageal echocardiography (76%), both procedures, noted Dr. Einstein, associated with a greater risk of aerosolization.

“Whether as we reset after COVID we return to the same place in terms of the use of cardiovascular diagnostic testing remains to be seen, but it certainly poses an opportunity to improve our utilization of various modes of testing,” said Dr. Einstein.

Using regression analysis, Dr. Einstein and colleagues were able to see that sites located in low-income and lower-middle-income countries saw an additional 22% reduction in cardiac procedures and less availability of personal protective equipment (PPE) and telehealth.

Fifty-two percent of survey respondents reported significant shortages of N95 masks early in the pandemic, with fewer issues in supplies of gloves, gowns, and face shields. Lower-income countries were more likely to face significant PPE shortages and less likely to be able to implement telehealth strategies to make up for reduced in-person care. PPE shortage itself, however, was not related to lower procedural volume on multivariable regression.

“It all really begs the question of whether there is more that the world can do to help out the developing world in terms of managing the pandemic in all its facets,” said Dr. Einstein in an interview, adding he was “shocked” to learn how difficult it was for some lower-income countries to get sufficient PPE.
 

Did shutdowns go too far?

Calling this a “remarkable study,” an editorial written by Darryl P. Leong, MBBS, PhD, John W. Eikelboom, MBBS, and Salim Yusuf, MBBS, DPhil, all from McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., suggests that perhaps health systems in some places went too far in closing down during the first wave of the pandemic, naming specifically Canada, Eastern Europe, and Saudi Arabia as examples.

“Although these measures were taken to prepare for the worst, overwhelming numbers of patients with COVID-19 did not materialize during the first wave of the pandemic in these countries. It is possible that delaying so-called nonessential services may have been unnecessary and potentially harmful, because it likely led to delays in providing care for the treatment of serious non–COVID-19 illnesses.”

Since then, more experience and more data have largely allowed hospital systems to “tackle the ebb and flow” of COVID-19 cases in ways that limit shutdowns of important health services, they said.

Given the more pronounced effect in low- and middle-income countries, they stressed the need to focus resources on ways to promote prevention and treatment that do not rely on diagnostic procedures.

“This calls for more emphasis on developing efficient systems of telehealth, especially in poorer countries or in remote settings in all countries,” Dr. Leong and colleagues conclude.

Dr. Wadhera has reported research support from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, along with fellow senior author Robert W. Yeh, MD, MBA, who has also received personal fees and grants from several companies not related to the submitted work. Dr. Einstein, Dr. Leong, Dr. Eikelboom, and Dr. Yusuf have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

While the direct toll of the COVID-19 pandemic is being tallied and shared on the nightly news, the indirect effects will undoubtedly take years to fully measure.

Floaria Bicher/iStock/Getty Images Plus

In two papers published online Jan. 11 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, researchers have started the process of quantifying the impact of the pandemic on the care of patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD).

In the first study, Rishi Wadhera, MD, MPP, MPhil, and colleagues from the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School in Boston examined population-level data to determine how deaths from cardiovascular causes changed in the United States in the early months of the pandemic relative to the same periods in 2019.

In a second paper, Andrew J. Einstein, MD, PhD, from Columbia University Irving Medical Center/New York–Presbyterian Hospital and colleagues looked at the pandemic’s international impact on the diagnosis of heart disease.

Using data from the National Center for Health Statistics, Dr. Wadhera and colleagues compared death rates from cardiovascular causes in the United States from March 18, 2020, to June 2, 2020, (the first wave of the pandemic) and from Jan. 1, 2020, to March 17, 2020, (the period just before the pandemic started) and compared them to the same periods in 2019. ICD codes were used to identify underlying causes of death.

Relative to 2019, they found a significant increase in deaths from ischemic heart disease nationally (1.11; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.18), as well as an increase in deaths caused by hypertensive disease (1.17; 95% CI, 1.09-1.26). There was no apparent increase in deaths from heart failure, cerebrovascular disease, or other diseases of the circulatory system.

When they looked just at New York City, the area hit hardest during the early part of the pandemic, the relative increases in deaths from ischemic heart disease were more pronounced.

Deaths from ischemic heart disease or hypertensive diseases jumped 139% and 164%, respectively, between March 18, 2020, and June 2, 2020.

More modest increases in deaths were seen in the remainder of New York state, New Jersey, Michigan and Illinois, while Massachusetts and Louisiana did not see a change in cardiovascular deaths.

Several studies from different parts of the world have indicated a 40%-50% drop in hospitalization for myocardial infarction in the initial months of the pandemic, said Dr. Wadhera in an interview.

“We wanted to understand where did all the heart attacks go? And we worried that patients with urgent heart conditions were not seeking the medical care they needed. I think our data suggest that this may have been the case,” reported Dr. Wadhera.  

“This very much reflects the reality of what we’re seeing on the ground,” he told this news organization. “After the initial surge ended, when hospital volumes began to return to normal, we saw patients come into the hospital who clearly had a heart attack during the surge months – and were now experiencing complications of that event – because they had initially not come into the hospital due to concerns about exposure to the virus.”

A limitation of their data, he stressed, is whether some deaths coded as CVD deaths were really deaths from undiagnosed COVID-19. “It’s possible that some portion of the increased deaths we observed really reflect the cardiovascular complications of undiagnosed COVID-19, because we know that testing was quite limited during the early first surge of cases.”

“I think that basically three factors – patients avoiding the health care system because of fear of getting COVID, health care systems being strained and overwhelmed leading to the deferral of cardiovascular care and semi-elective procedures, and the cardiovascular complications of COVID-19 itself – all probably collectively contributed to the rise in cardiovascular deaths that we observed,” said Dr. Wadhera.

In an accompanying editorial, Michael N. Young, MD, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, N.H., and colleagues write that these data, taken together with an earlier study showing an increase in out-of-hospital cardiac arrests at the pandemic peak in New York City, “support the notion of excess fatalities due to unattended comorbid illnesses.” That said, attribution of death in the COVID era “remains problematic.”

In the second article, Andrew Einstein, MD, PhD, and the INCAPS COVID Investigators Group took a broader approach and looked at the impact of COVID-19 on cardiac diagnostic procedures in over 100 countries.

The INCAPS (International Atomic Energy Agency Noninvasive Cardiology Protocols Study) group has for the past decade conducted numerous studies addressing the use of best practices and worldwide practice variation in CVD diagnosis.

For this effort, they sent a survey link to INCAPS participants worldwide, ultimately including 909 survey responses from 108 countries in the final analysis.

Compared with March 2019, overall procedure volume decreased 42% in March 2020 and 64% in April 2020.

The greatest decreases were seen in stress testing (78%) and transesophageal echocardiography (76%), both procedures, noted Dr. Einstein, associated with a greater risk of aerosolization.

“Whether as we reset after COVID we return to the same place in terms of the use of cardiovascular diagnostic testing remains to be seen, but it certainly poses an opportunity to improve our utilization of various modes of testing,” said Dr. Einstein.

Using regression analysis, Dr. Einstein and colleagues were able to see that sites located in low-income and lower-middle-income countries saw an additional 22% reduction in cardiac procedures and less availability of personal protective equipment (PPE) and telehealth.

Fifty-two percent of survey respondents reported significant shortages of N95 masks early in the pandemic, with fewer issues in supplies of gloves, gowns, and face shields. Lower-income countries were more likely to face significant PPE shortages and less likely to be able to implement telehealth strategies to make up for reduced in-person care. PPE shortage itself, however, was not related to lower procedural volume on multivariable regression.

“It all really begs the question of whether there is more that the world can do to help out the developing world in terms of managing the pandemic in all its facets,” said Dr. Einstein in an interview, adding he was “shocked” to learn how difficult it was for some lower-income countries to get sufficient PPE.
 

Did shutdowns go too far?

Calling this a “remarkable study,” an editorial written by Darryl P. Leong, MBBS, PhD, John W. Eikelboom, MBBS, and Salim Yusuf, MBBS, DPhil, all from McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., suggests that perhaps health systems in some places went too far in closing down during the first wave of the pandemic, naming specifically Canada, Eastern Europe, and Saudi Arabia as examples.

“Although these measures were taken to prepare for the worst, overwhelming numbers of patients with COVID-19 did not materialize during the first wave of the pandemic in these countries. It is possible that delaying so-called nonessential services may have been unnecessary and potentially harmful, because it likely led to delays in providing care for the treatment of serious non–COVID-19 illnesses.”

Since then, more experience and more data have largely allowed hospital systems to “tackle the ebb and flow” of COVID-19 cases in ways that limit shutdowns of important health services, they said.

Given the more pronounced effect in low- and middle-income countries, they stressed the need to focus resources on ways to promote prevention and treatment that do not rely on diagnostic procedures.

“This calls for more emphasis on developing efficient systems of telehealth, especially in poorer countries or in remote settings in all countries,” Dr. Leong and colleagues conclude.

Dr. Wadhera has reported research support from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, along with fellow senior author Robert W. Yeh, MD, MBA, who has also received personal fees and grants from several companies not related to the submitted work. Dr. Einstein, Dr. Leong, Dr. Eikelboom, and Dr. Yusuf have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

While the direct toll of the COVID-19 pandemic is being tallied and shared on the nightly news, the indirect effects will undoubtedly take years to fully measure.

Floaria Bicher/iStock/Getty Images Plus

In two papers published online Jan. 11 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, researchers have started the process of quantifying the impact of the pandemic on the care of patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD).

In the first study, Rishi Wadhera, MD, MPP, MPhil, and colleagues from the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School in Boston examined population-level data to determine how deaths from cardiovascular causes changed in the United States in the early months of the pandemic relative to the same periods in 2019.

In a second paper, Andrew J. Einstein, MD, PhD, from Columbia University Irving Medical Center/New York–Presbyterian Hospital and colleagues looked at the pandemic’s international impact on the diagnosis of heart disease.

Using data from the National Center for Health Statistics, Dr. Wadhera and colleagues compared death rates from cardiovascular causes in the United States from March 18, 2020, to June 2, 2020, (the first wave of the pandemic) and from Jan. 1, 2020, to March 17, 2020, (the period just before the pandemic started) and compared them to the same periods in 2019. ICD codes were used to identify underlying causes of death.

Relative to 2019, they found a significant increase in deaths from ischemic heart disease nationally (1.11; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.18), as well as an increase in deaths caused by hypertensive disease (1.17; 95% CI, 1.09-1.26). There was no apparent increase in deaths from heart failure, cerebrovascular disease, or other diseases of the circulatory system.

When they looked just at New York City, the area hit hardest during the early part of the pandemic, the relative increases in deaths from ischemic heart disease were more pronounced.

Deaths from ischemic heart disease or hypertensive diseases jumped 139% and 164%, respectively, between March 18, 2020, and June 2, 2020.

More modest increases in deaths were seen in the remainder of New York state, New Jersey, Michigan and Illinois, while Massachusetts and Louisiana did not see a change in cardiovascular deaths.

Several studies from different parts of the world have indicated a 40%-50% drop in hospitalization for myocardial infarction in the initial months of the pandemic, said Dr. Wadhera in an interview.

“We wanted to understand where did all the heart attacks go? And we worried that patients with urgent heart conditions were not seeking the medical care they needed. I think our data suggest that this may have been the case,” reported Dr. Wadhera.  

“This very much reflects the reality of what we’re seeing on the ground,” he told this news organization. “After the initial surge ended, when hospital volumes began to return to normal, we saw patients come into the hospital who clearly had a heart attack during the surge months – and were now experiencing complications of that event – because they had initially not come into the hospital due to concerns about exposure to the virus.”

A limitation of their data, he stressed, is whether some deaths coded as CVD deaths were really deaths from undiagnosed COVID-19. “It’s possible that some portion of the increased deaths we observed really reflect the cardiovascular complications of undiagnosed COVID-19, because we know that testing was quite limited during the early first surge of cases.”

“I think that basically three factors – patients avoiding the health care system because of fear of getting COVID, health care systems being strained and overwhelmed leading to the deferral of cardiovascular care and semi-elective procedures, and the cardiovascular complications of COVID-19 itself – all probably collectively contributed to the rise in cardiovascular deaths that we observed,” said Dr. Wadhera.

In an accompanying editorial, Michael N. Young, MD, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, N.H., and colleagues write that these data, taken together with an earlier study showing an increase in out-of-hospital cardiac arrests at the pandemic peak in New York City, “support the notion of excess fatalities due to unattended comorbid illnesses.” That said, attribution of death in the COVID era “remains problematic.”

In the second article, Andrew Einstein, MD, PhD, and the INCAPS COVID Investigators Group took a broader approach and looked at the impact of COVID-19 on cardiac diagnostic procedures in over 100 countries.

The INCAPS (International Atomic Energy Agency Noninvasive Cardiology Protocols Study) group has for the past decade conducted numerous studies addressing the use of best practices and worldwide practice variation in CVD diagnosis.

For this effort, they sent a survey link to INCAPS participants worldwide, ultimately including 909 survey responses from 108 countries in the final analysis.

Compared with March 2019, overall procedure volume decreased 42% in March 2020 and 64% in April 2020.

The greatest decreases were seen in stress testing (78%) and transesophageal echocardiography (76%), both procedures, noted Dr. Einstein, associated with a greater risk of aerosolization.

“Whether as we reset after COVID we return to the same place in terms of the use of cardiovascular diagnostic testing remains to be seen, but it certainly poses an opportunity to improve our utilization of various modes of testing,” said Dr. Einstein.

Using regression analysis, Dr. Einstein and colleagues were able to see that sites located in low-income and lower-middle-income countries saw an additional 22% reduction in cardiac procedures and less availability of personal protective equipment (PPE) and telehealth.

Fifty-two percent of survey respondents reported significant shortages of N95 masks early in the pandemic, with fewer issues in supplies of gloves, gowns, and face shields. Lower-income countries were more likely to face significant PPE shortages and less likely to be able to implement telehealth strategies to make up for reduced in-person care. PPE shortage itself, however, was not related to lower procedural volume on multivariable regression.

“It all really begs the question of whether there is more that the world can do to help out the developing world in terms of managing the pandemic in all its facets,” said Dr. Einstein in an interview, adding he was “shocked” to learn how difficult it was for some lower-income countries to get sufficient PPE.
 

Did shutdowns go too far?

Calling this a “remarkable study,” an editorial written by Darryl P. Leong, MBBS, PhD, John W. Eikelboom, MBBS, and Salim Yusuf, MBBS, DPhil, all from McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., suggests that perhaps health systems in some places went too far in closing down during the first wave of the pandemic, naming specifically Canada, Eastern Europe, and Saudi Arabia as examples.

“Although these measures were taken to prepare for the worst, overwhelming numbers of patients with COVID-19 did not materialize during the first wave of the pandemic in these countries. It is possible that delaying so-called nonessential services may have been unnecessary and potentially harmful, because it likely led to delays in providing care for the treatment of serious non–COVID-19 illnesses.”

Since then, more experience and more data have largely allowed hospital systems to “tackle the ebb and flow” of COVID-19 cases in ways that limit shutdowns of important health services, they said.

Given the more pronounced effect in low- and middle-income countries, they stressed the need to focus resources on ways to promote prevention and treatment that do not rely on diagnostic procedures.

“This calls for more emphasis on developing efficient systems of telehealth, especially in poorer countries or in remote settings in all countries,” Dr. Leong and colleagues conclude.

Dr. Wadhera has reported research support from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, along with fellow senior author Robert W. Yeh, MD, MBA, who has also received personal fees and grants from several companies not related to the submitted work. Dr. Einstein, Dr. Leong, Dr. Eikelboom, and Dr. Yusuf have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Cardiologist Ethan J. Weiss, MD, followed an intermittent-fasting diet for 7 years. He lost about 3.6 kg (8 lb) and began recommending the approach to friends and patients who wanted to lose weight.

“I liked the way the diet was so simple,” said Dr. Weiss, an associate professor at the Cardiovascular Research Institute, University of California, San Francisco. But he also felt “it was too good to be true because you can eat what you want as long as it’s within a narrow window.”

So when, last year, he conducted a randomized, controlled trial, TREAT, testing such an approach – eating during just 8 hours a day, fasting for the remaining 16 hours – versus an eating plan of three meals a day without restrictions, he was somewhat dismayed to find the group of people who fasted didn’t lose any more weight than the other group.

The approach used in this study is known as time-restricted eating. It involves designating periods of time within the day when people can consume whatever they want; they then “fast” at times outside those eating windows. Other methods include alternate-day fasting, or the well-known 5:2 diet. In the latter, people eat a “normal” amount of around 2,000 calories per day on 5 days of the week, but for the other 2 days, they restrict caloric intake to 500 calories per day.

Intermittent fasting is an umbrella term encompassing all of these different approaches.

Dr. Weiss’s work builds on more than a decade of research into this type of eating plan by scientists, including Krista Varady, PhD, professor of nutrition at the University of Illinois at Chicago, who presented an overview of her own studies last fall at the virtual annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

Although much of the work has suggested that the shorter duration of eating period in this type of diet leads to lower calorie intake and weight loss while avoiding the need for the tedious calorie-counting of conventional diets, Dr. Weiss’s data – published last year – throws a spanner in the works and now complicates the evidence base.
 

A promise of simplicity: ‘All you have to do is watch the clock’

Dr. Varady said she, too, is intrigued by the simplicity of intermittent-fasting diets.

In 2018, Dr. Varady and colleagues tested the weight-loss efficacy of 12 weeks of time-restricted feeding in a pilot study of 23 people with obesity.

Participants were permitted an 8-hour eating window (10 a.m. to 6 p.m.) followed by water-only fasting of 16 hours (6 p.m. to 10 a.m.) the next day (sometimes referred to as the 16:8 diet). Researchers measured weight loss and fat mass, as well as metabolic parameters, and compared the active group with 23 matched-control participants who ate freely.

There were no restrictions on type or quantity of food consumed by the control group during the 8-hour period, but individuals in the time-restricted feeding group consumed around 350 calories less than the comparator group.

Dr. Varady thinks this is most likely because of the fact that people normally eat during a 14-hour window and time-restricted feeding cuts that down by 6 hours.

“One of the most beautiful things about time-restricted feeding is that it doesn’t require calorie monitoring,” she explained. “People get burnt out with having to constantly monitor calories. All you have to do is watch the clock.”

Adherence was quite high, she reported, although most people skipped 1 day, often a Saturday, likely because of social engagements.

Weight loss in the time-restricted feeding group was mild to moderate. After 3 months, mean body weight decreased by 2.6%, or approximately 3 kg (7-8 lb), relative to those who ate freely, but this was a significant difference (P  < .05).

But the researchers observed little change in metabolic disease risk factors between the groups.

In the time-restricted feeding group, systolic blood pressure dropped from 128 mm Hg to 121 mm Hg over the 12-week period, which was significant relative to the control group (P  <  .05) but there were no significant changes in fasting glucose, fasting lipids, fasting insulin, or insulin resistance relative to the comparator group.

In contrast to Dr. Varady’s findings, Dr. Weiss’s randomized TREAT trial, which used a similar 16:8 period of time-restricted versus unrestricted eating in 116 individuals with overweight or obesity, did not find greater weight loss in the group restricted to eating within the 8-hour window.

As previously reported by this news organization, those who fasted for 16 hours of each day (n = 59) did lose some weight, compared with the control group (n = 57) over 12 weeks, but the difference in weight loss between the groups was not significant (−0.26 kg; P = .63).

And there were no significant differences in any of the secondary outcomes of fat mass, fasting insulin, fasting glucose, hemoglobin A1c levels, estimated energy intake, total energy expenditure, and resting energy expenditure between the time-restricted eating and regular feeding groups.

“I don’t claim time-restricted eating is dead,” Dr. Weiss said, “but the hope that you can eat for a limited time each day and solve metabolic disease is not there.”

Does the length of the eating window matter?

Following her pilot study of an 8-hour eating window, Dr. Varady conducted further research with 4- or 6-hour eating windows to see if even shorter periods would precipitate greater weight loss, ideally a clinically significant loss of 5% of body weight.

She ran a 2-month randomized, controlled study in people with obesity, published in 2020, which was the first to examine both a 4-hour (3 p.m. to 7 p.m.; n = 19) or 6-hour (1 p.m to 7 p.m.; n = 20) eating window versus a diet without any food restrictions as a control (n = 19) (Cell Metab. 2020;32:366-78.e3).

Dr. Varady explained that they decided to shift the eating window to later in the day for this trial (in contrast to the earlier 8-hour study) to allow people to eat dinner at a sociable time, and thereby hopefully reduce dropouts from the study. 

“Unlike with alternate-day fasting, most people find time-restricted feeding easy to incorporate into their lifestyles,” she remarked.

Both the 4- and 6-hour eating window groups experienced a mean 3.2% body weight loss, compared with controls, and this correlated with a 550-calorie reduction in their daily consumption, compared with their baseline calorie intake.

In terms of other outcomes – and in contrast to the 8-hour window study which showed very little changed other than a minor decrease in blood pressure – researchers saw some changes in metabolic risk factors with the 4- and 6-hour eating windows, Dr. Varady reported.

Compared with the control group, fasting insulin decreased in both time-restricted feeding groups by a mean of 15% (P < .05). Insulin resistance also decreased by 25% in the 4-hour group and by 15% in the 6-hour group, compared with the control group. Fasting glucose did not change in either group, however.

The researchers did not observe any effect on blood pressure or plasma lipids in the 4- or 6-hour eating window groups, compared with controls. However, measures of oxidative stress and inflammation decreased in both groups versus controls by approximately 35% (P < .05).

“These findings suggest that this form of severe time-restricted feeding is achievable and can help adults with obesity lose weight, without having to count calories,” Dr. Varady and colleagues conclude.
 

Is intermittent fasting better for weight loss than calorie restriction?

Ultimately, if weight loss is the primary goal, many want to know how time-restricted feeding compares with conventional daily calorie restriction.

Back in 2017, Dr. Varady published a year-long randomized, controlled study that compared alternate-day fasting with a calorie-restriction diet and a conventional/usual diet among 100 participants with obesity who were otherwise healthy.  

Participants on the alternate-day fasting plan (n = 34) consumed 500 calories on fasting days for the first 6 months for weight loss (approximately 25% of energy needs) followed by 125% of energy needs on alternating “feast days”. For an additional 6 months, they ate 1,000 calories on fasting days – aimed at weight maintenance.

Those following the calorie-restriction diet (n = 35) reduced energy intake by 25% (approximately 500 kcal) for the first 6 months for weight loss, followed by enough calories sufficient for weight maintenance (so no further loss nor gain).

However, the study showed alternate-day fasting did not produce better weight loss than conventional calorie counting.

“Over the first 6 months [during the weight-loss period] both groups lost an average of 6% body weight. After 12 months it crept back to 5% weight loss,” reported Dr. Varady.

“Realistically, if the study continued for 2 or 3 years, they probably would have regained much of their weight,” she admitted.

Dr. Varady suspects it might be better for the alternate-day fasting participants to continue eating only 500 calories on their fast day during the weight-loss maintenance period rather than increasing calorie intake during this phase.

Heart rate and blood pressure did not change in either group, while triglycerides decreased in the alternate-day fasting group, and LDL cholesterol decreased in the calorie-restriction group.

Glucose level decreased in the calorie-restriction group but not the alternate-day fasting group, and insulin and HOMA-IR were unaffected in both groups, reported Dr. Varady, noting that these findings were in healthy people with obesity.

In people with obesity and insulin resistance – evaluated as a subgroup in a separate study by Dr. Varady of alternate-day fasting versus daily calorie restriction published in 2019 – she noted that when insulin levels and HOMA-IR were measured, there was a greater reduction in both variables in the fasting group, compared with the calorie-restriction group.

“For people at risk of diabetes, maybe fasting produces more potent effects on glycemic control?” she ventured.
 

Who fares best with which fasting diets?

Summing up, Dr. Varady provided some practical pointers regarding who she feels is best suited to intermittent fasting and who should avoid it.

Those who binge eat, shift-workers, and frequent snackers do not do well with fasting, she said.

The first 10 days of intermittent fasting are rough, she pointed out, with the most common complaint being headaches.

“Eventually, people do feel an energy boost on fast days, and they say they concentrate better and have lots of energy. People won’t feel lethargic. Also, eating protein on fast days has been shown to keep hunger at bay.”

She cautiously concluded that weight loss with “alternate-day fasting” is quicker than some other methods, at 4.5-7 kg (10-15 lb) in 3 months, but is harder to follow and requires some calorie counting.

“In comparison, with time-restricted feeding, for which there have been very few ... studies to date, weight loss is slower at 2-4.5 kg (5-10 lb) in 3 months, but it is easier to follow and tolerable because you don’t need to count calories.”

Dr. Weiss has reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Varady has reported receiving author fees from Hachette for her book, “Every Other Day Diet.” (New York: Hachette, 2013)

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

Cardiologist Ethan J. Weiss, MD, followed an intermittent-fasting diet for 7 years. He lost about 3.6 kg (8 lb) and began recommending the approach to friends and patients who wanted to lose weight.

“I liked the way the diet was so simple,” said Dr. Weiss, an associate professor at the Cardiovascular Research Institute, University of California, San Francisco. But he also felt “it was too good to be true because you can eat what you want as long as it’s within a narrow window.”

So when, last year, he conducted a randomized, controlled trial, TREAT, testing such an approach – eating during just 8 hours a day, fasting for the remaining 16 hours – versus an eating plan of three meals a day without restrictions, he was somewhat dismayed to find the group of people who fasted didn’t lose any more weight than the other group.

The approach used in this study is known as time-restricted eating. It involves designating periods of time within the day when people can consume whatever they want; they then “fast” at times outside those eating windows. Other methods include alternate-day fasting, or the well-known 5:2 diet. In the latter, people eat a “normal” amount of around 2,000 calories per day on 5 days of the week, but for the other 2 days, they restrict caloric intake to 500 calories per day.

Intermittent fasting is an umbrella term encompassing all of these different approaches.

Dr. Weiss’s work builds on more than a decade of research into this type of eating plan by scientists, including Krista Varady, PhD, professor of nutrition at the University of Illinois at Chicago, who presented an overview of her own studies last fall at the virtual annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

Although much of the work has suggested that the shorter duration of eating period in this type of diet leads to lower calorie intake and weight loss while avoiding the need for the tedious calorie-counting of conventional diets, Dr. Weiss’s data – published last year – throws a spanner in the works and now complicates the evidence base.
 

A promise of simplicity: ‘All you have to do is watch the clock’

Dr. Varady said she, too, is intrigued by the simplicity of intermittent-fasting diets.

In 2018, Dr. Varady and colleagues tested the weight-loss efficacy of 12 weeks of time-restricted feeding in a pilot study of 23 people with obesity.

Participants were permitted an 8-hour eating window (10 a.m. to 6 p.m.) followed by water-only fasting of 16 hours (6 p.m. to 10 a.m.) the next day (sometimes referred to as the 16:8 diet). Researchers measured weight loss and fat mass, as well as metabolic parameters, and compared the active group with 23 matched-control participants who ate freely.

There were no restrictions on type or quantity of food consumed by the control group during the 8-hour period, but individuals in the time-restricted feeding group consumed around 350 calories less than the comparator group.

Dr. Varady thinks this is most likely because of the fact that people normally eat during a 14-hour window and time-restricted feeding cuts that down by 6 hours.

“One of the most beautiful things about time-restricted feeding is that it doesn’t require calorie monitoring,” she explained. “People get burnt out with having to constantly monitor calories. All you have to do is watch the clock.”

Adherence was quite high, she reported, although most people skipped 1 day, often a Saturday, likely because of social engagements.

Weight loss in the time-restricted feeding group was mild to moderate. After 3 months, mean body weight decreased by 2.6%, or approximately 3 kg (7-8 lb), relative to those who ate freely, but this was a significant difference (P  < .05).

But the researchers observed little change in metabolic disease risk factors between the groups.

In the time-restricted feeding group, systolic blood pressure dropped from 128 mm Hg to 121 mm Hg over the 12-week period, which was significant relative to the control group (P  <  .05) but there were no significant changes in fasting glucose, fasting lipids, fasting insulin, or insulin resistance relative to the comparator group.

In contrast to Dr. Varady’s findings, Dr. Weiss’s randomized TREAT trial, which used a similar 16:8 period of time-restricted versus unrestricted eating in 116 individuals with overweight or obesity, did not find greater weight loss in the group restricted to eating within the 8-hour window.

As previously reported by this news organization, those who fasted for 16 hours of each day (n = 59) did lose some weight, compared with the control group (n = 57) over 12 weeks, but the difference in weight loss between the groups was not significant (−0.26 kg; P = .63).

And there were no significant differences in any of the secondary outcomes of fat mass, fasting insulin, fasting glucose, hemoglobin A1c levels, estimated energy intake, total energy expenditure, and resting energy expenditure between the time-restricted eating and regular feeding groups.

“I don’t claim time-restricted eating is dead,” Dr. Weiss said, “but the hope that you can eat for a limited time each day and solve metabolic disease is not there.”

Does the length of the eating window matter?

Following her pilot study of an 8-hour eating window, Dr. Varady conducted further research with 4- or 6-hour eating windows to see if even shorter periods would precipitate greater weight loss, ideally a clinically significant loss of 5% of body weight.

She ran a 2-month randomized, controlled study in people with obesity, published in 2020, which was the first to examine both a 4-hour (3 p.m. to 7 p.m.; n = 19) or 6-hour (1 p.m to 7 p.m.; n = 20) eating window versus a diet without any food restrictions as a control (n = 19) (Cell Metab. 2020;32:366-78.e3).

Dr. Varady explained that they decided to shift the eating window to later in the day for this trial (in contrast to the earlier 8-hour study) to allow people to eat dinner at a sociable time, and thereby hopefully reduce dropouts from the study. 

“Unlike with alternate-day fasting, most people find time-restricted feeding easy to incorporate into their lifestyles,” she remarked.

Both the 4- and 6-hour eating window groups experienced a mean 3.2% body weight loss, compared with controls, and this correlated with a 550-calorie reduction in their daily consumption, compared with their baseline calorie intake.

In terms of other outcomes – and in contrast to the 8-hour window study which showed very little changed other than a minor decrease in blood pressure – researchers saw some changes in metabolic risk factors with the 4- and 6-hour eating windows, Dr. Varady reported.

Compared with the control group, fasting insulin decreased in both time-restricted feeding groups by a mean of 15% (P < .05). Insulin resistance also decreased by 25% in the 4-hour group and by 15% in the 6-hour group, compared with the control group. Fasting glucose did not change in either group, however.

The researchers did not observe any effect on blood pressure or plasma lipids in the 4- or 6-hour eating window groups, compared with controls. However, measures of oxidative stress and inflammation decreased in both groups versus controls by approximately 35% (P < .05).

“These findings suggest that this form of severe time-restricted feeding is achievable and can help adults with obesity lose weight, without having to count calories,” Dr. Varady and colleagues conclude.
 

Is intermittent fasting better for weight loss than calorie restriction?

Ultimately, if weight loss is the primary goal, many want to know how time-restricted feeding compares with conventional daily calorie restriction.

Back in 2017, Dr. Varady published a year-long randomized, controlled study that compared alternate-day fasting with a calorie-restriction diet and a conventional/usual diet among 100 participants with obesity who were otherwise healthy.  

Participants on the alternate-day fasting plan (n = 34) consumed 500 calories on fasting days for the first 6 months for weight loss (approximately 25% of energy needs) followed by 125% of energy needs on alternating “feast days”. For an additional 6 months, they ate 1,000 calories on fasting days – aimed at weight maintenance.

Those following the calorie-restriction diet (n = 35) reduced energy intake by 25% (approximately 500 kcal) for the first 6 months for weight loss, followed by enough calories sufficient for weight maintenance (so no further loss nor gain).

However, the study showed alternate-day fasting did not produce better weight loss than conventional calorie counting.

“Over the first 6 months [during the weight-loss period] both groups lost an average of 6% body weight. After 12 months it crept back to 5% weight loss,” reported Dr. Varady.

“Realistically, if the study continued for 2 or 3 years, they probably would have regained much of their weight,” she admitted.

Dr. Varady suspects it might be better for the alternate-day fasting participants to continue eating only 500 calories on their fast day during the weight-loss maintenance period rather than increasing calorie intake during this phase.

Heart rate and blood pressure did not change in either group, while triglycerides decreased in the alternate-day fasting group, and LDL cholesterol decreased in the calorie-restriction group.

Glucose level decreased in the calorie-restriction group but not the alternate-day fasting group, and insulin and HOMA-IR were unaffected in both groups, reported Dr. Varady, noting that these findings were in healthy people with obesity.

In people with obesity and insulin resistance – evaluated as a subgroup in a separate study by Dr. Varady of alternate-day fasting versus daily calorie restriction published in 2019 – she noted that when insulin levels and HOMA-IR were measured, there was a greater reduction in both variables in the fasting group, compared with the calorie-restriction group.

“For people at risk of diabetes, maybe fasting produces more potent effects on glycemic control?” she ventured.
 

Who fares best with which fasting diets?

Summing up, Dr. Varady provided some practical pointers regarding who she feels is best suited to intermittent fasting and who should avoid it.

Those who binge eat, shift-workers, and frequent snackers do not do well with fasting, she said.

The first 10 days of intermittent fasting are rough, she pointed out, with the most common complaint being headaches.

“Eventually, people do feel an energy boost on fast days, and they say they concentrate better and have lots of energy. People won’t feel lethargic. Also, eating protein on fast days has been shown to keep hunger at bay.”

She cautiously concluded that weight loss with “alternate-day fasting” is quicker than some other methods, at 4.5-7 kg (10-15 lb) in 3 months, but is harder to follow and requires some calorie counting.

“In comparison, with time-restricted feeding, for which there have been very few ... studies to date, weight loss is slower at 2-4.5 kg (5-10 lb) in 3 months, but it is easier to follow and tolerable because you don’t need to count calories.”

Dr. Weiss has reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Varady has reported receiving author fees from Hachette for her book, “Every Other Day Diet.” (New York: Hachette, 2013)

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

Cardiologist Ethan J. Weiss, MD, followed an intermittent-fasting diet for 7 years. He lost about 3.6 kg (8 lb) and began recommending the approach to friends and patients who wanted to lose weight.

“I liked the way the diet was so simple,” said Dr. Weiss, an associate professor at the Cardiovascular Research Institute, University of California, San Francisco. But he also felt “it was too good to be true because you can eat what you want as long as it’s within a narrow window.”

So when, last year, he conducted a randomized, controlled trial, TREAT, testing such an approach – eating during just 8 hours a day, fasting for the remaining 16 hours – versus an eating plan of three meals a day without restrictions, he was somewhat dismayed to find the group of people who fasted didn’t lose any more weight than the other group.

The approach used in this study is known as time-restricted eating. It involves designating periods of time within the day when people can consume whatever they want; they then “fast” at times outside those eating windows. Other methods include alternate-day fasting, or the well-known 5:2 diet. In the latter, people eat a “normal” amount of around 2,000 calories per day on 5 days of the week, but for the other 2 days, they restrict caloric intake to 500 calories per day.

Intermittent fasting is an umbrella term encompassing all of these different approaches.

Dr. Weiss’s work builds on more than a decade of research into this type of eating plan by scientists, including Krista Varady, PhD, professor of nutrition at the University of Illinois at Chicago, who presented an overview of her own studies last fall at the virtual annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

Although much of the work has suggested that the shorter duration of eating period in this type of diet leads to lower calorie intake and weight loss while avoiding the need for the tedious calorie-counting of conventional diets, Dr. Weiss’s data – published last year – throws a spanner in the works and now complicates the evidence base.
 

A promise of simplicity: ‘All you have to do is watch the clock’

Dr. Varady said she, too, is intrigued by the simplicity of intermittent-fasting diets.

In 2018, Dr. Varady and colleagues tested the weight-loss efficacy of 12 weeks of time-restricted feeding in a pilot study of 23 people with obesity.

Participants were permitted an 8-hour eating window (10 a.m. to 6 p.m.) followed by water-only fasting of 16 hours (6 p.m. to 10 a.m.) the next day (sometimes referred to as the 16:8 diet). Researchers measured weight loss and fat mass, as well as metabolic parameters, and compared the active group with 23 matched-control participants who ate freely.

There were no restrictions on type or quantity of food consumed by the control group during the 8-hour period, but individuals in the time-restricted feeding group consumed around 350 calories less than the comparator group.

Dr. Varady thinks this is most likely because of the fact that people normally eat during a 14-hour window and time-restricted feeding cuts that down by 6 hours.

“One of the most beautiful things about time-restricted feeding is that it doesn’t require calorie monitoring,” she explained. “People get burnt out with having to constantly monitor calories. All you have to do is watch the clock.”

Adherence was quite high, she reported, although most people skipped 1 day, often a Saturday, likely because of social engagements.

Weight loss in the time-restricted feeding group was mild to moderate. After 3 months, mean body weight decreased by 2.6%, or approximately 3 kg (7-8 lb), relative to those who ate freely, but this was a significant difference (P  < .05).

But the researchers observed little change in metabolic disease risk factors between the groups.

In the time-restricted feeding group, systolic blood pressure dropped from 128 mm Hg to 121 mm Hg over the 12-week period, which was significant relative to the control group (P  <  .05) but there were no significant changes in fasting glucose, fasting lipids, fasting insulin, or insulin resistance relative to the comparator group.

In contrast to Dr. Varady’s findings, Dr. Weiss’s randomized TREAT trial, which used a similar 16:8 period of time-restricted versus unrestricted eating in 116 individuals with overweight or obesity, did not find greater weight loss in the group restricted to eating within the 8-hour window.

As previously reported by this news organization, those who fasted for 16 hours of each day (n = 59) did lose some weight, compared with the control group (n = 57) over 12 weeks, but the difference in weight loss between the groups was not significant (−0.26 kg; P = .63).

And there were no significant differences in any of the secondary outcomes of fat mass, fasting insulin, fasting glucose, hemoglobin A1c levels, estimated energy intake, total energy expenditure, and resting energy expenditure between the time-restricted eating and regular feeding groups.

“I don’t claim time-restricted eating is dead,” Dr. Weiss said, “but the hope that you can eat for a limited time each day and solve metabolic disease is not there.”

Does the length of the eating window matter?

Following her pilot study of an 8-hour eating window, Dr. Varady conducted further research with 4- or 6-hour eating windows to see if even shorter periods would precipitate greater weight loss, ideally a clinically significant loss of 5% of body weight.

She ran a 2-month randomized, controlled study in people with obesity, published in 2020, which was the first to examine both a 4-hour (3 p.m. to 7 p.m.; n = 19) or 6-hour (1 p.m to 7 p.m.; n = 20) eating window versus a diet without any food restrictions as a control (n = 19) (Cell Metab. 2020;32:366-78.e3).

Dr. Varady explained that they decided to shift the eating window to later in the day for this trial (in contrast to the earlier 8-hour study) to allow people to eat dinner at a sociable time, and thereby hopefully reduce dropouts from the study. 

“Unlike with alternate-day fasting, most people find time-restricted feeding easy to incorporate into their lifestyles,” she remarked.

Both the 4- and 6-hour eating window groups experienced a mean 3.2% body weight loss, compared with controls, and this correlated with a 550-calorie reduction in their daily consumption, compared with their baseline calorie intake.

In terms of other outcomes – and in contrast to the 8-hour window study which showed very little changed other than a minor decrease in blood pressure – researchers saw some changes in metabolic risk factors with the 4- and 6-hour eating windows, Dr. Varady reported.

Compared with the control group, fasting insulin decreased in both time-restricted feeding groups by a mean of 15% (P < .05). Insulin resistance also decreased by 25% in the 4-hour group and by 15% in the 6-hour group, compared with the control group. Fasting glucose did not change in either group, however.

The researchers did not observe any effect on blood pressure or plasma lipids in the 4- or 6-hour eating window groups, compared with controls. However, measures of oxidative stress and inflammation decreased in both groups versus controls by approximately 35% (P < .05).

“These findings suggest that this form of severe time-restricted feeding is achievable and can help adults with obesity lose weight, without having to count calories,” Dr. Varady and colleagues conclude.
 

Is intermittent fasting better for weight loss than calorie restriction?

Ultimately, if weight loss is the primary goal, many want to know how time-restricted feeding compares with conventional daily calorie restriction.

Back in 2017, Dr. Varady published a year-long randomized, controlled study that compared alternate-day fasting with a calorie-restriction diet and a conventional/usual diet among 100 participants with obesity who were otherwise healthy.  

Participants on the alternate-day fasting plan (n = 34) consumed 500 calories on fasting days for the first 6 months for weight loss (approximately 25% of energy needs) followed by 125% of energy needs on alternating “feast days”. For an additional 6 months, they ate 1,000 calories on fasting days – aimed at weight maintenance.

Those following the calorie-restriction diet (n = 35) reduced energy intake by 25% (approximately 500 kcal) for the first 6 months for weight loss, followed by enough calories sufficient for weight maintenance (so no further loss nor gain).

However, the study showed alternate-day fasting did not produce better weight loss than conventional calorie counting.

“Over the first 6 months [during the weight-loss period] both groups lost an average of 6% body weight. After 12 months it crept back to 5% weight loss,” reported Dr. Varady.

“Realistically, if the study continued for 2 or 3 years, they probably would have regained much of their weight,” she admitted.

Dr. Varady suspects it might be better for the alternate-day fasting participants to continue eating only 500 calories on their fast day during the weight-loss maintenance period rather than increasing calorie intake during this phase.

Heart rate and blood pressure did not change in either group, while triglycerides decreased in the alternate-day fasting group, and LDL cholesterol decreased in the calorie-restriction group.

Glucose level decreased in the calorie-restriction group but not the alternate-day fasting group, and insulin and HOMA-IR were unaffected in both groups, reported Dr. Varady, noting that these findings were in healthy people with obesity.

In people with obesity and insulin resistance – evaluated as a subgroup in a separate study by Dr. Varady of alternate-day fasting versus daily calorie restriction published in 2019 – she noted that when insulin levels and HOMA-IR were measured, there was a greater reduction in both variables in the fasting group, compared with the calorie-restriction group.

“For people at risk of diabetes, maybe fasting produces more potent effects on glycemic control?” she ventured.
 

Who fares best with which fasting diets?

Summing up, Dr. Varady provided some practical pointers regarding who she feels is best suited to intermittent fasting and who should avoid it.

Those who binge eat, shift-workers, and frequent snackers do not do well with fasting, she said.

The first 10 days of intermittent fasting are rough, she pointed out, with the most common complaint being headaches.

“Eventually, people do feel an energy boost on fast days, and they say they concentrate better and have lots of energy. People won’t feel lethargic. Also, eating protein on fast days has been shown to keep hunger at bay.”

She cautiously concluded that weight loss with “alternate-day fasting” is quicker than some other methods, at 4.5-7 kg (10-15 lb) in 3 months, but is harder to follow and requires some calorie counting.

“In comparison, with time-restricted feeding, for which there have been very few ... studies to date, weight loss is slower at 2-4.5 kg (5-10 lb) in 3 months, but it is easier to follow and tolerable because you don’t need to count calories.”

Dr. Weiss has reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Varady has reported receiving author fees from Hachette for her book, “Every Other Day Diet.” (New York: Hachette, 2013)

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

Infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus may provide some immunity for at least 5 months, interim results from a study has found.

The first report from the Sarscov2 Immunity & Reinfection Evaluation (SIREN) study suggested that antibodies from people who had recovered from COVID-19 gave at least 83% protection against reinfection compared with people who had not had the disease before.

However, Public Health England (PHE) researchers said some people with antibodies may still be able to carry and transmit the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

‘Strongly encouraged’

Susan Hopkins, PhD, senior medical advisor at PHE, who is leading the study, said the overall findings were good news. She told a briefing hosted by the Science Media Centre: “I am strongly encouraged that people have immunity that is lasting much more than the few months that was speculated before the summer.”

She added: “It allows people to feel that their prior infection will protect them from future infections but at the same time it is not complete protection, and therefore they still need to be careful when they are out and about.”

PHE scientists said they would continue to assess whether protection might last longer than 5 months.

Eleanor Riley, PhD, professor of immunology and infectious disease at the University of Edinburgh, said the report suggested that “natural infection provides short-term protection against COVID-19 that is very similar to that conferred by vaccination.”

Simon Clarke, PhD, associate professor in cellular microbiology at the University of Reading, said: “The concerning finding is that some people who have COVID antibodies appear to still be able to carry the coronavirus and could spread it to others. This means that the vast majority of the population will either need to have natural immunity or have been immunised for us to fully lift restrictions on our lives.”

The analysis took place before the new variant of SARS-CoV-2 became widespread in the UK. The PHE scientists said that further work was underway to establish whether and to what extent antibodies also provide protection from the VOC202012/01 variant.

Healthcare Workers

The SIREN preprint analysed data from 20,787 health care workers from 102 NHS trusts who had undergone antibody and PCR testing from June 18 to November 9, 2020.

Of those, 6614 tested positive for COVID-19 antibodies.

Of the 44 potential reinfections identified, two were designated ‘probable’ and 42 ‘possible’, based on available evidence.

Both of the two individuals classified as probable reinfections reported having experienced COVID-19 symptoms during the first wave of the pandemic but were not tested at the time. Both reported that their symptoms were less severe the second time.

None of the 44 potential reinfection cases were PCR tested during the first wave, but all tested positive for COVID-19 antibodies at the time they were recruited to the study.

Tom Wingfield, PhD, senior clinical lecturer at the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, said that given the high risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection for frontline NHS staff, it was “vital that we do all that we can to understand, predict, and prevent risk of SARS-CoV-2 amongst healthcare workers”.

The study will continue to follow participants for 12 months to explore how long any immunity may last, the effectiveness of vaccines, and to what extent people with immunity are able to carry and transmit the virus.

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

Infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus may provide some immunity for at least 5 months, interim results from a study has found.

The first report from the Sarscov2 Immunity & Reinfection Evaluation (SIREN) study suggested that antibodies from people who had recovered from COVID-19 gave at least 83% protection against reinfection compared with people who had not had the disease before.

However, Public Health England (PHE) researchers said some people with antibodies may still be able to carry and transmit the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

‘Strongly encouraged’

Susan Hopkins, PhD, senior medical advisor at PHE, who is leading the study, said the overall findings were good news. She told a briefing hosted by the Science Media Centre: “I am strongly encouraged that people have immunity that is lasting much more than the few months that was speculated before the summer.”

She added: “It allows people to feel that their prior infection will protect them from future infections but at the same time it is not complete protection, and therefore they still need to be careful when they are out and about.”

PHE scientists said they would continue to assess whether protection might last longer than 5 months.

Eleanor Riley, PhD, professor of immunology and infectious disease at the University of Edinburgh, said the report suggested that “natural infection provides short-term protection against COVID-19 that is very similar to that conferred by vaccination.”

Simon Clarke, PhD, associate professor in cellular microbiology at the University of Reading, said: “The concerning finding is that some people who have COVID antibodies appear to still be able to carry the coronavirus and could spread it to others. This means that the vast majority of the population will either need to have natural immunity or have been immunised for us to fully lift restrictions on our lives.”

The analysis took place before the new variant of SARS-CoV-2 became widespread in the UK. The PHE scientists said that further work was underway to establish whether and to what extent antibodies also provide protection from the VOC202012/01 variant.

Healthcare Workers

The SIREN preprint analysed data from 20,787 health care workers from 102 NHS trusts who had undergone antibody and PCR testing from June 18 to November 9, 2020.

Of those, 6614 tested positive for COVID-19 antibodies.

Of the 44 potential reinfections identified, two were designated ‘probable’ and 42 ‘possible’, based on available evidence.

Both of the two individuals classified as probable reinfections reported having experienced COVID-19 symptoms during the first wave of the pandemic but were not tested at the time. Both reported that their symptoms were less severe the second time.

None of the 44 potential reinfection cases were PCR tested during the first wave, but all tested positive for COVID-19 antibodies at the time they were recruited to the study.

Tom Wingfield, PhD, senior clinical lecturer at the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, said that given the high risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection for frontline NHS staff, it was “vital that we do all that we can to understand, predict, and prevent risk of SARS-CoV-2 amongst healthcare workers”.

The study will continue to follow participants for 12 months to explore how long any immunity may last, the effectiveness of vaccines, and to what extent people with immunity are able to carry and transmit the virus.

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

Infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus may provide some immunity for at least 5 months, interim results from a study has found.

The first report from the Sarscov2 Immunity & Reinfection Evaluation (SIREN) study suggested that antibodies from people who had recovered from COVID-19 gave at least 83% protection against reinfection compared with people who had not had the disease before.

However, Public Health England (PHE) researchers said some people with antibodies may still be able to carry and transmit the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

‘Strongly encouraged’

Susan Hopkins, PhD, senior medical advisor at PHE, who is leading the study, said the overall findings were good news. She told a briefing hosted by the Science Media Centre: “I am strongly encouraged that people have immunity that is lasting much more than the few months that was speculated before the summer.”

She added: “It allows people to feel that their prior infection will protect them from future infections but at the same time it is not complete protection, and therefore they still need to be careful when they are out and about.”

PHE scientists said they would continue to assess whether protection might last longer than 5 months.

Eleanor Riley, PhD, professor of immunology and infectious disease at the University of Edinburgh, said the report suggested that “natural infection provides short-term protection against COVID-19 that is very similar to that conferred by vaccination.”

Simon Clarke, PhD, associate professor in cellular microbiology at the University of Reading, said: “The concerning finding is that some people who have COVID antibodies appear to still be able to carry the coronavirus and could spread it to others. This means that the vast majority of the population will either need to have natural immunity or have been immunised for us to fully lift restrictions on our lives.”

The analysis took place before the new variant of SARS-CoV-2 became widespread in the UK. The PHE scientists said that further work was underway to establish whether and to what extent antibodies also provide protection from the VOC202012/01 variant.

Healthcare Workers

The SIREN preprint analysed data from 20,787 health care workers from 102 NHS trusts who had undergone antibody and PCR testing from June 18 to November 9, 2020.

Of those, 6614 tested positive for COVID-19 antibodies.

Of the 44 potential reinfections identified, two were designated ‘probable’ and 42 ‘possible’, based on available evidence.

Both of the two individuals classified as probable reinfections reported having experienced COVID-19 symptoms during the first wave of the pandemic but were not tested at the time. Both reported that their symptoms were less severe the second time.

None of the 44 potential reinfection cases were PCR tested during the first wave, but all tested positive for COVID-19 antibodies at the time they were recruited to the study.

Tom Wingfield, PhD, senior clinical lecturer at the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, said that given the high risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection for frontline NHS staff, it was “vital that we do all that we can to understand, predict, and prevent risk of SARS-CoV-2 amongst healthcare workers”.

The study will continue to follow participants for 12 months to explore how long any immunity may last, the effectiveness of vaccines, and to what extent people with immunity are able to carry and transmit the virus.

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

Left-handed cardiology trainees face unique challenges when it comes to learning how to perform common procedures, according to a new report.

About 10% of the world’s population is left-handed, and rates of left-handedness among medical students and practicing physicians is believed to be similar.

“Extrapolating this to 3,017 active general cardiovascular fellowship positions and 339 interventional cardiology fellowship positions for the year 2018-2019, it is estimated there are more than 300 LH [left-handed] trainees in U.S. cardiovascular fellowship programs at any given time. Despite this, any standard clinical setting is designed to be convenient for RH [right-handed] providers, thereby creating a variable amount of impediment for LH trainees,” wrote Prashant Patel, MD, and Mandira Patel, DO, from University of California, Riverside.

“With about 10% prevalence, left-handedness is far more common, including among cardiology trainees, than most people realize. Most of the procedural set-up is designed for the right-hand majority, and it may cause a variable amount of impediment for the left-handed trainees. It is very important for the academic cardiology community to recognize this,” Dr. Prashant Patel said in an interview.

The findings were published in the Jan.5 issue of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Dr. Prashant Patel, who is left-handed, said he was prompted to look into the issue because of his own experience.

“In my first procedural rotation several years ago, I noticed that I was positioning myself somewhat differently than my attendings due to my preference for using my left hand for fine motor control,” he said. “I started looking up existing literature to see what other left-handed cardiologists have done in the past, but realized that nothing along this line was published.

“I started discussions with my colleagues and superiors and found that our small cardiology fellowship program contains about 20%-40% of left-handed trainees at any given time, and we felt it was important to elaborate on this,” he added.

Practice makes perfect, and repeated practice eventually leads to automation of motor procedures, but the learning curve may be more protracted for left-handed trainees. “Acquisition of procedural skills is a function of time and repetition. Eventually, most practicing left-handed cardiologists see that as a nonissue and do not even realize they may have gone through a differential learning curve based on their hand dominance,” Dr. Prashant Patel noted.

“South-paw” cardiology trainees face their first challenge in the examination room.

Physicians typically examine patients from the right-hand side of the bed. The majority of clinic offices are set up for the right-handed provider, with the examining table placed with the head of the bed distal from the door and the left side of the bed aligned in close proximity to the wall, leaving examination on the right side of the patient as the only option. In the hospital setting, monitors and intravenous poles are usually placed on the patient’s left-hand side of the bed.

“This practice, more than anything else, is born out of tradition. The same clinical examination can potentially be performed with the same accuracy and efficacy from the left-hand side,” said Dr. Prashant Patel.

In the echocardiography lab, some facilities perform transthoracic echocardiography from the right side of the patient, thereby requiring the operator to get the right scanning hand over and across the patient.

“This is ergonomically disadvantageous, as one has to sit on the table, reach over the patient, and twist the torso. Scanning from the left side of the patient is ergonomically superior in preventing back injuries and may be advantageous for the left-handed person as the probe is held in the dominant hand,” noted Dr. Prashant Patel.

In the cath lab, the difficulty for left-handed cardiologists starts with establishing arterial or venous access.

“The two most frequently used arterial-access sites are right radial and right femoral. Both of them pose unique challenges in terms of positioning for most left-handed trainees in the early part of their training. The right arm is kept adducted and externally rotated in a standard setup, which is difficult to access for a left-handed operator, and would require the operator to use their nondominant right hand awkwardly to gain access,” he said.

A solution could be to reposition the patient’s arm using a radial board into abduction of the arm at about 45 degrees, with external rotation.

“This creates room for the left-handed operator to stand caudal to the patient’s arm and approach the radial access site conveniently using their dominant hand,” Dr. Prashant Patel suggested.

For the femoral approach, the left-handed operator could stand left of the patient and either get left femoral access or reach out across to the right groin of the patient and obtain access in this manner, or alternatively, the operator could resort to using their right hand to gain right femoral access.

“The large size of the femoral vessels allows even the strongly left-handed operators to get accustomed to using their nondominant hand with practice. This may be preferable to switching to the left side,” he said.

There are also some advantages to being left-handed, Dr. Prashant Patel said.

This is true “especially in the cath lab, for example, establishing antegrade right femoral access for peripheral interventions,” he noted. “Having a left-handed operator can also come in handy when two operators need to simultaneously and quickly work on both groins, as is often the case in complex coronary or structural interventions. Left-handed operators are also at ease obtaining left radial access, which has been shown to have certain advantages over right radial access.”

“We hope to raise awareness among the academic cardiology community about left-handedness,” Dr. Prashant Patel added. “We hope that acknowledgment, support, and minor modifications in work flow will allow a lot of young trainees in the early part of their career to stay on course and realize their full potential in this procedural specialty.”
 

An insightful paper

“This paper by Dr. Prashant Patel and Dr. Mandira Patel is most insightful about the unique challenges and occasional opportunities for the left-handed cardiologist,” wrote Simon Kendall, MBBS, president of the Society for Cardiothoracic Surgery Great Britain and Ireland, London, in an accompanying response.

“As a left-handed cardiac surgeon, I am embarrassed not to have considered such significant issues for my cardiology colleagues: the edict of examining a patient from the right side, performing echocardiography with the right hand, and the complex arena of catheter laboratory that is designed around the right-handed majority. Before reading this paper, I had not appreciated that for my whole career I have had to use my less-favored right hand when inserting a balloon pump,” Dr. Kendall wrote.

“Dr. Patel and Dr. Patel have written very sensible conclusions, such as that left-handedness should be acknowledged and adapted for and the training environment has to help access the specific tips and tricks from others, as shared in cardiac surgery, for instance. They rightly describe this as not a binary phenomenon and that there is a spectrum of laterality, so that some left-handers will adapt with ease and others will need more time and patience to learn the necessary skills,” he wrote. “We are fortunate to live in an era of increasing awareness and tolerance. Left-handedness is one small example of such progress.”

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

Left-handed cardiology trainees face unique challenges when it comes to learning how to perform common procedures, according to a new report.

About 10% of the world’s population is left-handed, and rates of left-handedness among medical students and practicing physicians is believed to be similar.

“Extrapolating this to 3,017 active general cardiovascular fellowship positions and 339 interventional cardiology fellowship positions for the year 2018-2019, it is estimated there are more than 300 LH [left-handed] trainees in U.S. cardiovascular fellowship programs at any given time. Despite this, any standard clinical setting is designed to be convenient for RH [right-handed] providers, thereby creating a variable amount of impediment for LH trainees,” wrote Prashant Patel, MD, and Mandira Patel, DO, from University of California, Riverside.

“With about 10% prevalence, left-handedness is far more common, including among cardiology trainees, than most people realize. Most of the procedural set-up is designed for the right-hand majority, and it may cause a variable amount of impediment for the left-handed trainees. It is very important for the academic cardiology community to recognize this,” Dr. Prashant Patel said in an interview.

The findings were published in the Jan.5 issue of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Dr. Prashant Patel, who is left-handed, said he was prompted to look into the issue because of his own experience.

“In my first procedural rotation several years ago, I noticed that I was positioning myself somewhat differently than my attendings due to my preference for using my left hand for fine motor control,” he said. “I started looking up existing literature to see what other left-handed cardiologists have done in the past, but realized that nothing along this line was published.

“I started discussions with my colleagues and superiors and found that our small cardiology fellowship program contains about 20%-40% of left-handed trainees at any given time, and we felt it was important to elaborate on this,” he added.

Practice makes perfect, and repeated practice eventually leads to automation of motor procedures, but the learning curve may be more protracted for left-handed trainees. “Acquisition of procedural skills is a function of time and repetition. Eventually, most practicing left-handed cardiologists see that as a nonissue and do not even realize they may have gone through a differential learning curve based on their hand dominance,” Dr. Prashant Patel noted.

“South-paw” cardiology trainees face their first challenge in the examination room.

Physicians typically examine patients from the right-hand side of the bed. The majority of clinic offices are set up for the right-handed provider, with the examining table placed with the head of the bed distal from the door and the left side of the bed aligned in close proximity to the wall, leaving examination on the right side of the patient as the only option. In the hospital setting, monitors and intravenous poles are usually placed on the patient’s left-hand side of the bed.

“This practice, more than anything else, is born out of tradition. The same clinical examination can potentially be performed with the same accuracy and efficacy from the left-hand side,” said Dr. Prashant Patel.

In the echocardiography lab, some facilities perform transthoracic echocardiography from the right side of the patient, thereby requiring the operator to get the right scanning hand over and across the patient.

“This is ergonomically disadvantageous, as one has to sit on the table, reach over the patient, and twist the torso. Scanning from the left side of the patient is ergonomically superior in preventing back injuries and may be advantageous for the left-handed person as the probe is held in the dominant hand,” noted Dr. Prashant Patel.

In the cath lab, the difficulty for left-handed cardiologists starts with establishing arterial or venous access.

“The two most frequently used arterial-access sites are right radial and right femoral. Both of them pose unique challenges in terms of positioning for most left-handed trainees in the early part of their training. The right arm is kept adducted and externally rotated in a standard setup, which is difficult to access for a left-handed operator, and would require the operator to use their nondominant right hand awkwardly to gain access,” he said.

A solution could be to reposition the patient’s arm using a radial board into abduction of the arm at about 45 degrees, with external rotation.

“This creates room for the left-handed operator to stand caudal to the patient’s arm and approach the radial access site conveniently using their dominant hand,” Dr. Prashant Patel suggested.

For the femoral approach, the left-handed operator could stand left of the patient and either get left femoral access or reach out across to the right groin of the patient and obtain access in this manner, or alternatively, the operator could resort to using their right hand to gain right femoral access.

“The large size of the femoral vessels allows even the strongly left-handed operators to get accustomed to using their nondominant hand with practice. This may be preferable to switching to the left side,” he said.

There are also some advantages to being left-handed, Dr. Prashant Patel said.

This is true “especially in the cath lab, for example, establishing antegrade right femoral access for peripheral interventions,” he noted. “Having a left-handed operator can also come in handy when two operators need to simultaneously and quickly work on both groins, as is often the case in complex coronary or structural interventions. Left-handed operators are also at ease obtaining left radial access, which has been shown to have certain advantages over right radial access.”

“We hope to raise awareness among the academic cardiology community about left-handedness,” Dr. Prashant Patel added. “We hope that acknowledgment, support, and minor modifications in work flow will allow a lot of young trainees in the early part of their career to stay on course and realize their full potential in this procedural specialty.”
 

An insightful paper

“This paper by Dr. Prashant Patel and Dr. Mandira Patel is most insightful about the unique challenges and occasional opportunities for the left-handed cardiologist,” wrote Simon Kendall, MBBS, president of the Society for Cardiothoracic Surgery Great Britain and Ireland, London, in an accompanying response.

“As a left-handed cardiac surgeon, I am embarrassed not to have considered such significant issues for my cardiology colleagues: the edict of examining a patient from the right side, performing echocardiography with the right hand, and the complex arena of catheter laboratory that is designed around the right-handed majority. Before reading this paper, I had not appreciated that for my whole career I have had to use my less-favored right hand when inserting a balloon pump,” Dr. Kendall wrote.

“Dr. Patel and Dr. Patel have written very sensible conclusions, such as that left-handedness should be acknowledged and adapted for and the training environment has to help access the specific tips and tricks from others, as shared in cardiac surgery, for instance. They rightly describe this as not a binary phenomenon and that there is a spectrum of laterality, so that some left-handers will adapt with ease and others will need more time and patience to learn the necessary skills,” he wrote. “We are fortunate to live in an era of increasing awareness and tolerance. Left-handedness is one small example of such progress.”

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

Left-handed cardiology trainees face unique challenges when it comes to learning how to perform common procedures, according to a new report.

About 10% of the world’s population is left-handed, and rates of left-handedness among medical students and practicing physicians is believed to be similar.

“Extrapolating this to 3,017 active general cardiovascular fellowship positions and 339 interventional cardiology fellowship positions for the year 2018-2019, it is estimated there are more than 300 LH [left-handed] trainees in U.S. cardiovascular fellowship programs at any given time. Despite this, any standard clinical setting is designed to be convenient for RH [right-handed] providers, thereby creating a variable amount of impediment for LH trainees,” wrote Prashant Patel, MD, and Mandira Patel, DO, from University of California, Riverside.

“With about 10% prevalence, left-handedness is far more common, including among cardiology trainees, than most people realize. Most of the procedural set-up is designed for the right-hand majority, and it may cause a variable amount of impediment for the left-handed trainees. It is very important for the academic cardiology community to recognize this,” Dr. Prashant Patel said in an interview.

The findings were published in the Jan.5 issue of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Dr. Prashant Patel, who is left-handed, said he was prompted to look into the issue because of his own experience.

“In my first procedural rotation several years ago, I noticed that I was positioning myself somewhat differently than my attendings due to my preference for using my left hand for fine motor control,” he said. “I started looking up existing literature to see what other left-handed cardiologists have done in the past, but realized that nothing along this line was published.

“I started discussions with my colleagues and superiors and found that our small cardiology fellowship program contains about 20%-40% of left-handed trainees at any given time, and we felt it was important to elaborate on this,” he added.

Practice makes perfect, and repeated practice eventually leads to automation of motor procedures, but the learning curve may be more protracted for left-handed trainees. “Acquisition of procedural skills is a function of time and repetition. Eventually, most practicing left-handed cardiologists see that as a nonissue and do not even realize they may have gone through a differential learning curve based on their hand dominance,” Dr. Prashant Patel noted.

“South-paw” cardiology trainees face their first challenge in the examination room.

Physicians typically examine patients from the right-hand side of the bed. The majority of clinic offices are set up for the right-handed provider, with the examining table placed with the head of the bed distal from the door and the left side of the bed aligned in close proximity to the wall, leaving examination on the right side of the patient as the only option. In the hospital setting, monitors and intravenous poles are usually placed on the patient’s left-hand side of the bed.

“This practice, more than anything else, is born out of tradition. The same clinical examination can potentially be performed with the same accuracy and efficacy from the left-hand side,” said Dr. Prashant Patel.

In the echocardiography lab, some facilities perform transthoracic echocardiography from the right side of the patient, thereby requiring the operator to get the right scanning hand over and across the patient.

“This is ergonomically disadvantageous, as one has to sit on the table, reach over the patient, and twist the torso. Scanning from the left side of the patient is ergonomically superior in preventing back injuries and may be advantageous for the left-handed person as the probe is held in the dominant hand,” noted Dr. Prashant Patel.

In the cath lab, the difficulty for left-handed cardiologists starts with establishing arterial or venous access.

“The two most frequently used arterial-access sites are right radial and right femoral. Both of them pose unique challenges in terms of positioning for most left-handed trainees in the early part of their training. The right arm is kept adducted and externally rotated in a standard setup, which is difficult to access for a left-handed operator, and would require the operator to use their nondominant right hand awkwardly to gain access,” he said.

A solution could be to reposition the patient’s arm using a radial board into abduction of the arm at about 45 degrees, with external rotation.

“This creates room for the left-handed operator to stand caudal to the patient’s arm and approach the radial access site conveniently using their dominant hand,” Dr. Prashant Patel suggested.

For the femoral approach, the left-handed operator could stand left of the patient and either get left femoral access or reach out across to the right groin of the patient and obtain access in this manner, or alternatively, the operator could resort to using their right hand to gain right femoral access.

“The large size of the femoral vessels allows even the strongly left-handed operators to get accustomed to using their nondominant hand with practice. This may be preferable to switching to the left side,” he said.

There are also some advantages to being left-handed, Dr. Prashant Patel said.

This is true “especially in the cath lab, for example, establishing antegrade right femoral access for peripheral interventions,” he noted. “Having a left-handed operator can also come in handy when two operators need to simultaneously and quickly work on both groins, as is often the case in complex coronary or structural interventions. Left-handed operators are also at ease obtaining left radial access, which has been shown to have certain advantages over right radial access.”

“We hope to raise awareness among the academic cardiology community about left-handedness,” Dr. Prashant Patel added. “We hope that acknowledgment, support, and minor modifications in work flow will allow a lot of young trainees in the early part of their career to stay on course and realize their full potential in this procedural specialty.”
 

An insightful paper

“This paper by Dr. Prashant Patel and Dr. Mandira Patel is most insightful about the unique challenges and occasional opportunities for the left-handed cardiologist,” wrote Simon Kendall, MBBS, president of the Society for Cardiothoracic Surgery Great Britain and Ireland, London, in an accompanying response.

“As a left-handed cardiac surgeon, I am embarrassed not to have considered such significant issues for my cardiology colleagues: the edict of examining a patient from the right side, performing echocardiography with the right hand, and the complex arena of catheter laboratory that is designed around the right-handed majority. Before reading this paper, I had not appreciated that for my whole career I have had to use my less-favored right hand when inserting a balloon pump,” Dr. Kendall wrote.

“Dr. Patel and Dr. Patel have written very sensible conclusions, such as that left-handedness should be acknowledged and adapted for and the training environment has to help access the specific tips and tricks from others, as shared in cardiac surgery, for instance. They rightly describe this as not a binary phenomenon and that there is a spectrum of laterality, so that some left-handers will adapt with ease and others will need more time and patience to learn the necessary skills,” he wrote. “We are fortunate to live in an era of increasing awareness and tolerance. Left-handedness is one small example of such progress.”

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

Last fall, health experts said it was possible the United States could experience an easy 2020-21 flu season because health measures to fight COVID-19 would also thwart the spread of influenza.

It looks like that happened – and then some. Numbers are strikingly low for cases of the flu and other common respiratory and gastrointestinal viruses, health experts told the Washington Post.

“It’s crazy,” Lynnette Brammer, MPH, who leads the domestic influenza surveillance team at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, told the Washington Post. “This is my 30th flu season. I never would have expected to see flu activity this low.”

Influenza A, influenza B, parainfluenza, norovirus, respiratory syncytial virus, human metapneumovirus, and the bacteria that cause whooping cough and pneumonia are circulating at near-record-low levels.

As an example, the Washington Post said in the third week of December 2019, the CDC’s network of clinical labs reported 16.2% of almost 30,000 samples tested positive for influenza A. During the same period in 2020, only 0.3% tested positive.

But there’s a possible downside to this suppression of viruses, because flu and other viruses may rebound once the coronavirus is brought under control.

“The best analogy is to a forest fire,” Bryan Grenfell, PhD, an epidemiologist and population biologist at Princeton (N.J.) University, told the Washington Post. “For the fire to spread, it needs to have unburned wood. For epidemics to spread, they require people who haven’t previously been infected. So if people don’t get infected this year by these viruses, they likely will at some point later on.”

American health experts like Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, said last fall that they noticed Australia and other nations in the southern hemisphere had easy flu seasons, apparently because of COVID protection measures. The flu season there runs March through August.

COVID-19 now has a very low presence in Australia, but in recent months the flu has been making a comeback. Flu cases among children aged 5 and younger rose sixfold by December, when such cases are usually at their lowest, the Washington Post said.

“That’s an important cautionary tale for us,” said Kevin Messacar, MD, an infectious disease doctor at Children’s Hospital Colorado, Aurora. “Just because we get through the winter and don’t see much RSV or influenza doesn’t mean we’ll be out of the woods.”

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

Last fall, health experts said it was possible the United States could experience an easy 2020-21 flu season because health measures to fight COVID-19 would also thwart the spread of influenza.

It looks like that happened – and then some. Numbers are strikingly low for cases of the flu and other common respiratory and gastrointestinal viruses, health experts told the Washington Post.

“It’s crazy,” Lynnette Brammer, MPH, who leads the domestic influenza surveillance team at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, told the Washington Post. “This is my 30th flu season. I never would have expected to see flu activity this low.”

Influenza A, influenza B, parainfluenza, norovirus, respiratory syncytial virus, human metapneumovirus, and the bacteria that cause whooping cough and pneumonia are circulating at near-record-low levels.

As an example, the Washington Post said in the third week of December 2019, the CDC’s network of clinical labs reported 16.2% of almost 30,000 samples tested positive for influenza A. During the same period in 2020, only 0.3% tested positive.

But there’s a possible downside to this suppression of viruses, because flu and other viruses may rebound once the coronavirus is brought under control.

“The best analogy is to a forest fire,” Bryan Grenfell, PhD, an epidemiologist and population biologist at Princeton (N.J.) University, told the Washington Post. “For the fire to spread, it needs to have unburned wood. For epidemics to spread, they require people who haven’t previously been infected. So if people don’t get infected this year by these viruses, they likely will at some point later on.”

American health experts like Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, said last fall that they noticed Australia and other nations in the southern hemisphere had easy flu seasons, apparently because of COVID protection measures. The flu season there runs March through August.

COVID-19 now has a very low presence in Australia, but in recent months the flu has been making a comeback. Flu cases among children aged 5 and younger rose sixfold by December, when such cases are usually at their lowest, the Washington Post said.

“That’s an important cautionary tale for us,” said Kevin Messacar, MD, an infectious disease doctor at Children’s Hospital Colorado, Aurora. “Just because we get through the winter and don’t see much RSV or influenza doesn’t mean we’ll be out of the woods.”

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

Last fall, health experts said it was possible the United States could experience an easy 2020-21 flu season because health measures to fight COVID-19 would also thwart the spread of influenza.

It looks like that happened – and then some. Numbers are strikingly low for cases of the flu and other common respiratory and gastrointestinal viruses, health experts told the Washington Post.

“It’s crazy,” Lynnette Brammer, MPH, who leads the domestic influenza surveillance team at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, told the Washington Post. “This is my 30th flu season. I never would have expected to see flu activity this low.”

Influenza A, influenza B, parainfluenza, norovirus, respiratory syncytial virus, human metapneumovirus, and the bacteria that cause whooping cough and pneumonia are circulating at near-record-low levels.

As an example, the Washington Post said in the third week of December 2019, the CDC’s network of clinical labs reported 16.2% of almost 30,000 samples tested positive for influenza A. During the same period in 2020, only 0.3% tested positive.

But there’s a possible downside to this suppression of viruses, because flu and other viruses may rebound once the coronavirus is brought under control.

“The best analogy is to a forest fire,” Bryan Grenfell, PhD, an epidemiologist and population biologist at Princeton (N.J.) University, told the Washington Post. “For the fire to spread, it needs to have unburned wood. For epidemics to spread, they require people who haven’t previously been infected. So if people don’t get infected this year by these viruses, they likely will at some point later on.”

American health experts like Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, said last fall that they noticed Australia and other nations in the southern hemisphere had easy flu seasons, apparently because of COVID protection measures. The flu season there runs March through August.

COVID-19 now has a very low presence in Australia, but in recent months the flu has been making a comeback. Flu cases among children aged 5 and younger rose sixfold by December, when such cases are usually at their lowest, the Washington Post said.

“That’s an important cautionary tale for us,” said Kevin Messacar, MD, an infectious disease doctor at Children’s Hospital Colorado, Aurora. “Just because we get through the winter and don’t see much RSV or influenza doesn’t mean we’ll be out of the woods.”

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

The Endocrine Society has issued a new position statement calling on all stakeholders, including clinicians, to play a role in reducing the cost of insulin for patients with diabetes in the United States.

“Addressing Insulin Access and Affordability: An Endocrine Society Position Statement,” was published online Jan. 12 in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism.

“The society believes all stakeholders across the supply chain have a role to play in addressing the high price of insulin,” said the 11 authors, who are all members of the society’s advocacy and public outreach core committee.  

This is the first such statement from a major professional organization in 2021, which is the 100th anniversary of the discovery of insulin.

And the call for action was issued just a week prior to the inauguration of incoming U.S. President Joe Biden, who has pledged to “build on the Affordable Care Act by giving Americans more choice, reducing health care costs, and making our health care system less complex to navigate.”

The cost of insulin has nearly tripled in the past 15 years in the United States, and a lack of transparency in the drug supply chain has made it challenging to identify and address the causes of soaring costs.

The high cost of insulin has made access particularly difficult for people with diabetes with a low income, who have high-deductible health plans, are Medicare beneficiaries using Part B to cover insulin delivered via pump, or are in the Medicare Part D “donut hole,” as well as young adults once they reach their 26th birthday and can no longer be covered under their parents’ insurance.

“Inventors Frederick Banting and Charles Best sold the insulin patent for a mere $1 in the 1920s because they wanted their discovery to save lives and for insulin to be affordable and accessible to everyone who needed it,” said Endocrine Society President-elect Carol Wysham, MD, of the Rockwood/MultiCare Health Systems, Spokane, Wash.

“People with diabetes without full insurance are often paying increasing out-of-pocket costs for insulin resulting in many rationing their medication or skipping lifesaving doses altogether,” she said.

The society’s statement called for allowing government negotiation of drug prices and greater transparency across the supply chain to elucidate the reasons for rising insulin costs.  

For physicians in particular, they advised training in use of lower-cost human NPH and regular insulin for appropriate patients with type 2 diabetes, and considering patients’ individual financial and coverage status when prescribing insulin.

Pharmacists are advised to learn about and share information with patients about lower-cost options offered by manufacturers.

Other policy recommendations for relevant stakeholders include:

• Limit future insulin list price increases to the rate of inflation.
• Limit out-of-pocket costs without increasing premiums or deductibles by limiting cost sharing to copays of no more than $35, providing first-dollar coverage, or capping costs at no more than $100 per month.
• Eliminate rebates or pass savings from rebates along to consumers without increasing premiums or deductibles.
• Expedite approval of insulin biosimilars to create market competition.
• Include real-time benefit information in electronic medical records.
• Develop a payment model for Medicare Part B beneficiaries, as well as Part D, to lower out-of-pocket copays.

For manufacturers, the society also recommended improving patient assistance programs to be less restrictive and more accountable. And employers, they said, should limit copays without increasing premiums or deductibles, and seek plan options that benefit people with diabetes and provide education about these options during open enrollment.   

Of the 11 writing panel members, 4 have pharmaceutical industry disclosures.

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

The Endocrine Society has issued a new position statement calling on all stakeholders, including clinicians, to play a role in reducing the cost of insulin for patients with diabetes in the United States.

“Addressing Insulin Access and Affordability: An Endocrine Society Position Statement,” was published online Jan. 12 in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism.

“The society believes all stakeholders across the supply chain have a role to play in addressing the high price of insulin,” said the 11 authors, who are all members of the society’s advocacy and public outreach core committee.  

This is the first such statement from a major professional organization in 2021, which is the 100th anniversary of the discovery of insulin.

And the call for action was issued just a week prior to the inauguration of incoming U.S. President Joe Biden, who has pledged to “build on the Affordable Care Act by giving Americans more choice, reducing health care costs, and making our health care system less complex to navigate.”

The cost of insulin has nearly tripled in the past 15 years in the United States, and a lack of transparency in the drug supply chain has made it challenging to identify and address the causes of soaring costs.

The high cost of insulin has made access particularly difficult for people with diabetes with a low income, who have high-deductible health plans, are Medicare beneficiaries using Part B to cover insulin delivered via pump, or are in the Medicare Part D “donut hole,” as well as young adults once they reach their 26th birthday and can no longer be covered under their parents’ insurance.

“Inventors Frederick Banting and Charles Best sold the insulin patent for a mere $1 in the 1920s because they wanted their discovery to save lives and for insulin to be affordable and accessible to everyone who needed it,” said Endocrine Society President-elect Carol Wysham, MD, of the Rockwood/MultiCare Health Systems, Spokane, Wash.

“People with diabetes without full insurance are often paying increasing out-of-pocket costs for insulin resulting in many rationing their medication or skipping lifesaving doses altogether,” she said.

The society’s statement called for allowing government negotiation of drug prices and greater transparency across the supply chain to elucidate the reasons for rising insulin costs.  

For physicians in particular, they advised training in use of lower-cost human NPH and regular insulin for appropriate patients with type 2 diabetes, and considering patients’ individual financial and coverage status when prescribing insulin.

Pharmacists are advised to learn about and share information with patients about lower-cost options offered by manufacturers.

Other policy recommendations for relevant stakeholders include:

• Limit future insulin list price increases to the rate of inflation.
• Limit out-of-pocket costs without increasing premiums or deductibles by limiting cost sharing to copays of no more than $35, providing first-dollar coverage, or capping costs at no more than $100 per month.
• Eliminate rebates or pass savings from rebates along to consumers without increasing premiums or deductibles.
• Expedite approval of insulin biosimilars to create market competition.
• Include real-time benefit information in electronic medical records.
• Develop a payment model for Medicare Part B beneficiaries, as well as Part D, to lower out-of-pocket copays.

For manufacturers, the society also recommended improving patient assistance programs to be less restrictive and more accountable. And employers, they said, should limit copays without increasing premiums or deductibles, and seek plan options that benefit people with diabetes and provide education about these options during open enrollment.   

Of the 11 writing panel members, 4 have pharmaceutical industry disclosures.

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

The Endocrine Society has issued a new position statement calling on all stakeholders, including clinicians, to play a role in reducing the cost of insulin for patients with diabetes in the United States.

“Addressing Insulin Access and Affordability: An Endocrine Society Position Statement,” was published online Jan. 12 in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism.

“The society believes all stakeholders across the supply chain have a role to play in addressing the high price of insulin,” said the 11 authors, who are all members of the society’s advocacy and public outreach core committee.  

This is the first such statement from a major professional organization in 2021, which is the 100th anniversary of the discovery of insulin.

And the call for action was issued just a week prior to the inauguration of incoming U.S. President Joe Biden, who has pledged to “build on the Affordable Care Act by giving Americans more choice, reducing health care costs, and making our health care system less complex to navigate.”

The cost of insulin has nearly tripled in the past 15 years in the United States, and a lack of transparency in the drug supply chain has made it challenging to identify and address the causes of soaring costs.

The high cost of insulin has made access particularly difficult for people with diabetes with a low income, who have high-deductible health plans, are Medicare beneficiaries using Part B to cover insulin delivered via pump, or are in the Medicare Part D “donut hole,” as well as young adults once they reach their 26th birthday and can no longer be covered under their parents’ insurance.

“Inventors Frederick Banting and Charles Best sold the insulin patent for a mere $1 in the 1920s because they wanted their discovery to save lives and for insulin to be affordable and accessible to everyone who needed it,” said Endocrine Society President-elect Carol Wysham, MD, of the Rockwood/MultiCare Health Systems, Spokane, Wash.

“People with diabetes without full insurance are often paying increasing out-of-pocket costs for insulin resulting in many rationing their medication or skipping lifesaving doses altogether,” she said.

The society’s statement called for allowing government negotiation of drug prices and greater transparency across the supply chain to elucidate the reasons for rising insulin costs.  

For physicians in particular, they advised training in use of lower-cost human NPH and regular insulin for appropriate patients with type 2 diabetes, and considering patients’ individual financial and coverage status when prescribing insulin.

Pharmacists are advised to learn about and share information with patients about lower-cost options offered by manufacturers.

Other policy recommendations for relevant stakeholders include:

• Limit future insulin list price increases to the rate of inflation.
• Limit out-of-pocket costs without increasing premiums or deductibles by limiting cost sharing to copays of no more than $35, providing first-dollar coverage, or capping costs at no more than $100 per month.
• Eliminate rebates or pass savings from rebates along to consumers without increasing premiums or deductibles.
• Expedite approval of insulin biosimilars to create market competition.
• Include real-time benefit information in electronic medical records.
• Develop a payment model for Medicare Part B beneficiaries, as well as Part D, to lower out-of-pocket copays.

For manufacturers, the society also recommended improving patient assistance programs to be less restrictive and more accountable. And employers, they said, should limit copays without increasing premiums or deductibles, and seek plan options that benefit people with diabetes and provide education about these options during open enrollment.   

Of the 11 writing panel members, 4 have pharmaceutical industry disclosures.

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

Nostrum Laboratories has voluntarily recalled another lot of metformin HCl extended-release tablets 750-mg dosage, expanding their initial announcement in November 2020. According to the new notice, issued by the Food and Drug Administration earlier this week, the recalled tablets are off-white and oblong with a debossed ID “NM7.”

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

The lot number, NDC, and expiration dates can be found on the FDA website.

Nostrum noted that the tablets were distributed across the United States to wholesalers; these distributors are being notified of the recall and the company is arranging for the drug to be returned.

Metformin is the most prescribed medication worldwide for the treatment of type 2 diabetes.

Nostrum said that anyone in possession of any of the affected lots should consult their physician or pharmacist to obtain a replacement treatment option because it can be dangerous for patients with type 2 diabetes to stop taking metformin.

This new announcement expands further the number of metformin HCl extended-release tablets recalled in the United States because they contain potentially high levels of nitrosamines, also known as N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA), which are possible carcinogens.

The risks of nitrosamines are not clear. The FDA said they may increase the risk of cancer in people who are exposed to high levels over a long period of time, “but we do not anticipate that shorter-term exposure at levels above the acceptable intake limit would lead to an increase in the risk of cancer.”

As well as the November recall of 2 lots of metformin by Nostrum, 76 more lots of metformin extended-release tablets were flagged in October 2020 from various manufacturers for possible contamination with NDMA, on top of an earlier recall for the same problem in May 2020.

More than 175 different drug combinations, all extended release with either 500 mg or 750 mg of metformin, have now been recalled since late May 2020, and a list of those recalled to November 2020 is available here.

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

Nostrum Laboratories has voluntarily recalled another lot of metformin HCl extended-release tablets 750-mg dosage, expanding their initial announcement in November 2020. According to the new notice, issued by the Food and Drug Administration earlier this week, the recalled tablets are off-white and oblong with a debossed ID “NM7.”

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

The lot number, NDC, and expiration dates can be found on the FDA website.

Nostrum noted that the tablets were distributed across the United States to wholesalers; these distributors are being notified of the recall and the company is arranging for the drug to be returned.

Metformin is the most prescribed medication worldwide for the treatment of type 2 diabetes.

Nostrum said that anyone in possession of any of the affected lots should consult their physician or pharmacist to obtain a replacement treatment option because it can be dangerous for patients with type 2 diabetes to stop taking metformin.

This new announcement expands further the number of metformin HCl extended-release tablets recalled in the United States because they contain potentially high levels of nitrosamines, also known as N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA), which are possible carcinogens.

The risks of nitrosamines are not clear. The FDA said they may increase the risk of cancer in people who are exposed to high levels over a long period of time, “but we do not anticipate that shorter-term exposure at levels above the acceptable intake limit would lead to an increase in the risk of cancer.”

As well as the November recall of 2 lots of metformin by Nostrum, 76 more lots of metformin extended-release tablets were flagged in October 2020 from various manufacturers for possible contamination with NDMA, on top of an earlier recall for the same problem in May 2020.

More than 175 different drug combinations, all extended release with either 500 mg or 750 mg of metformin, have now been recalled since late May 2020, and a list of those recalled to November 2020 is available here.

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

Nostrum Laboratories has voluntarily recalled another lot of metformin HCl extended-release tablets 750-mg dosage, expanding their initial announcement in November 2020. According to the new notice, issued by the Food and Drug Administration earlier this week, the recalled tablets are off-white and oblong with a debossed ID “NM7.”

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

The lot number, NDC, and expiration dates can be found on the FDA website.

Nostrum noted that the tablets were distributed across the United States to wholesalers; these distributors are being notified of the recall and the company is arranging for the drug to be returned.

Metformin is the most prescribed medication worldwide for the treatment of type 2 diabetes.

Nostrum said that anyone in possession of any of the affected lots should consult their physician or pharmacist to obtain a replacement treatment option because it can be dangerous for patients with type 2 diabetes to stop taking metformin.

This new announcement expands further the number of metformin HCl extended-release tablets recalled in the United States because they contain potentially high levels of nitrosamines, also known as N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA), which are possible carcinogens.

The risks of nitrosamines are not clear. The FDA said they may increase the risk of cancer in people who are exposed to high levels over a long period of time, “but we do not anticipate that shorter-term exposure at levels above the acceptable intake limit would lead to an increase in the risk of cancer.”

As well as the November recall of 2 lots of metformin by Nostrum, 76 more lots of metformin extended-release tablets were flagged in October 2020 from various manufacturers for possible contamination with NDMA, on top of an earlier recall for the same problem in May 2020.

More than 175 different drug combinations, all extended release with either 500 mg or 750 mg of metformin, have now been recalled since late May 2020, and a list of those recalled to November 2020 is available here.

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

Inhaled treprostinil improved the exercise capacity of patients with pulmonary hypertension attributable to interstitial lung disease and was associated with some additional clinical benefits, according to a new study published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

To investigate treprostinil therapy for pulmonary hypertension in this subset of patients with lung disease, Aaron Waxman, MD, PhD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, and his fellow researchers launched the multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled INCREASE trial. They assigned 163 patients to the inhaled treprostinil group – administered via an ultrasonic, pulsed-delivery nebulizer over 16 weeks – and 163 patients to the placebo group. Their average age was 66.5 years, 73% were white, and 47% were female

At baseline, the mean 6-minute walk distance (6MWD) for all patients was 259.6 m. After 16 weeks, the treprostinil group gained a mean of 21.08 m in 6MWD, and the placebo group lost 10.04 m. The least-squares mean difference between the groups from baseline in the 6MWD was 31.12 m (95% confidence interval, 16.85-45.39; P < .001). After sensitivity analysis with multiple imputation, the difference remained significant at 30.97 m (95% CI, 16.53-45.41; P < .001).

In a comparison of N-terminal pro–B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels from baseline to 16 weeks, the treprostinil group saw a decrease of 15% while the placebo group’s levels increased by 46% (treatment ratio 0.58; 95% CI, 0.47-0.72; P < .001). Clinical worsening occurred in 37 patients (23%) in the treprostinil group and 54 patients (33%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.40-0.92; P = .04), while serious adverse events occurred in 23.3% of the patients on treprostinil and 25.8% of the patients on placebo. There was no significant difference between groups in patient-reported quality of life, as assessed via the St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire.

“There was no guarantee that this was going to work in this condition,” said Adriano Tonelli, MD, of the department of pulmonary medicine at the Cleveland Clinic, in an interview. “Several small studies have tried different medications, for pulmonary hypertension or otherwise, in patients with interstitial lung disease with minimal effect, if any. Given that all the prior studies were not categorically positive, the expectation, at least on my end, was that we needed to wait and see.” Dr. Tonelli and coauthors published a post hoc analysis of inhaled treprostinil studied in the TRIUMPH and BEAT trials.

Next steps: Assess clinical outcomes after inhaled treprostinil

Although the results of this study by Waxman et al, are encouraging, and the need for a treatment in this type of pulmonary hypertension is very real, more narrowing down will be needed to confirm the benefits of inhaled treprostinil, wrote Darren B. Taichman, MD, PhD, of the University of Pennsylvania in an accompanying editorial. He wrote, “After all, patients and physicians may reason, ‘It can’t hurt.’ Unfortunately, however, it could. Therapies approved for pulmonary arterial hypertension have been studied in patients with [ILD]-associated pulmonary hypertension and have shown inconsistent results, with some studies showing no benefit or suggesting harm.”

While the 6MWD has been used as an end point in previous drug trials for pulmonary arterial hypertension, Dr. Taichman wrote that improvements in such a variable were “probably too modest to be unequivocally consequential for many patients.” To confirm the benefits – and detriments – of treatments like inhaled treprostinil, it’s time for studies to focus on clinical end points, he stated, including hospitalizations, disease progression, and death.

He also highlighted the disparity between a treatment that led to increased walk distance and decreased clinical worsening yet did not register an improvement in health-related quality of life. He noted that the oft-cited minimal clinically important difference for 6MWD is approximately 30 m – similar to the difference recorded here. That said, he wrote, “prevention of deterioration is not to be ignored, even if it does not make a patient feel better.”

Regarding quality of life, Dr. Tonelli observed that this questionnaire, standard fare in respiratory research, may not have been perfectly suited for this particular study.

“You have to put it in the context of, ‘How good is the questionnaire to capture a difference in this particular disease over a 16-week period?’ ” he said. “It might not be sensitive enough to capture a significant change. The questionnaire was not developed for pulmonary hypertension in interstitial lung disease, of course. It was developed more generically. It may not capture all that you need to show significance.”

The investigators acknowledged the study’s other potential limitations, including a short duration, a notable percentage of patients who discontinued the trial early, and the fact that clinical worsening and exacerbation of disease were investigator reported and not confirmed by an independent committee.

As for next steps in assessing pulmonary hypertension treatments, Dr. Tonelli pointed to the direction of future research. “The other big study that needs to come out in our field, and I believe it’s being worked on, is inhaled treprostinil in pulmonary hypertension due to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [COPD],” he said. “That’s a major unmet need; the COPD population is larger than the population for interstitial lung disease, and one would wonder whether inhaled treprostinil would benefit those patients as well. At the moment, we have no treatments for that condition. In the future, a COPD study will be needed.”

The study was supported by United Therapeutics. Author disclosures are listed on the New England Journal of Medicine website.

Inhaled treprostinil improved the exercise capacity of patients with pulmonary hypertension attributable to interstitial lung disease and was associated with some additional clinical benefits, according to a new study published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

To investigate treprostinil therapy for pulmonary hypertension in this subset of patients with lung disease, Aaron Waxman, MD, PhD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, and his fellow researchers launched the multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled INCREASE trial. They assigned 163 patients to the inhaled treprostinil group – administered via an ultrasonic, pulsed-delivery nebulizer over 16 weeks – and 163 patients to the placebo group. Their average age was 66.5 years, 73% were white, and 47% were female

At baseline, the mean 6-minute walk distance (6MWD) for all patients was 259.6 m. After 16 weeks, the treprostinil group gained a mean of 21.08 m in 6MWD, and the placebo group lost 10.04 m. The least-squares mean difference between the groups from baseline in the 6MWD was 31.12 m (95% confidence interval, 16.85-45.39; P < .001). After sensitivity analysis with multiple imputation, the difference remained significant at 30.97 m (95% CI, 16.53-45.41; P < .001).

In a comparison of N-terminal pro–B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels from baseline to 16 weeks, the treprostinil group saw a decrease of 15% while the placebo group’s levels increased by 46% (treatment ratio 0.58; 95% CI, 0.47-0.72; P < .001). Clinical worsening occurred in 37 patients (23%) in the treprostinil group and 54 patients (33%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.40-0.92; P = .04), while serious adverse events occurred in 23.3% of the patients on treprostinil and 25.8% of the patients on placebo. There was no significant difference between groups in patient-reported quality of life, as assessed via the St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire.

“There was no guarantee that this was going to work in this condition,” said Adriano Tonelli, MD, of the department of pulmonary medicine at the Cleveland Clinic, in an interview. “Several small studies have tried different medications, for pulmonary hypertension or otherwise, in patients with interstitial lung disease with minimal effect, if any. Given that all the prior studies were not categorically positive, the expectation, at least on my end, was that we needed to wait and see.” Dr. Tonelli and coauthors published a post hoc analysis of inhaled treprostinil studied in the TRIUMPH and BEAT trials.

Next steps: Assess clinical outcomes after inhaled treprostinil

Although the results of this study by Waxman et al, are encouraging, and the need for a treatment in this type of pulmonary hypertension is very real, more narrowing down will be needed to confirm the benefits of inhaled treprostinil, wrote Darren B. Taichman, MD, PhD, of the University of Pennsylvania in an accompanying editorial. He wrote, “After all, patients and physicians may reason, ‘It can’t hurt.’ Unfortunately, however, it could. Therapies approved for pulmonary arterial hypertension have been studied in patients with [ILD]-associated pulmonary hypertension and have shown inconsistent results, with some studies showing no benefit or suggesting harm.”

While the 6MWD has been used as an end point in previous drug trials for pulmonary arterial hypertension, Dr. Taichman wrote that improvements in such a variable were “probably too modest to be unequivocally consequential for many patients.” To confirm the benefits – and detriments – of treatments like inhaled treprostinil, it’s time for studies to focus on clinical end points, he stated, including hospitalizations, disease progression, and death.

He also highlighted the disparity between a treatment that led to increased walk distance and decreased clinical worsening yet did not register an improvement in health-related quality of life. He noted that the oft-cited minimal clinically important difference for 6MWD is approximately 30 m – similar to the difference recorded here. That said, he wrote, “prevention of deterioration is not to be ignored, even if it does not make a patient feel better.”

Regarding quality of life, Dr. Tonelli observed that this questionnaire, standard fare in respiratory research, may not have been perfectly suited for this particular study.

“You have to put it in the context of, ‘How good is the questionnaire to capture a difference in this particular disease over a 16-week period?’ ” he said. “It might not be sensitive enough to capture a significant change. The questionnaire was not developed for pulmonary hypertension in interstitial lung disease, of course. It was developed more generically. It may not capture all that you need to show significance.”

The investigators acknowledged the study’s other potential limitations, including a short duration, a notable percentage of patients who discontinued the trial early, and the fact that clinical worsening and exacerbation of disease were investigator reported and not confirmed by an independent committee.

As for next steps in assessing pulmonary hypertension treatments, Dr. Tonelli pointed to the direction of future research. “The other big study that needs to come out in our field, and I believe it’s being worked on, is inhaled treprostinil in pulmonary hypertension due to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [COPD],” he said. “That’s a major unmet need; the COPD population is larger than the population for interstitial lung disease, and one would wonder whether inhaled treprostinil would benefit those patients as well. At the moment, we have no treatments for that condition. In the future, a COPD study will be needed.”

The study was supported by United Therapeutics. Author disclosures are listed on the New England Journal of Medicine website.

Inhaled treprostinil improved the exercise capacity of patients with pulmonary hypertension attributable to interstitial lung disease and was associated with some additional clinical benefits, according to a new study published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

To investigate treprostinil therapy for pulmonary hypertension in this subset of patients with lung disease, Aaron Waxman, MD, PhD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, and his fellow researchers launched the multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled INCREASE trial. They assigned 163 patients to the inhaled treprostinil group – administered via an ultrasonic, pulsed-delivery nebulizer over 16 weeks – and 163 patients to the placebo group. Their average age was 66.5 years, 73% were white, and 47% were female

At baseline, the mean 6-minute walk distance (6MWD) for all patients was 259.6 m. After 16 weeks, the treprostinil group gained a mean of 21.08 m in 6MWD, and the placebo group lost 10.04 m. The least-squares mean difference between the groups from baseline in the 6MWD was 31.12 m (95% confidence interval, 16.85-45.39; P < .001). After sensitivity analysis with multiple imputation, the difference remained significant at 30.97 m (95% CI, 16.53-45.41; P < .001).

In a comparison of N-terminal pro–B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels from baseline to 16 weeks, the treprostinil group saw a decrease of 15% while the placebo group’s levels increased by 46% (treatment ratio 0.58; 95% CI, 0.47-0.72; P < .001). Clinical worsening occurred in 37 patients (23%) in the treprostinil group and 54 patients (33%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.40-0.92; P = .04), while serious adverse events occurred in 23.3% of the patients on treprostinil and 25.8% of the patients on placebo. There was no significant difference between groups in patient-reported quality of life, as assessed via the St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire.

“There was no guarantee that this was going to work in this condition,” said Adriano Tonelli, MD, of the department of pulmonary medicine at the Cleveland Clinic, in an interview. “Several small studies have tried different medications, for pulmonary hypertension or otherwise, in patients with interstitial lung disease with minimal effect, if any. Given that all the prior studies were not categorically positive, the expectation, at least on my end, was that we needed to wait and see.” Dr. Tonelli and coauthors published a post hoc analysis of inhaled treprostinil studied in the TRIUMPH and BEAT trials.

Next steps: Assess clinical outcomes after inhaled treprostinil

Although the results of this study by Waxman et al, are encouraging, and the need for a treatment in this type of pulmonary hypertension is very real, more narrowing down will be needed to confirm the benefits of inhaled treprostinil, wrote Darren B. Taichman, MD, PhD, of the University of Pennsylvania in an accompanying editorial. He wrote, “After all, patients and physicians may reason, ‘It can’t hurt.’ Unfortunately, however, it could. Therapies approved for pulmonary arterial hypertension have been studied in patients with [ILD]-associated pulmonary hypertension and have shown inconsistent results, with some studies showing no benefit or suggesting harm.”

While the 6MWD has been used as an end point in previous drug trials for pulmonary arterial hypertension, Dr. Taichman wrote that improvements in such a variable were “probably too modest to be unequivocally consequential for many patients.” To confirm the benefits – and detriments – of treatments like inhaled treprostinil, it’s time for studies to focus on clinical end points, he stated, including hospitalizations, disease progression, and death.

He also highlighted the disparity between a treatment that led to increased walk distance and decreased clinical worsening yet did not register an improvement in health-related quality of life. He noted that the oft-cited minimal clinically important difference for 6MWD is approximately 30 m – similar to the difference recorded here. That said, he wrote, “prevention of deterioration is not to be ignored, even if it does not make a patient feel better.”

Regarding quality of life, Dr. Tonelli observed that this questionnaire, standard fare in respiratory research, may not have been perfectly suited for this particular study.

“You have to put it in the context of, ‘How good is the questionnaire to capture a difference in this particular disease over a 16-week period?’ ” he said. “It might not be sensitive enough to capture a significant change. The questionnaire was not developed for pulmonary hypertension in interstitial lung disease, of course. It was developed more generically. It may not capture all that you need to show significance.”

The investigators acknowledged the study’s other potential limitations, including a short duration, a notable percentage of patients who discontinued the trial early, and the fact that clinical worsening and exacerbation of disease were investigator reported and not confirmed by an independent committee.

As for next steps in assessing pulmonary hypertension treatments, Dr. Tonelli pointed to the direction of future research. “The other big study that needs to come out in our field, and I believe it’s being worked on, is inhaled treprostinil in pulmonary hypertension due to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [COPD],” he said. “That’s a major unmet need; the COPD population is larger than the population for interstitial lung disease, and one would wonder whether inhaled treprostinil would benefit those patients as well. At the moment, we have no treatments for that condition. In the future, a COPD study will be needed.”

The study was supported by United Therapeutics. Author disclosures are listed on the New England Journal of Medicine website.

Intraoperative injection of calcium chloride into the four major atrial ganglionated plexi (GPs) reduced the incidence of early postoperative atrial fibrillation (POAF) in patients undergoing off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) surgery, in a proof-of-concept study.

“[We] hypothesized that injecting [calcium chloride] into the major atrial GPs during isolated CABG can reduce the incidence of POAF by calcium-induced autonomic neurotoxicity,” wrote Huishan Wang, MD, of the General Hospital of Northern Theater Command in Shenyang, China, and colleagues. Their report was published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

The single-center, sham-controlled, proof-of-concept study included 200 patients without a history of AF undergoing isolated, off-pump CABG surgery. Participants were randomized (1:1) to receive an injection of either 5% calcium chloride or 0.9% sodium chloride into the four major GPs during CABG.

Post surgery, patients were monitored for the occurrence of POAF using routine 12-lead ECG and 7-day continuous telemetry and Holter monitoring. The primary endpoint was the incidence of POAF lasting 30 seconds or longer through 7 days. Various secondary outcomes, including POAF burden and length of hospitalization, were also measured.

After analysis, the researchers found that 15 patients in the calcium chloride arm and 36 patients in the sodium chloride arm developed POAF during the first 7 days post CABG, corresponding to a POAF hazard reduction of 63% (hazard ratio, 0.37; 95% confidence interval, 0.21-0.64; P = .001) with no significant adverse effects observed among study patients.

The calcium chloride injection also resulted in reduced AF burden and lower rates of amiodarone and esmolol use to treat POAF; however, there was no difference in the length of hospitalization between the two groups. The incidences of nonsustained atrial tachyarrhythmia (less than 30 seconds) and atrial couplets were also significantly reduced in the calcium chloride group.

“We selected the 4 major atrial GPs as our targets because [of] their role in the initiation and maintenance of AF is more established than other cardiac neural plexi,” the researchers explained. “Interruption of the atrial neural network by Ca-mediated GP neurotoxicity may underlie the therapeutic effects.”
 

Is ‘nuisance’ arrhythmia worth targeting?

In an editorial accompanying the report, John H. Alexander, MD, MHS, wrote that intraoperative calcium chloride atrial ganglionic ablation can now be considered as an effective intervention to prevent POAF in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. “These investigators should be congratulated for studying post-operative atrial fibrillation in cardiac surgery,” he stated.

MDedge News

“However, this trial has two significant limitations. Firstly, it was conducted in a single center in a very homogeneous population; secondly, POAF, in and of itself, is largely a nuisance arrhythmia and hardly worth preventing, but is associated with a higher risk of other adverse outcomes,” Dr. Alexander, professor of medicine at Duke University, Durham, N.C., said in an interview.

“The unanswered question is whether preventing perioperative AF will prevent stroke, heart failure, and death,” he further explained. “Answering these questions would require a larger trial (or trials) with longer term (months to years) follow-up.”

Dr. Wang and colleagues acknowledged that the current study was underpowered for some secondary outcomes, such as length of hospitalization. They explained that a large sample size is needed to detect a difference in length of hospitalization, as well as other outcomes.

“Further studies are needed to confirm the safety and efficacy of calcium-induced atrial autonomic denervation in patients undergoing on-pump CABG and surgery for valvular heart disease,” they concluded.

The study was funded by the Provincial Key R & D Program in China. One author reported holding a U.S. patent related to the study. The remaining authors had no relevant relationships to disclose.

Intraoperative injection of calcium chloride into the four major atrial ganglionated plexi (GPs) reduced the incidence of early postoperative atrial fibrillation (POAF) in patients undergoing off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) surgery, in a proof-of-concept study.

“[We] hypothesized that injecting [calcium chloride] into the major atrial GPs during isolated CABG can reduce the incidence of POAF by calcium-induced autonomic neurotoxicity,” wrote Huishan Wang, MD, of the General Hospital of Northern Theater Command in Shenyang, China, and colleagues. Their report was published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

The single-center, sham-controlled, proof-of-concept study included 200 patients without a history of AF undergoing isolated, off-pump CABG surgery. Participants were randomized (1:1) to receive an injection of either 5% calcium chloride or 0.9% sodium chloride into the four major GPs during CABG.

Post surgery, patients were monitored for the occurrence of POAF using routine 12-lead ECG and 7-day continuous telemetry and Holter monitoring. The primary endpoint was the incidence of POAF lasting 30 seconds or longer through 7 days. Various secondary outcomes, including POAF burden and length of hospitalization, were also measured.

After analysis, the researchers found that 15 patients in the calcium chloride arm and 36 patients in the sodium chloride arm developed POAF during the first 7 days post CABG, corresponding to a POAF hazard reduction of 63% (hazard ratio, 0.37; 95% confidence interval, 0.21-0.64; P = .001) with no significant adverse effects observed among study patients.

The calcium chloride injection also resulted in reduced AF burden and lower rates of amiodarone and esmolol use to treat POAF; however, there was no difference in the length of hospitalization between the two groups. The incidences of nonsustained atrial tachyarrhythmia (less than 30 seconds) and atrial couplets were also significantly reduced in the calcium chloride group.

“We selected the 4 major atrial GPs as our targets because [of] their role in the initiation and maintenance of AF is more established than other cardiac neural plexi,” the researchers explained. “Interruption of the atrial neural network by Ca-mediated GP neurotoxicity may underlie the therapeutic effects.”
 

Is ‘nuisance’ arrhythmia worth targeting?

In an editorial accompanying the report, John H. Alexander, MD, MHS, wrote that intraoperative calcium chloride atrial ganglionic ablation can now be considered as an effective intervention to prevent POAF in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. “These investigators should be congratulated for studying post-operative atrial fibrillation in cardiac surgery,” he stated.

MDedge News

“However, this trial has two significant limitations. Firstly, it was conducted in a single center in a very homogeneous population; secondly, POAF, in and of itself, is largely a nuisance arrhythmia and hardly worth preventing, but is associated with a higher risk of other adverse outcomes,” Dr. Alexander, professor of medicine at Duke University, Durham, N.C., said in an interview.

“The unanswered question is whether preventing perioperative AF will prevent stroke, heart failure, and death,” he further explained. “Answering these questions would require a larger trial (or trials) with longer term (months to years) follow-up.”

Dr. Wang and colleagues acknowledged that the current study was underpowered for some secondary outcomes, such as length of hospitalization. They explained that a large sample size is needed to detect a difference in length of hospitalization, as well as other outcomes.

“Further studies are needed to confirm the safety and efficacy of calcium-induced atrial autonomic denervation in patients undergoing on-pump CABG and surgery for valvular heart disease,” they concluded.

The study was funded by the Provincial Key R & D Program in China. One author reported holding a U.S. patent related to the study. The remaining authors had no relevant relationships to disclose.

Intraoperative injection of calcium chloride into the four major atrial ganglionated plexi (GPs) reduced the incidence of early postoperative atrial fibrillation (POAF) in patients undergoing off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) surgery, in a proof-of-concept study.

“[We] hypothesized that injecting [calcium chloride] into the major atrial GPs during isolated CABG can reduce the incidence of POAF by calcium-induced autonomic neurotoxicity,” wrote Huishan Wang, MD, of the General Hospital of Northern Theater Command in Shenyang, China, and colleagues. Their report was published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

The single-center, sham-controlled, proof-of-concept study included 200 patients without a history of AF undergoing isolated, off-pump CABG surgery. Participants were randomized (1:1) to receive an injection of either 5% calcium chloride or 0.9% sodium chloride into the four major GPs during CABG.

Post surgery, patients were monitored for the occurrence of POAF using routine 12-lead ECG and 7-day continuous telemetry and Holter monitoring. The primary endpoint was the incidence of POAF lasting 30 seconds or longer through 7 days. Various secondary outcomes, including POAF burden and length of hospitalization, were also measured.

After analysis, the researchers found that 15 patients in the calcium chloride arm and 36 patients in the sodium chloride arm developed POAF during the first 7 days post CABG, corresponding to a POAF hazard reduction of 63% (hazard ratio, 0.37; 95% confidence interval, 0.21-0.64; P = .001) with no significant adverse effects observed among study patients.

The calcium chloride injection also resulted in reduced AF burden and lower rates of amiodarone and esmolol use to treat POAF; however, there was no difference in the length of hospitalization between the two groups. The incidences of nonsustained atrial tachyarrhythmia (less than 30 seconds) and atrial couplets were also significantly reduced in the calcium chloride group.

“We selected the 4 major atrial GPs as our targets because [of] their role in the initiation and maintenance of AF is more established than other cardiac neural plexi,” the researchers explained. “Interruption of the atrial neural network by Ca-mediated GP neurotoxicity may underlie the therapeutic effects.”
 

Is ‘nuisance’ arrhythmia worth targeting?

In an editorial accompanying the report, John H. Alexander, MD, MHS, wrote that intraoperative calcium chloride atrial ganglionic ablation can now be considered as an effective intervention to prevent POAF in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. “These investigators should be congratulated for studying post-operative atrial fibrillation in cardiac surgery,” he stated.

MDedge News

“However, this trial has two significant limitations. Firstly, it was conducted in a single center in a very homogeneous population; secondly, POAF, in and of itself, is largely a nuisance arrhythmia and hardly worth preventing, but is associated with a higher risk of other adverse outcomes,” Dr. Alexander, professor of medicine at Duke University, Durham, N.C., said in an interview.

“The unanswered question is whether preventing perioperative AF will prevent stroke, heart failure, and death,” he further explained. “Answering these questions would require a larger trial (or trials) with longer term (months to years) follow-up.”

Dr. Wang and colleagues acknowledged that the current study was underpowered for some secondary outcomes, such as length of hospitalization. They explained that a large sample size is needed to detect a difference in length of hospitalization, as well as other outcomes.

“Further studies are needed to confirm the safety and efficacy of calcium-induced atrial autonomic denervation in patients undergoing on-pump CABG and surgery for valvular heart disease,” they concluded.

The study was funded by the Provincial Key R & D Program in China. One author reported holding a U.S. patent related to the study. The remaining authors had no relevant relationships to disclose.