Cardiology News

People with a body mass index of 30 kg/m² or above are at significantly increased risk for severe COVID-19, while a BMI of 35 and higher dramatically increases the risk for death, new research suggests.

The data, from nearly 500 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in March and April 2020, were published in the European Journal of Endocrinology by Matteo Rottoli, MD, of the Alma Mater Studiorum, University of Bologna (Italy), and colleagues.

The data support the recent change by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to lower the cutoff for categorizing a person at increased risk from COVID-19 from a BMI of 40 down to 30. However, in the United Kingdom, the National Health Service still lists only a BMI of 40 or above as placing a person at “moderate risk (clinically vulnerable).”

“This finding calls for prevention and treatment strategies to reduce the risk of infection and hospitalization in patients with relevant degrees of obesity, supporting a revision of the BMI cutoff of 40 kg/m², which was proposed as an independent risk factor for an adverse outcome of COVID-19 in the ... guidelines for social distancing in the United Kingdom: It may be appropriate to include patients with BMI >30 among those at higher risk for COVID-19 severe progression,” the authors wrote.

The study included 482 adults admitted with confirmed COVID-19 to a single Italian hospital between March 1 and April 20, 2020. Of those, 41.9% had a BMI of less than 25 (normal weight), 36.5% had a BMI of 25-29.9 (overweight), and 21.6% had BMI of at least 30 (obese). Of the obese group, 20 (4.1%) had BMIs of at least 35, while 18 patients (3.7%) had BMIs of less than 20 (underweight).

Among those with obesity, 51.9% experienced respiratory failure, 36.4% were admitted to the ICU, 25% required mechanical ventilation, and 29.8% died within 30 days of symptom onset.

Patients with BMIs of at least 30 had significantly increased risks for respiratory failure (odds ratio, 2.48; P = .001), ICU admission (OR, 5.28; P < .001), and death (2.35, P = .017), compared with those with lower BMIs. Within the group classified as obese, the risks of respiratory failure and ICU admission were higher, with BMIs of 30-34.9 (OR, 2.32; P = .004 and OR, 4.96; P < .001, respectively) and for BMIs of at least 35 (OR, 3.24; P = .019 and OR, 6.58; P < .001, respectively).

The risk of death was significantly higher among patients with a BMI of at least 35 (OR, 12.1; P < .001).

Every 1-unit increase in BMI was significantly associated with all outcomes, but there was no significant difference in any outcome between the 25-29.9 BMI category and normal weight. In all models, the BMI cutoff for increased risk was 30.

The authors reported no disclosures.

SOURCE: Rottoli M et al. Eur J Endocrinol. 2020 Jul 1. doi: 10.1530/EJE-20-054.

People with a body mass index of 30 kg/m² or above are at significantly increased risk for severe COVID-19, while a BMI of 35 and higher dramatically increases the risk for death, new research suggests.

The data, from nearly 500 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in March and April 2020, were published in the European Journal of Endocrinology by Matteo Rottoli, MD, of the Alma Mater Studiorum, University of Bologna (Italy), and colleagues.

The data support the recent change by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to lower the cutoff for categorizing a person at increased risk from COVID-19 from a BMI of 40 down to 30. However, in the United Kingdom, the National Health Service still lists only a BMI of 40 or above as placing a person at “moderate risk (clinically vulnerable).”

“This finding calls for prevention and treatment strategies to reduce the risk of infection and hospitalization in patients with relevant degrees of obesity, supporting a revision of the BMI cutoff of 40 kg/m², which was proposed as an independent risk factor for an adverse outcome of COVID-19 in the ... guidelines for social distancing in the United Kingdom: It may be appropriate to include patients with BMI >30 among those at higher risk for COVID-19 severe progression,” the authors wrote.

The study included 482 adults admitted with confirmed COVID-19 to a single Italian hospital between March 1 and April 20, 2020. Of those, 41.9% had a BMI of less than 25 (normal weight), 36.5% had a BMI of 25-29.9 (overweight), and 21.6% had BMI of at least 30 (obese). Of the obese group, 20 (4.1%) had BMIs of at least 35, while 18 patients (3.7%) had BMIs of less than 20 (underweight).

Among those with obesity, 51.9% experienced respiratory failure, 36.4% were admitted to the ICU, 25% required mechanical ventilation, and 29.8% died within 30 days of symptom onset.

Patients with BMIs of at least 30 had significantly increased risks for respiratory failure (odds ratio, 2.48; P = .001), ICU admission (OR, 5.28; P < .001), and death (2.35, P = .017), compared with those with lower BMIs. Within the group classified as obese, the risks of respiratory failure and ICU admission were higher, with BMIs of 30-34.9 (OR, 2.32; P = .004 and OR, 4.96; P < .001, respectively) and for BMIs of at least 35 (OR, 3.24; P = .019 and OR, 6.58; P < .001, respectively).

The risk of death was significantly higher among patients with a BMI of at least 35 (OR, 12.1; P < .001).

Every 1-unit increase in BMI was significantly associated with all outcomes, but there was no significant difference in any outcome between the 25-29.9 BMI category and normal weight. In all models, the BMI cutoff for increased risk was 30.

The authors reported no disclosures.

SOURCE: Rottoli M et al. Eur J Endocrinol. 2020 Jul 1. doi: 10.1530/EJE-20-054.

People with a body mass index of 30 kg/m² or above are at significantly increased risk for severe COVID-19, while a BMI of 35 and higher dramatically increases the risk for death, new research suggests.

The data, from nearly 500 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in March and April 2020, were published in the European Journal of Endocrinology by Matteo Rottoli, MD, of the Alma Mater Studiorum, University of Bologna (Italy), and colleagues.

The data support the recent change by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to lower the cutoff for categorizing a person at increased risk from COVID-19 from a BMI of 40 down to 30. However, in the United Kingdom, the National Health Service still lists only a BMI of 40 or above as placing a person at “moderate risk (clinically vulnerable).”

“This finding calls for prevention and treatment strategies to reduce the risk of infection and hospitalization in patients with relevant degrees of obesity, supporting a revision of the BMI cutoff of 40 kg/m², which was proposed as an independent risk factor for an adverse outcome of COVID-19 in the ... guidelines for social distancing in the United Kingdom: It may be appropriate to include patients with BMI >30 among those at higher risk for COVID-19 severe progression,” the authors wrote.

The study included 482 adults admitted with confirmed COVID-19 to a single Italian hospital between March 1 and April 20, 2020. Of those, 41.9% had a BMI of less than 25 (normal weight), 36.5% had a BMI of 25-29.9 (overweight), and 21.6% had BMI of at least 30 (obese). Of the obese group, 20 (4.1%) had BMIs of at least 35, while 18 patients (3.7%) had BMIs of less than 20 (underweight).

Among those with obesity, 51.9% experienced respiratory failure, 36.4% were admitted to the ICU, 25% required mechanical ventilation, and 29.8% died within 30 days of symptom onset.

Patients with BMIs of at least 30 had significantly increased risks for respiratory failure (odds ratio, 2.48; P = .001), ICU admission (OR, 5.28; P < .001), and death (2.35, P = .017), compared with those with lower BMIs. Within the group classified as obese, the risks of respiratory failure and ICU admission were higher, with BMIs of 30-34.9 (OR, 2.32; P = .004 and OR, 4.96; P < .001, respectively) and for BMIs of at least 35 (OR, 3.24; P = .019 and OR, 6.58; P < .001, respectively).

The risk of death was significantly higher among patients with a BMI of at least 35 (OR, 12.1; P < .001).

Every 1-unit increase in BMI was significantly associated with all outcomes, but there was no significant difference in any outcome between the 25-29.9 BMI category and normal weight. In all models, the BMI cutoff for increased risk was 30.

The authors reported no disclosures.

SOURCE: Rottoli M et al. Eur J Endocrinol. 2020 Jul 1. doi: 10.1530/EJE-20-054.

We live in historic times. A worldwide pandemic is surging in the United States, with millions infected and the world’s highest death rate. Many of our hospitals are overwhelmed. Schools have been closed for months. Businesses are struggling, and unemployment is at record levels. The murder of George Floyd unleashed an outpouring of grief and rage over police brutality and structural racism.

Thinkstock

The value of knowing about these risk factors would seem self-evident; it would inform a patient’s health care from screening for cancer or heart disease, referral for mild depressive symptoms, and counseling about alcohol consumption. But this research did not lead to the establishment of routine screening for childhood adversity in primary care practices. There are multiple reasons for this, including growing pressure on physician time and discomfort with starting conversations about potentially traumatic material. But perhaps the greatest obstacle has been uncertainty about what to offer patients who screened in. What is the treatment for a high ACE score?

Even without treatments, we have learned much about childhood adversity since Dr. Anda and Dr. Felitti published their landmark study. Other more chronic adverse childhood experiences also contribute to adult health risk, such as poverty, homelessness, discrimination, community violence, parental chronic illness, or disability or placement in foster care. Having a high ACE score does not only affect health in adulthood. Children with an ACE score of 4 are 2 times as likely to have asthma^2,3 and allergies³, 2 times as likely to be obese⁴, 3 times as likely to have headaches³ and dental problems^5,6, 4 times as likely to have depression^7,8, 5 times as likely to have ADHD^8,9, 7 times as likely to have high rates of school absenteeism³ and aggression¹⁰, and over 30 times as likely to have learning or behavioral problems at school⁴. There is a growing body of knowledge about how chronic, severe stress in childhood affects can lead to pathological alterations in neuroendocrine and immune function. But this has not led to any concrete treatments that may be preventive or reparative.

Movement toward expanding screening nonetheless has accelerated. In California, Nadine Burke-Harris, MD, a pediatrician who studied ACEs and children’s health was named the state’s first Surgeon General in 2019 and spearheaded an effort to make screening for ACEs easier. Starting in 2020, MediCal will pay for annual screenings, and the state is offering training and resources on how to screen and what to do with the information to help patients and families.

The coronavirus pandemic has only highlighted the risks of childhood adversity. The burden of infection and mortality has been borne disproportionately by people of color and those with multiple chronic medical conditions (obesity, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, etc.). While viruses do not discriminate, they are more likely to infect those with higher risk of exposure and to kill those who are physiologically vulnerable.

And the pandemic increases the risk for adversity for today’s children and families. When children cannot attend school, financially vulnerable parents may have to choose between supervising them or feeding them. Families who suddenly are all in a small apartment together without school or other outside supports may be at higher risk for domestic violence and child abuse. Unemployment and financial uncertainty will increase the rates of substance abuse and depression amongst parents. And the serious illness or death of a parent will be a more common event for children in the year ahead. One of these risk factors may increase the likelihood of others.

Beyond the obvious need for substantial policy changes focused on housing, education, and health care, there are immediate and concrete strategies that can build resilience in children and their families. And resilience can build on itself, as children face subsequent challenges with the support of caring connected adults.

The critical first step is asking. Then listen calmly and supportively, normalizing for parents and children how common these experiences are. Explain how they affect health and well-being. Explain that adversity and its consequences are not their fault. Then educate them about what is in their control: the skills they can practice to buffer against the consequences of adversity and build resilience. They sound simple, but still require effort and work. And the pandemic has created some difficulty (social distancing) and opportunity (more family time, fewer school demands).
 

Sleep

Help parents establish and protect consistent, restful sleep for their children. They can set a consistent bedtime and a calm routine, with screens all off at least 30 minutes before sleep and reading before sleep. Restful sleep is physiologically and psychologically protective to everyone in a family.

Movement

Beyond directly improving physical health, establishing habits of exercise – especially outside – every day can effectively manage ongoing stress, build skills of self-regulation, and help with sleep.

Find out what parents and their children like to do together (walking the dog, shooting hoops, even dancing) and help them devise ways to create family routines around exercise.
 

Nutrition

Food should be a source of pleasure, but stress can make food into a source of comfort or escape. Help parents to create realistic ways to consistently offer healthy family meals and discourage unhealthy habits.

Even small changes like water instead of soda can help, and there are nutritional and emotional benefits to eating a healthy breakfast or dinner together as a family.
 

Connections

Nourishing social connections are protective. Help parents think about protecting time to spend with their children for talking, playing games, or even singing.

They should support their children’s connections to other caring adults, through community organizations (church, community centers, or sports), and they should know who their children’s reliable friends are. Parents will benefit from these supports for themselves, which in turn will benefit the full family.
 

Self-awareness

Activities that cultivate mindfulness are protective. Parents can simply ask how their children are feeling, physically or emotionally, and be able to bear it when it is uncomfortable. Work towards nonjudgmental awareness of how they are feeling. Learning what is relaxing or recharging for them (exercise, music, a hot bath, a good book, time with a friend) will protect against defaulting into maladaptive coping such as escape, numbing, or avoidance.

Of course, if you learn about symptoms that suggest PTSD, depression, or addiction, you should help your patient connect with effective treatment. The difficulty of referring to a mental health provider does not mean you should not try and bring as many people onto the team and into the orbit of the child and family at risk. It may be easier to access some therapy given the new availability of telemedicine visits across many more systems of care. Although the heaviest burdens of adversity are not being borne equally, the fact that adversity is currently a shared experience makes this a moment of promise.

Dr. Swick is physician in chief at Ohana, Center for Child and Adolescent Behavioral Health, Community Hospital of the Monterey (Calif.) Peninsula. Dr. Jellinek is professor emeritus of psychiatry and pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston. Dr. Swick and Dr. Jellinek had no relevant financial disclosures. Email them at [email protected].

References
1. Am J Prev Med. 1998 May;14(4):245-58.
2. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2015;114: 379-84.
3. BMC Public Health. 2018. doi: 10.1186/s12889-018-5699-8.
4. Child Abuse Negl. 2011 Jun;35(6):408-13.
5. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2015;43:193-9.
6. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2018 Oct;46(5): 442-8.
7. Pediatrics 2016 Apr. doi: 10.1542/peds.2015-4016.
8. Matern Child Health J. 2016 Apr. doi: 10.1007/s10995-015-1915-7.
9. Acad Pediatr. 2017 May-Jun. doi: 10.1016/j.acap.2016.08.013.
10. Pediatrics. 2010 Apr. doi: 10.1542/peds.2009-0597.
 

This article was updated 7/27/2020.

We live in historic times. A worldwide pandemic is surging in the United States, with millions infected and the world’s highest death rate. Many of our hospitals are overwhelmed. Schools have been closed for months. Businesses are struggling, and unemployment is at record levels. The murder of George Floyd unleashed an outpouring of grief and rage over police brutality and structural racism.

Thinkstock

The value of knowing about these risk factors would seem self-evident; it would inform a patient’s health care from screening for cancer or heart disease, referral for mild depressive symptoms, and counseling about alcohol consumption. But this research did not lead to the establishment of routine screening for childhood adversity in primary care practices. There are multiple reasons for this, including growing pressure on physician time and discomfort with starting conversations about potentially traumatic material. But perhaps the greatest obstacle has been uncertainty about what to offer patients who screened in. What is the treatment for a high ACE score?

Even without treatments, we have learned much about childhood adversity since Dr. Anda and Dr. Felitti published their landmark study. Other more chronic adverse childhood experiences also contribute to adult health risk, such as poverty, homelessness, discrimination, community violence, parental chronic illness, or disability or placement in foster care. Having a high ACE score does not only affect health in adulthood. Children with an ACE score of 4 are 2 times as likely to have asthma^2,3 and allergies³, 2 times as likely to be obese⁴, 3 times as likely to have headaches³ and dental problems^5,6, 4 times as likely to have depression^7,8, 5 times as likely to have ADHD^8,9, 7 times as likely to have high rates of school absenteeism³ and aggression¹⁰, and over 30 times as likely to have learning or behavioral problems at school⁴. There is a growing body of knowledge about how chronic, severe stress in childhood affects can lead to pathological alterations in neuroendocrine and immune function. But this has not led to any concrete treatments that may be preventive or reparative.

Movement toward expanding screening nonetheless has accelerated. In California, Nadine Burke-Harris, MD, a pediatrician who studied ACEs and children’s health was named the state’s first Surgeon General in 2019 and spearheaded an effort to make screening for ACEs easier. Starting in 2020, MediCal will pay for annual screenings, and the state is offering training and resources on how to screen and what to do with the information to help patients and families.

The coronavirus pandemic has only highlighted the risks of childhood adversity. The burden of infection and mortality has been borne disproportionately by people of color and those with multiple chronic medical conditions (obesity, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, etc.). While viruses do not discriminate, they are more likely to infect those with higher risk of exposure and to kill those who are physiologically vulnerable.

And the pandemic increases the risk for adversity for today’s children and families. When children cannot attend school, financially vulnerable parents may have to choose between supervising them or feeding them. Families who suddenly are all in a small apartment together without school or other outside supports may be at higher risk for domestic violence and child abuse. Unemployment and financial uncertainty will increase the rates of substance abuse and depression amongst parents. And the serious illness or death of a parent will be a more common event for children in the year ahead. One of these risk factors may increase the likelihood of others.

Beyond the obvious need for substantial policy changes focused on housing, education, and health care, there are immediate and concrete strategies that can build resilience in children and their families. And resilience can build on itself, as children face subsequent challenges with the support of caring connected adults.

The critical first step is asking. Then listen calmly and supportively, normalizing for parents and children how common these experiences are. Explain how they affect health and well-being. Explain that adversity and its consequences are not their fault. Then educate them about what is in their control: the skills they can practice to buffer against the consequences of adversity and build resilience. They sound simple, but still require effort and work. And the pandemic has created some difficulty (social distancing) and opportunity (more family time, fewer school demands).
 

Sleep

Help parents establish and protect consistent, restful sleep for their children. They can set a consistent bedtime and a calm routine, with screens all off at least 30 minutes before sleep and reading before sleep. Restful sleep is physiologically and psychologically protective to everyone in a family.

Movement

Beyond directly improving physical health, establishing habits of exercise – especially outside – every day can effectively manage ongoing stress, build skills of self-regulation, and help with sleep.

Find out what parents and their children like to do together (walking the dog, shooting hoops, even dancing) and help them devise ways to create family routines around exercise.
 

Nutrition

Food should be a source of pleasure, but stress can make food into a source of comfort or escape. Help parents to create realistic ways to consistently offer healthy family meals and discourage unhealthy habits.

Even small changes like water instead of soda can help, and there are nutritional and emotional benefits to eating a healthy breakfast or dinner together as a family.
 

Connections

Nourishing social connections are protective. Help parents think about protecting time to spend with their children for talking, playing games, or even singing.

They should support their children’s connections to other caring adults, through community organizations (church, community centers, or sports), and they should know who their children’s reliable friends are. Parents will benefit from these supports for themselves, which in turn will benefit the full family.
 

Self-awareness

Activities that cultivate mindfulness are protective. Parents can simply ask how their children are feeling, physically or emotionally, and be able to bear it when it is uncomfortable. Work towards nonjudgmental awareness of how they are feeling. Learning what is relaxing or recharging for them (exercise, music, a hot bath, a good book, time with a friend) will protect against defaulting into maladaptive coping such as escape, numbing, or avoidance.

Of course, if you learn about symptoms that suggest PTSD, depression, or addiction, you should help your patient connect with effective treatment. The difficulty of referring to a mental health provider does not mean you should not try and bring as many people onto the team and into the orbit of the child and family at risk. It may be easier to access some therapy given the new availability of telemedicine visits across many more systems of care. Although the heaviest burdens of adversity are not being borne equally, the fact that adversity is currently a shared experience makes this a moment of promise.

Dr. Swick is physician in chief at Ohana, Center for Child and Adolescent Behavioral Health, Community Hospital of the Monterey (Calif.) Peninsula. Dr. Jellinek is professor emeritus of psychiatry and pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston. Dr. Swick and Dr. Jellinek had no relevant financial disclosures. Email them at [email protected].

References
1. Am J Prev Med. 1998 May;14(4):245-58.
2. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2015;114: 379-84.
3. BMC Public Health. 2018. doi: 10.1186/s12889-018-5699-8.
4. Child Abuse Negl. 2011 Jun;35(6):408-13.
5. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2015;43:193-9.
6. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2018 Oct;46(5): 442-8.
7. Pediatrics 2016 Apr. doi: 10.1542/peds.2015-4016.
8. Matern Child Health J. 2016 Apr. doi: 10.1007/s10995-015-1915-7.
9. Acad Pediatr. 2017 May-Jun. doi: 10.1016/j.acap.2016.08.013.
10. Pediatrics. 2010 Apr. doi: 10.1542/peds.2009-0597.
 

This article was updated 7/27/2020.

We live in historic times. A worldwide pandemic is surging in the United States, with millions infected and the world’s highest death rate. Many of our hospitals are overwhelmed. Schools have been closed for months. Businesses are struggling, and unemployment is at record levels. The murder of George Floyd unleashed an outpouring of grief and rage over police brutality and structural racism.

Thinkstock

The value of knowing about these risk factors would seem self-evident; it would inform a patient’s health care from screening for cancer or heart disease, referral for mild depressive symptoms, and counseling about alcohol consumption. But this research did not lead to the establishment of routine screening for childhood adversity in primary care practices. There are multiple reasons for this, including growing pressure on physician time and discomfort with starting conversations about potentially traumatic material. But perhaps the greatest obstacle has been uncertainty about what to offer patients who screened in. What is the treatment for a high ACE score?

Even without treatments, we have learned much about childhood adversity since Dr. Anda and Dr. Felitti published their landmark study. Other more chronic adverse childhood experiences also contribute to adult health risk, such as poverty, homelessness, discrimination, community violence, parental chronic illness, or disability or placement in foster care. Having a high ACE score does not only affect health in adulthood. Children with an ACE score of 4 are 2 times as likely to have asthma^2,3 and allergies³, 2 times as likely to be obese⁴, 3 times as likely to have headaches³ and dental problems^5,6, 4 times as likely to have depression^7,8, 5 times as likely to have ADHD^8,9, 7 times as likely to have high rates of school absenteeism³ and aggression¹⁰, and over 30 times as likely to have learning or behavioral problems at school⁴. There is a growing body of knowledge about how chronic, severe stress in childhood affects can lead to pathological alterations in neuroendocrine and immune function. But this has not led to any concrete treatments that may be preventive or reparative.

Movement toward expanding screening nonetheless has accelerated. In California, Nadine Burke-Harris, MD, a pediatrician who studied ACEs and children’s health was named the state’s first Surgeon General in 2019 and spearheaded an effort to make screening for ACEs easier. Starting in 2020, MediCal will pay for annual screenings, and the state is offering training and resources on how to screen and what to do with the information to help patients and families.

The coronavirus pandemic has only highlighted the risks of childhood adversity. The burden of infection and mortality has been borne disproportionately by people of color and those with multiple chronic medical conditions (obesity, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, etc.). While viruses do not discriminate, they are more likely to infect those with higher risk of exposure and to kill those who are physiologically vulnerable.

And the pandemic increases the risk for adversity for today’s children and families. When children cannot attend school, financially vulnerable parents may have to choose between supervising them or feeding them. Families who suddenly are all in a small apartment together without school or other outside supports may be at higher risk for domestic violence and child abuse. Unemployment and financial uncertainty will increase the rates of substance abuse and depression amongst parents. And the serious illness or death of a parent will be a more common event for children in the year ahead. One of these risk factors may increase the likelihood of others.

Beyond the obvious need for substantial policy changes focused on housing, education, and health care, there are immediate and concrete strategies that can build resilience in children and their families. And resilience can build on itself, as children face subsequent challenges with the support of caring connected adults.

The critical first step is asking. Then listen calmly and supportively, normalizing for parents and children how common these experiences are. Explain how they affect health and well-being. Explain that adversity and its consequences are not their fault. Then educate them about what is in their control: the skills they can practice to buffer against the consequences of adversity and build resilience. They sound simple, but still require effort and work. And the pandemic has created some difficulty (social distancing) and opportunity (more family time, fewer school demands).
 

Sleep

Help parents establish and protect consistent, restful sleep for their children. They can set a consistent bedtime and a calm routine, with screens all off at least 30 minutes before sleep and reading before sleep. Restful sleep is physiologically and psychologically protective to everyone in a family.

Movement

Beyond directly improving physical health, establishing habits of exercise – especially outside – every day can effectively manage ongoing stress, build skills of self-regulation, and help with sleep.

Find out what parents and their children like to do together (walking the dog, shooting hoops, even dancing) and help them devise ways to create family routines around exercise.
 

Nutrition

Food should be a source of pleasure, but stress can make food into a source of comfort or escape. Help parents to create realistic ways to consistently offer healthy family meals and discourage unhealthy habits.

Even small changes like water instead of soda can help, and there are nutritional and emotional benefits to eating a healthy breakfast or dinner together as a family.
 

Connections

Nourishing social connections are protective. Help parents think about protecting time to spend with their children for talking, playing games, or even singing.

They should support their children’s connections to other caring adults, through community organizations (church, community centers, or sports), and they should know who their children’s reliable friends are. Parents will benefit from these supports for themselves, which in turn will benefit the full family.
 

Self-awareness

Activities that cultivate mindfulness are protective. Parents can simply ask how their children are feeling, physically or emotionally, and be able to bear it when it is uncomfortable. Work towards nonjudgmental awareness of how they are feeling. Learning what is relaxing or recharging for them (exercise, music, a hot bath, a good book, time with a friend) will protect against defaulting into maladaptive coping such as escape, numbing, or avoidance.

Of course, if you learn about symptoms that suggest PTSD, depression, or addiction, you should help your patient connect with effective treatment. The difficulty of referring to a mental health provider does not mean you should not try and bring as many people onto the team and into the orbit of the child and family at risk. It may be easier to access some therapy given the new availability of telemedicine visits across many more systems of care. Although the heaviest burdens of adversity are not being borne equally, the fact that adversity is currently a shared experience makes this a moment of promise.

Dr. Swick is physician in chief at Ohana, Center for Child and Adolescent Behavioral Health, Community Hospital of the Monterey (Calif.) Peninsula. Dr. Jellinek is professor emeritus of psychiatry and pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston. Dr. Swick and Dr. Jellinek had no relevant financial disclosures. Email them at [email protected].

References
1. Am J Prev Med. 1998 May;14(4):245-58.
2. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2015;114: 379-84.
3. BMC Public Health. 2018. doi: 10.1186/s12889-018-5699-8.
4. Child Abuse Negl. 2011 Jun;35(6):408-13.
5. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2015;43:193-9.
6. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2018 Oct;46(5): 442-8.
7. Pediatrics 2016 Apr. doi: 10.1542/peds.2015-4016.
8. Matern Child Health J. 2016 Apr. doi: 10.1007/s10995-015-1915-7.
9. Acad Pediatr. 2017 May-Jun. doi: 10.1016/j.acap.2016.08.013.
10. Pediatrics. 2010 Apr. doi: 10.1542/peds.2009-0597.
 

This article was updated 7/27/2020.

If either high sensitivity cardiac troponin (hs-cTnT) or coronary artery calcium (CAC) are elevated, the 10-year risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) climbs substantially, which suggests these biomarkers yield more prognostic information when they are used together, according to a cohort study with a median 15 years of follow-up.

Among those with a double negative result, meaning hs-cTnT was less than the limit of detection (<3 ng/L) and the CAC score was zero, only 2.8% developed ASCVD within 10 years, but the rates climbed to 4.6% if hs-cTnT was detectable and to 9.8% if the CAC score exceeded zero even when the other biomarker was negative.

“The increased risk for ASCVD among those with discordant results indicate that their prognostic information is complementary, favoring their conjoined use for risk prediction,” reported a multicenter team of investigators led by Allan S. Jaffe, MD, professor of laboratory medicine and pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

The study was performed with data from 6,749 participants in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA), which is a longitudinal, community-based study funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Over the course of long-term follow-up in a patient population that was about half female, 39% non-Hispanic white, 28% Black, 22% Hispanic American, and 12% Asian, ASCVD events were evaluated in relation to both biomarkers measured at baseline.

At baseline, both biomarkers were negative in 22%, both positive in 40%, and discordant in 38%.

After a median follow-up of 15 years, when 1,002 ASCVD events had occurred, the crude rate of ASCVD was 2.8 per 1,000 person-years in the double-negative group. When compared with this, the adjusted hazard ratio for ASCVD among those with double positive biomarkers was 3.5 (P < .00001). Increased risk was also highly significant if just hs-cTnT was positive (HR, 1.59; P = .003) or if just CAC was positive (HR, 2.74; P < .00001).

The added value of using both biomarkers to identify individuals at very low risk of ASCVD makes sense, according to the authors of an accompanying editorial. Written by a team led by John W. McEvoy, MB, BCh, National University of Ireland, Galway, the editorial explained why the information is complementary.

“CAC indicates subclinical atherosclerosis, whereas hs-cTnT indicates myocardial ischemia or damage, not just from coronary stenosis but also due to other conditions like hypertensive heart and left ventricular hypertrophy,” the authors stated.

Although they maintained that adding N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide, which could be drawn from the same blood sample as hs-cTnT, might prove to be an even better but still simple strategy to identify low-risk patients, they praised the concept of combining biomarkers.

“If one’s wish is to identify truly low-risk individuals, then it appears that it takes two negative ASCVD biomarkers to make that wish come true,” the authors of the editorial concluded.

Relative to alternative methods of ASCVD risk assessment, measurement of these biomarkers might be useful for sparing patients from interventions, such as lipid lowering with statin therapy, being considered on the basis of conventional risk factors alone.

Dr. Jaffe said in an interview that he considers the two-biomarker assessment to be a useful tool in the low-risk population that he studied, but he does not consider this strategy as a substitute for other methods, such as those outline in the 2019 ACC/AHA guidelines that address the entire spectrum of risk, although work is planned to see if this approach can be extended to this broader group.*

“The data we have presented now is a good start and suggests that these two objective measures can identify those who are at very low risk and avoid adding individuals who may not be at as low risk if only one of the two tests is used,” Dr. Jaffe explained.

“Given there are now techniques to measure coronary calcium from any chest CT study, and that high sensitivity cardiac troponin is a relatively inexpensive test, putting them together should really help risk stratify patients,” he added.

When asked whether this approach will eventually replace conventional methods of ASCVD risk assessment, such as those proposed in the 2019 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (Circulation. 2019;140:e596-e646), he said maybe.

“The answer is that we will probe that question in our ongoing studies using continuous data in an attempt to evaluate how to use this approach to risk stratify larger numbers of individuals,” Dr. Jaffe replied.

The senior investigator, Dr. Jaffe, has consulting relationships with many pharmaceutical companies. The editorial authors had no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: Sandoval Y et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020;76:357-370.

*Correction, 7/27/20: An earlier version of this article mischaracterized Dr. Jaffe's statement.

If either high sensitivity cardiac troponin (hs-cTnT) or coronary artery calcium (CAC) are elevated, the 10-year risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) climbs substantially, which suggests these biomarkers yield more prognostic information when they are used together, according to a cohort study with a median 15 years of follow-up.

Among those with a double negative result, meaning hs-cTnT was less than the limit of detection (<3 ng/L) and the CAC score was zero, only 2.8% developed ASCVD within 10 years, but the rates climbed to 4.6% if hs-cTnT was detectable and to 9.8% if the CAC score exceeded zero even when the other biomarker was negative.

“The increased risk for ASCVD among those with discordant results indicate that their prognostic information is complementary, favoring their conjoined use for risk prediction,” reported a multicenter team of investigators led by Allan S. Jaffe, MD, professor of laboratory medicine and pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

The study was performed with data from 6,749 participants in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA), which is a longitudinal, community-based study funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Over the course of long-term follow-up in a patient population that was about half female, 39% non-Hispanic white, 28% Black, 22% Hispanic American, and 12% Asian, ASCVD events were evaluated in relation to both biomarkers measured at baseline.

At baseline, both biomarkers were negative in 22%, both positive in 40%, and discordant in 38%.

After a median follow-up of 15 years, when 1,002 ASCVD events had occurred, the crude rate of ASCVD was 2.8 per 1,000 person-years in the double-negative group. When compared with this, the adjusted hazard ratio for ASCVD among those with double positive biomarkers was 3.5 (P < .00001). Increased risk was also highly significant if just hs-cTnT was positive (HR, 1.59; P = .003) or if just CAC was positive (HR, 2.74; P < .00001).

The added value of using both biomarkers to identify individuals at very low risk of ASCVD makes sense, according to the authors of an accompanying editorial. Written by a team led by John W. McEvoy, MB, BCh, National University of Ireland, Galway, the editorial explained why the information is complementary.

“CAC indicates subclinical atherosclerosis, whereas hs-cTnT indicates myocardial ischemia or damage, not just from coronary stenosis but also due to other conditions like hypertensive heart and left ventricular hypertrophy,” the authors stated.

Although they maintained that adding N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide, which could be drawn from the same blood sample as hs-cTnT, might prove to be an even better but still simple strategy to identify low-risk patients, they praised the concept of combining biomarkers.

“If one’s wish is to identify truly low-risk individuals, then it appears that it takes two negative ASCVD biomarkers to make that wish come true,” the authors of the editorial concluded.

Relative to alternative methods of ASCVD risk assessment, measurement of these biomarkers might be useful for sparing patients from interventions, such as lipid lowering with statin therapy, being considered on the basis of conventional risk factors alone.

Dr. Jaffe said in an interview that he considers the two-biomarker assessment to be a useful tool in the low-risk population that he studied, but he does not consider this strategy as a substitute for other methods, such as those outline in the 2019 ACC/AHA guidelines that address the entire spectrum of risk, although work is planned to see if this approach can be extended to this broader group.*

“The data we have presented now is a good start and suggests that these two objective measures can identify those who are at very low risk and avoid adding individuals who may not be at as low risk if only one of the two tests is used,” Dr. Jaffe explained.

“Given there are now techniques to measure coronary calcium from any chest CT study, and that high sensitivity cardiac troponin is a relatively inexpensive test, putting them together should really help risk stratify patients,” he added.

When asked whether this approach will eventually replace conventional methods of ASCVD risk assessment, such as those proposed in the 2019 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (Circulation. 2019;140:e596-e646), he said maybe.

“The answer is that we will probe that question in our ongoing studies using continuous data in an attempt to evaluate how to use this approach to risk stratify larger numbers of individuals,” Dr. Jaffe replied.

The senior investigator, Dr. Jaffe, has consulting relationships with many pharmaceutical companies. The editorial authors had no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: Sandoval Y et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020;76:357-370.

*Correction, 7/27/20: An earlier version of this article mischaracterized Dr. Jaffe's statement.

If either high sensitivity cardiac troponin (hs-cTnT) or coronary artery calcium (CAC) are elevated, the 10-year risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) climbs substantially, which suggests these biomarkers yield more prognostic information when they are used together, according to a cohort study with a median 15 years of follow-up.

Among those with a double negative result, meaning hs-cTnT was less than the limit of detection (<3 ng/L) and the CAC score was zero, only 2.8% developed ASCVD within 10 years, but the rates climbed to 4.6% if hs-cTnT was detectable and to 9.8% if the CAC score exceeded zero even when the other biomarker was negative.

“The increased risk for ASCVD among those with discordant results indicate that their prognostic information is complementary, favoring their conjoined use for risk prediction,” reported a multicenter team of investigators led by Allan S. Jaffe, MD, professor of laboratory medicine and pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

The study was performed with data from 6,749 participants in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA), which is a longitudinal, community-based study funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Over the course of long-term follow-up in a patient population that was about half female, 39% non-Hispanic white, 28% Black, 22% Hispanic American, and 12% Asian, ASCVD events were evaluated in relation to both biomarkers measured at baseline.

At baseline, both biomarkers were negative in 22%, both positive in 40%, and discordant in 38%.

After a median follow-up of 15 years, when 1,002 ASCVD events had occurred, the crude rate of ASCVD was 2.8 per 1,000 person-years in the double-negative group. When compared with this, the adjusted hazard ratio for ASCVD among those with double positive biomarkers was 3.5 (P < .00001). Increased risk was also highly significant if just hs-cTnT was positive (HR, 1.59; P = .003) or if just CAC was positive (HR, 2.74; P < .00001).

The added value of using both biomarkers to identify individuals at very low risk of ASCVD makes sense, according to the authors of an accompanying editorial. Written by a team led by John W. McEvoy, MB, BCh, National University of Ireland, Galway, the editorial explained why the information is complementary.

“CAC indicates subclinical atherosclerosis, whereas hs-cTnT indicates myocardial ischemia or damage, not just from coronary stenosis but also due to other conditions like hypertensive heart and left ventricular hypertrophy,” the authors stated.

Although they maintained that adding N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide, which could be drawn from the same blood sample as hs-cTnT, might prove to be an even better but still simple strategy to identify low-risk patients, they praised the concept of combining biomarkers.

“If one’s wish is to identify truly low-risk individuals, then it appears that it takes two negative ASCVD biomarkers to make that wish come true,” the authors of the editorial concluded.

Relative to alternative methods of ASCVD risk assessment, measurement of these biomarkers might be useful for sparing patients from interventions, such as lipid lowering with statin therapy, being considered on the basis of conventional risk factors alone.

Dr. Jaffe said in an interview that he considers the two-biomarker assessment to be a useful tool in the low-risk population that he studied, but he does not consider this strategy as a substitute for other methods, such as those outline in the 2019 ACC/AHA guidelines that address the entire spectrum of risk, although work is planned to see if this approach can be extended to this broader group.*

“The data we have presented now is a good start and suggests that these two objective measures can identify those who are at very low risk and avoid adding individuals who may not be at as low risk if only one of the two tests is used,” Dr. Jaffe explained.

“Given there are now techniques to measure coronary calcium from any chest CT study, and that high sensitivity cardiac troponin is a relatively inexpensive test, putting them together should really help risk stratify patients,” he added.

When asked whether this approach will eventually replace conventional methods of ASCVD risk assessment, such as those proposed in the 2019 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (Circulation. 2019;140:e596-e646), he said maybe.

“The answer is that we will probe that question in our ongoing studies using continuous data in an attempt to evaluate how to use this approach to risk stratify larger numbers of individuals,” Dr. Jaffe replied.

The senior investigator, Dr. Jaffe, has consulting relationships with many pharmaceutical companies. The editorial authors had no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: Sandoval Y et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020;76:357-370.

*Correction, 7/27/20: An earlier version of this article mischaracterized Dr. Jaffe's statement.

Given an opportunity to see physicians’ notes about their visits, patients mostly understand and agree with them, a survey shows.

Overall, 93% of respondents said the notes accurately described the visit; only 6% reported that something important was missing, write Suzanne G. Leveille, RN, PhD, of the University of Massachusetts, Boston, and colleagues in the Journal of General Internal Medicine.

“I think it’s wonderful news,” commented Howard Levy, MD, PhD, who spearheaded the implementation of open notes at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. “I’m thrilled with this report.”

Currently, 50 million Americans have access to their notes, the researchers report. Starting Nov. 2, 2020, the 21st Century Cures Act will require all US physicians to provide this access.

The regulation follows a movement to involve patients more actively in their care. Previous research has shown that access to visit notes improves patients’ feelings of control, helps them adhere to their medication regimens, and enables them to better understand their care plans.

Although physicians often feel that giving patients access to notes will lead to unnecessary conversations that will waste their time, previous studies have not borne that out. “Most clinical providers don’t notice a thing,” Levy told Medscape Medical News. “There was no change in the volume of work.”

Leveille and colleagues wanted to know how patients viewed the clarity, accuracy, and completeness of the notes they were reading and whether they had suggestions for improvements.

They surveyed all 136,815 adult outpatients affiliated with Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, Massachusetts; the University of Washington Medicine, in Seattle; and the Geisinger Health System, based in Danville, Pennsylvania. These systems all offer patients access to physicians’ notes.

The researchers asked the patients to recall one note written by a doctor, nurse practitioner, physician assistant, or mental health professional.

They received responses from 21,664 patients who had read at least one note. Of these, two thirds were women, three quarters were aged 45 years or older, and 85% were White.

Seventy-two percent had completed college. Although 85% reported being in good or excellent health, more of the respondents than nonrespondents had chronic health problems.

Ninety-seven percent of those with college educations understood their notes, compared with 92% of those who had not completed college, a finding that conflicted with the researchers’ expectations. “Good gracious, that’s wonderful,” Levy said. “In medicine we almost never get a 92% success rate in anything we do.”

Of the patients in fair or poor health, 88.6% said the note was accurate, compared with 94.4% of those in better health. Those in worse health were also more likely to say something important was missing.

When patients didn’t understand something, 35% searched the Internet, 27% asked a clinician, 7% asked a friend or family member, and 27% didn’t get help. (The researchers did not account for the other 4%.)

Of those patients whose note was written by a physician, 95% reported that the note accurately described the visit, compared with 92% of those whose note was written by a nurse practitioner and 90% of those whose note was written by a physician assistant.

Of patients reporting on a primary care note, 97% understood the note, compared with 94% of those reporting on a note from a visit to a specialist.

Ninety-three percent of those who understood their note were likely to recommend their clinician, compared with 77% of those who didn’t completely understand their note.

Asked how the notes could be improved, 3,812 people responded with comments of at least five words. These responses were included in the analysis.

Most commonly, patients wanted new information to be prominently featured at the top of the note, with clear instructions about next steps, referrals, and explanations of test results.

Often, they complained of old information or templates that felt impersonal. They stumbled over medical jargon and suggested links to glossaries. They bristled at such terms as “obese” and “patient denies.” Some wanted a way to comment on the notes.

Regarding the portals in which the notes were found, some patients said the notes were sometimes hard to find. Some said the notes were not posted quickly enough after the visits.

Levy said physicians should learn to write notes more succinctly, and he expects new regulations from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to encourage that. Previous regulations may have given physicians the impression that longer notes would allow them to bill at higher rates, he said. “The change in billing requirements will make it easier for healthcare providers to feel comfortable that they don’t have to restate information that had already been stated,” he said.

On the other hand, physicians should continue to use medical terminology, he said. “At times we use jargon, because it conveys rich, dense information in a few words,” he said. “That’s something that we should not have to give up.” Patients can research terms they don’t understand, he said.

Family physician Doug Iliff, MD, thinks it’s about time that his colleagues share their notes. He’s been doing it since he opened his solo practice in Topeka, Kansas, in 1984.

He still does it the way he always did, with carbonless copy paper. After each visit, he simply tears off the copy and hands it to the patient.

“It makes them know we’re on the same page,” he told Medscape Medical News. “It gives them confidence that I’m telling them what I really think.”

He has one comment on the work of Leveille and her colleagues. “Why are they studying this? Isn’t it obvious that it’s a good thing?”

The study was funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, the Peterson Center on Healthcare, and the Cambia Health Foundation. The study authors, Iliff, and Levy have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Given an opportunity to see physicians’ notes about their visits, patients mostly understand and agree with them, a survey shows.

Overall, 93% of respondents said the notes accurately described the visit; only 6% reported that something important was missing, write Suzanne G. Leveille, RN, PhD, of the University of Massachusetts, Boston, and colleagues in the Journal of General Internal Medicine.

“I think it’s wonderful news,” commented Howard Levy, MD, PhD, who spearheaded the implementation of open notes at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. “I’m thrilled with this report.”

Currently, 50 million Americans have access to their notes, the researchers report. Starting Nov. 2, 2020, the 21st Century Cures Act will require all US physicians to provide this access.

The regulation follows a movement to involve patients more actively in their care. Previous research has shown that access to visit notes improves patients’ feelings of control, helps them adhere to their medication regimens, and enables them to better understand their care plans.

Although physicians often feel that giving patients access to notes will lead to unnecessary conversations that will waste their time, previous studies have not borne that out. “Most clinical providers don’t notice a thing,” Levy told Medscape Medical News. “There was no change in the volume of work.”

Leveille and colleagues wanted to know how patients viewed the clarity, accuracy, and completeness of the notes they were reading and whether they had suggestions for improvements.

They surveyed all 136,815 adult outpatients affiliated with Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, Massachusetts; the University of Washington Medicine, in Seattle; and the Geisinger Health System, based in Danville, Pennsylvania. These systems all offer patients access to physicians’ notes.

The researchers asked the patients to recall one note written by a doctor, nurse practitioner, physician assistant, or mental health professional.

They received responses from 21,664 patients who had read at least one note. Of these, two thirds were women, three quarters were aged 45 years or older, and 85% were White.

Seventy-two percent had completed college. Although 85% reported being in good or excellent health, more of the respondents than nonrespondents had chronic health problems.

Ninety-seven percent of those with college educations understood their notes, compared with 92% of those who had not completed college, a finding that conflicted with the researchers’ expectations. “Good gracious, that’s wonderful,” Levy said. “In medicine we almost never get a 92% success rate in anything we do.”

Of the patients in fair or poor health, 88.6% said the note was accurate, compared with 94.4% of those in better health. Those in worse health were also more likely to say something important was missing.

When patients didn’t understand something, 35% searched the Internet, 27% asked a clinician, 7% asked a friend or family member, and 27% didn’t get help. (The researchers did not account for the other 4%.)

Of those patients whose note was written by a physician, 95% reported that the note accurately described the visit, compared with 92% of those whose note was written by a nurse practitioner and 90% of those whose note was written by a physician assistant.

Of patients reporting on a primary care note, 97% understood the note, compared with 94% of those reporting on a note from a visit to a specialist.

Ninety-three percent of those who understood their note were likely to recommend their clinician, compared with 77% of those who didn’t completely understand their note.

Asked how the notes could be improved, 3,812 people responded with comments of at least five words. These responses were included in the analysis.

Most commonly, patients wanted new information to be prominently featured at the top of the note, with clear instructions about next steps, referrals, and explanations of test results.

Often, they complained of old information or templates that felt impersonal. They stumbled over medical jargon and suggested links to glossaries. They bristled at such terms as “obese” and “patient denies.” Some wanted a way to comment on the notes.

Regarding the portals in which the notes were found, some patients said the notes were sometimes hard to find. Some said the notes were not posted quickly enough after the visits.

Levy said physicians should learn to write notes more succinctly, and he expects new regulations from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to encourage that. Previous regulations may have given physicians the impression that longer notes would allow them to bill at higher rates, he said. “The change in billing requirements will make it easier for healthcare providers to feel comfortable that they don’t have to restate information that had already been stated,” he said.

On the other hand, physicians should continue to use medical terminology, he said. “At times we use jargon, because it conveys rich, dense information in a few words,” he said. “That’s something that we should not have to give up.” Patients can research terms they don’t understand, he said.

Family physician Doug Iliff, MD, thinks it’s about time that his colleagues share their notes. He’s been doing it since he opened his solo practice in Topeka, Kansas, in 1984.

He still does it the way he always did, with carbonless copy paper. After each visit, he simply tears off the copy and hands it to the patient.

“It makes them know we’re on the same page,” he told Medscape Medical News. “It gives them confidence that I’m telling them what I really think.”

He has one comment on the work of Leveille and her colleagues. “Why are they studying this? Isn’t it obvious that it’s a good thing?”

The study was funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, the Peterson Center on Healthcare, and the Cambia Health Foundation. The study authors, Iliff, and Levy have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Given an opportunity to see physicians’ notes about their visits, patients mostly understand and agree with them, a survey shows.

Overall, 93% of respondents said the notes accurately described the visit; only 6% reported that something important was missing, write Suzanne G. Leveille, RN, PhD, of the University of Massachusetts, Boston, and colleagues in the Journal of General Internal Medicine.

“I think it’s wonderful news,” commented Howard Levy, MD, PhD, who spearheaded the implementation of open notes at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. “I’m thrilled with this report.”

Currently, 50 million Americans have access to their notes, the researchers report. Starting Nov. 2, 2020, the 21st Century Cures Act will require all US physicians to provide this access.

The regulation follows a movement to involve patients more actively in their care. Previous research has shown that access to visit notes improves patients’ feelings of control, helps them adhere to their medication regimens, and enables them to better understand their care plans.

Although physicians often feel that giving patients access to notes will lead to unnecessary conversations that will waste their time, previous studies have not borne that out. “Most clinical providers don’t notice a thing,” Levy told Medscape Medical News. “There was no change in the volume of work.”

Leveille and colleagues wanted to know how patients viewed the clarity, accuracy, and completeness of the notes they were reading and whether they had suggestions for improvements.

They surveyed all 136,815 adult outpatients affiliated with Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, Massachusetts; the University of Washington Medicine, in Seattle; and the Geisinger Health System, based in Danville, Pennsylvania. These systems all offer patients access to physicians’ notes.

The researchers asked the patients to recall one note written by a doctor, nurse practitioner, physician assistant, or mental health professional.

They received responses from 21,664 patients who had read at least one note. Of these, two thirds were women, three quarters were aged 45 years or older, and 85% were White.

Seventy-two percent had completed college. Although 85% reported being in good or excellent health, more of the respondents than nonrespondents had chronic health problems.

Ninety-seven percent of those with college educations understood their notes, compared with 92% of those who had not completed college, a finding that conflicted with the researchers’ expectations. “Good gracious, that’s wonderful,” Levy said. “In medicine we almost never get a 92% success rate in anything we do.”

Of the patients in fair or poor health, 88.6% said the note was accurate, compared with 94.4% of those in better health. Those in worse health were also more likely to say something important was missing.

When patients didn’t understand something, 35% searched the Internet, 27% asked a clinician, 7% asked a friend or family member, and 27% didn’t get help. (The researchers did not account for the other 4%.)

Of those patients whose note was written by a physician, 95% reported that the note accurately described the visit, compared with 92% of those whose note was written by a nurse practitioner and 90% of those whose note was written by a physician assistant.

Of patients reporting on a primary care note, 97% understood the note, compared with 94% of those reporting on a note from a visit to a specialist.

Ninety-three percent of those who understood their note were likely to recommend their clinician, compared with 77% of those who didn’t completely understand their note.

Asked how the notes could be improved, 3,812 people responded with comments of at least five words. These responses were included in the analysis.

Most commonly, patients wanted new information to be prominently featured at the top of the note, with clear instructions about next steps, referrals, and explanations of test results.

Often, they complained of old information or templates that felt impersonal. They stumbled over medical jargon and suggested links to glossaries. They bristled at such terms as “obese” and “patient denies.” Some wanted a way to comment on the notes.

Regarding the portals in which the notes were found, some patients said the notes were sometimes hard to find. Some said the notes were not posted quickly enough after the visits.

Levy said physicians should learn to write notes more succinctly, and he expects new regulations from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to encourage that. Previous regulations may have given physicians the impression that longer notes would allow them to bill at higher rates, he said. “The change in billing requirements will make it easier for healthcare providers to feel comfortable that they don’t have to restate information that had already been stated,” he said.

On the other hand, physicians should continue to use medical terminology, he said. “At times we use jargon, because it conveys rich, dense information in a few words,” he said. “That’s something that we should not have to give up.” Patients can research terms they don’t understand, he said.

Family physician Doug Iliff, MD, thinks it’s about time that his colleagues share their notes. He’s been doing it since he opened his solo practice in Topeka, Kansas, in 1984.

He still does it the way he always did, with carbonless copy paper. After each visit, he simply tears off the copy and hands it to the patient.

“It makes them know we’re on the same page,” he told Medscape Medical News. “It gives them confidence that I’m telling them what I really think.”

He has one comment on the work of Leveille and her colleagues. “Why are they studying this? Isn’t it obvious that it’s a good thing?”

The study was funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, the Peterson Center on Healthcare, and the Cambia Health Foundation. The study authors, Iliff, and Levy have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with psoriatic disease are known to be at increased risk of heart failure. A new cohort study suggests that part of the risk may be attributable to the disease itself, not just traditional cardiovascular risk factors like obesity and metabolic abnormalities that are common comorbidities in psoriatic disease. There may also be differences in the risk profiles of patients with ischemic and nonischemic heart failure.

Courtesy Dr. Sahil Koppikar

Previous studies have shown that heart failure risk in patients with psoriatic arthritis is 32% higher than in the general population, and with psoriasis, it is 22%-53% higher. However, those studies were based on administrative databases with no clinical information to back up the accuracy of diagnoses, Sahil Koppikar, MD, from the University of Toronto, said during a presentation of the research at the virtual annual meeting of the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (GRAPPA).

The finding that psoriatic disease inflammation may be a direct risk factor for heart failure might be good news for patients. “By controlling inflammation, we may be able to reduce the risk of heart failure in these patients,” Dr. Koppikar said.

During a question and answer session, discussant Deepak Jadon, MBChB, PhD, director of the rheumatology research unit and lead for psoriatic arthritis at Addenbrooke’s Hospital, Cambridge (England), noted that patients with conditions like lupus and systemic sclerosis may undergo regular echocardiograms, chest CTs, or other surveillance, and asked if Dr. Koppikar could recommend a framework for similar surveillance in psoriatic arthritis.

“With the current data we have, I don’t know if we can make recommendations. What we learned from our study is that patients that have elevated inflammatory disease, with elevated inflammatory markers for a prolonged period of time, were at higher risk than [if they had elevated markers only] just before the event. So poorly controlled patients might be something you should be more aware of, and maybe get cardiology involved. But I don’t think it’s something we should be doing right now for all patients,” Dr. Koppikar said.

The researchers analyzed data from a psoriasis cohort at the University of Toronto that began in 2006. Every 6-12 months, they were assessed by a rheumatologist and underwent imaging assessment and laboratory tests. The primary outcome of the study was the first heart failure event, which the researchers identified by linking the cohort database with provincial hospitalization and mortality databases. They verified all events by examining medical records. They also assessed the association between heart failure and disease activity over time rather than just before the event.

The analysis included 1,994 patients. A total of 64 new heart failure events occurred during a mean follow-up of 11.3 years (2.85 per 1,000 person-years), including 38 ischemic and 26 nonischemic events. A multivariate analysis found that heart failure was associated with adjusted mean (AM) tender joint count (hazard ratio, 1.51; P = .02), AM swollen joint count (HR, 1.82; P = .04), AM erythrocyte sedimentation rate (HR, 1.26; P = .009), AM C-reactive protein (HR, 1.27; P = .001), Health Assessment Questionnaire (HR, 1.95; P = .001), and minimum disease activity state (HR, 0.40; P = .04). The multivariate analysis was adjusted for sex, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, body mass index, ischemic heart disease, lipids, and smoking status.

When the researchers separated the analysis into ischemic and nonischemic heart failure, some interesting associations popped out. Nonischemic heart failure was associated with AM tender joint count (HR, 1.83; P = .004), but ischemic heart failure was not. Other factors associated with nonischemic but not ischemic heart failure included AM swollen joint count (HR, 3.56; P = .0003), damaged joint count (HR, 1.29; P = .04), and pain score (HR, 1.22; P = .047). Minimum disease activity had the opposite result: It was associated with only ischemic heart failure (HR, 0.40; P = .04).

The study cohort more closely resembles a rheumatology cohort than a dermatology cohort, and it suggests that patients with psoriatic arthritis have different cardiovascular comorbidities than those with pure psoriasis, according to Diamant Thaçi, MD, PhD, professor and chairman of the department of dermatology at the University of Lübeck (Germany). “It shows how it important it is to look for comorbidity in the rheumatologic setting,” Dr. Thaçi said in an interview.

The study was supported by the Arthritis Society. Dr. Koppikar and Dr. Thaçi have no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Koppikar S et al. GRAPPA 2020 Virtual Annual Meeting.

Patients with psoriatic disease are known to be at increased risk of heart failure. A new cohort study suggests that part of the risk may be attributable to the disease itself, not just traditional cardiovascular risk factors like obesity and metabolic abnormalities that are common comorbidities in psoriatic disease. There may also be differences in the risk profiles of patients with ischemic and nonischemic heart failure.

Courtesy Dr. Sahil Koppikar

Previous studies have shown that heart failure risk in patients with psoriatic arthritis is 32% higher than in the general population, and with psoriasis, it is 22%-53% higher. However, those studies were based on administrative databases with no clinical information to back up the accuracy of diagnoses, Sahil Koppikar, MD, from the University of Toronto, said during a presentation of the research at the virtual annual meeting of the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (GRAPPA).

The finding that psoriatic disease inflammation may be a direct risk factor for heart failure might be good news for patients. “By controlling inflammation, we may be able to reduce the risk of heart failure in these patients,” Dr. Koppikar said.

During a question and answer session, discussant Deepak Jadon, MBChB, PhD, director of the rheumatology research unit and lead for psoriatic arthritis at Addenbrooke’s Hospital, Cambridge (England), noted that patients with conditions like lupus and systemic sclerosis may undergo regular echocardiograms, chest CTs, or other surveillance, and asked if Dr. Koppikar could recommend a framework for similar surveillance in psoriatic arthritis.

“With the current data we have, I don’t know if we can make recommendations. What we learned from our study is that patients that have elevated inflammatory disease, with elevated inflammatory markers for a prolonged period of time, were at higher risk than [if they had elevated markers only] just before the event. So poorly controlled patients might be something you should be more aware of, and maybe get cardiology involved. But I don’t think it’s something we should be doing right now for all patients,” Dr. Koppikar said.

The researchers analyzed data from a psoriasis cohort at the University of Toronto that began in 2006. Every 6-12 months, they were assessed by a rheumatologist and underwent imaging assessment and laboratory tests. The primary outcome of the study was the first heart failure event, which the researchers identified by linking the cohort database with provincial hospitalization and mortality databases. They verified all events by examining medical records. They also assessed the association between heart failure and disease activity over time rather than just before the event.

The analysis included 1,994 patients. A total of 64 new heart failure events occurred during a mean follow-up of 11.3 years (2.85 per 1,000 person-years), including 38 ischemic and 26 nonischemic events. A multivariate analysis found that heart failure was associated with adjusted mean (AM) tender joint count (hazard ratio, 1.51; P = .02), AM swollen joint count (HR, 1.82; P = .04), AM erythrocyte sedimentation rate (HR, 1.26; P = .009), AM C-reactive protein (HR, 1.27; P = .001), Health Assessment Questionnaire (HR, 1.95; P = .001), and minimum disease activity state (HR, 0.40; P = .04). The multivariate analysis was adjusted for sex, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, body mass index, ischemic heart disease, lipids, and smoking status.

When the researchers separated the analysis into ischemic and nonischemic heart failure, some interesting associations popped out. Nonischemic heart failure was associated with AM tender joint count (HR, 1.83; P = .004), but ischemic heart failure was not. Other factors associated with nonischemic but not ischemic heart failure included AM swollen joint count (HR, 3.56; P = .0003), damaged joint count (HR, 1.29; P = .04), and pain score (HR, 1.22; P = .047). Minimum disease activity had the opposite result: It was associated with only ischemic heart failure (HR, 0.40; P = .04).

The study cohort more closely resembles a rheumatology cohort than a dermatology cohort, and it suggests that patients with psoriatic arthritis have different cardiovascular comorbidities than those with pure psoriasis, according to Diamant Thaçi, MD, PhD, professor and chairman of the department of dermatology at the University of Lübeck (Germany). “It shows how it important it is to look for comorbidity in the rheumatologic setting,” Dr. Thaçi said in an interview.

The study was supported by the Arthritis Society. Dr. Koppikar and Dr. Thaçi have no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Koppikar S et al. GRAPPA 2020 Virtual Annual Meeting.

Patients with psoriatic disease are known to be at increased risk of heart failure. A new cohort study suggests that part of the risk may be attributable to the disease itself, not just traditional cardiovascular risk factors like obesity and metabolic abnormalities that are common comorbidities in psoriatic disease. There may also be differences in the risk profiles of patients with ischemic and nonischemic heart failure.

Courtesy Dr. Sahil Koppikar

Previous studies have shown that heart failure risk in patients with psoriatic arthritis is 32% higher than in the general population, and with psoriasis, it is 22%-53% higher. However, those studies were based on administrative databases with no clinical information to back up the accuracy of diagnoses, Sahil Koppikar, MD, from the University of Toronto, said during a presentation of the research at the virtual annual meeting of the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (GRAPPA).

The finding that psoriatic disease inflammation may be a direct risk factor for heart failure might be good news for patients. “By controlling inflammation, we may be able to reduce the risk of heart failure in these patients,” Dr. Koppikar said.

During a question and answer session, discussant Deepak Jadon, MBChB, PhD, director of the rheumatology research unit and lead for psoriatic arthritis at Addenbrooke’s Hospital, Cambridge (England), noted that patients with conditions like lupus and systemic sclerosis may undergo regular echocardiograms, chest CTs, or other surveillance, and asked if Dr. Koppikar could recommend a framework for similar surveillance in psoriatic arthritis.

“With the current data we have, I don’t know if we can make recommendations. What we learned from our study is that patients that have elevated inflammatory disease, with elevated inflammatory markers for a prolonged period of time, were at higher risk than [if they had elevated markers only] just before the event. So poorly controlled patients might be something you should be more aware of, and maybe get cardiology involved. But I don’t think it’s something we should be doing right now for all patients,” Dr. Koppikar said.

The researchers analyzed data from a psoriasis cohort at the University of Toronto that began in 2006. Every 6-12 months, they were assessed by a rheumatologist and underwent imaging assessment and laboratory tests. The primary outcome of the study was the first heart failure event, which the researchers identified by linking the cohort database with provincial hospitalization and mortality databases. They verified all events by examining medical records. They also assessed the association between heart failure and disease activity over time rather than just before the event.

The analysis included 1,994 patients. A total of 64 new heart failure events occurred during a mean follow-up of 11.3 years (2.85 per 1,000 person-years), including 38 ischemic and 26 nonischemic events. A multivariate analysis found that heart failure was associated with adjusted mean (AM) tender joint count (hazard ratio, 1.51; P = .02), AM swollen joint count (HR, 1.82; P = .04), AM erythrocyte sedimentation rate (HR, 1.26; P = .009), AM C-reactive protein (HR, 1.27; P = .001), Health Assessment Questionnaire (HR, 1.95; P = .001), and minimum disease activity state (HR, 0.40; P = .04). The multivariate analysis was adjusted for sex, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, body mass index, ischemic heart disease, lipids, and smoking status.

When the researchers separated the analysis into ischemic and nonischemic heart failure, some interesting associations popped out. Nonischemic heart failure was associated with AM tender joint count (HR, 1.83; P = .004), but ischemic heart failure was not. Other factors associated with nonischemic but not ischemic heart failure included AM swollen joint count (HR, 3.56; P = .0003), damaged joint count (HR, 1.29; P = .04), and pain score (HR, 1.22; P = .047). Minimum disease activity had the opposite result: It was associated with only ischemic heart failure (HR, 0.40; P = .04).

The study cohort more closely resembles a rheumatology cohort than a dermatology cohort, and it suggests that patients with psoriatic arthritis have different cardiovascular comorbidities than those with pure psoriasis, according to Diamant Thaçi, MD, PhD, professor and chairman of the department of dermatology at the University of Lübeck (Germany). “It shows how it important it is to look for comorbidity in the rheumatologic setting,” Dr. Thaçi said in an interview.

The study was supported by the Arthritis Society. Dr. Koppikar and Dr. Thaçi have no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Koppikar S et al. GRAPPA 2020 Virtual Annual Meeting.

Empagliflozin showed favorable effects on diuretic use and congestion symptoms in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), but the oral sodium glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor did not improve the primary endpoint of improved exercise capacity in the EMPERIAL-Reduced trial, investigators reported at the European Society of Cardiology Heart Failure Discoveries virtual meeting.

In the matching EMPERIAL-Preserved trial, conducted in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), empagliflozin (Jardiance) produced modest improvements in diuretic use, as well as a reduction in unscheduled outpatient visits, compared with placebo-treated controls, although these trends failed to achieve statistical significance. And as in the EMPERIAL-Reduced trial, the SGLT2 inhibitor didn’t move the needle at all on the primary endpoint of improved exercise capacity as measured by 6-minute hall walk distance.

EMPERIAL-Reduced and -Preserved were identically designed, concurrent, phase 3, double-blind, 12-week randomized trials of empagliflozin versus placebo in 312 patients with HFrEF and 315 with HFpEF, defined in EMPERIAL-preserved as a left ventricular ejection fraction above 40%. The majority of participants had type 2 diabetes.

From a baseline median 6-minute walk distance of about 300 meters, the 6-minute walk distance at week 12 was actually 4.0 meters worse in the empagliflozin-treated HFrEF patients than it was in controls and a mere 4.0 meters better than with placebo in empagliflozin-treated patients with HFpEF, reported William T. Abraham, MD, professor of medicine, director of the division of cardiovascular medicine, and associate dean at Ohio State University, Columbus.

He indicated that the audience shouldn’t make too much of the failure to achieve the primary endpoint in the two trials in light of the studies’ major limitations: namely, their relatively small size for purposes of evaluating clinical outcomes and the relatively short 12-week duration.

“In many ways, I would say it’s remarkable that we can observe a positive signal, a favorable signal, in outcomes around congestion. In the case of HFrEF it’s statistically significant, and in HFpEF it’s a trend towards improvement. Of course, there are larger trials ongoing that may confirm these observations. Hopefully the EMPERIAL trials predict a good outcome for those ongoing trials,” Dr. Abraham said.

Piotr Ponikowski, MD, presented the study results for the secondary outcomes of congestion symptoms, diuretic use, and utilization of health care resources. In EMPERIAL-Reduced, intensification of diuretic therapy – often a prelude to acute decompensation and a trip to the hospital – occurred at a rate of 4.5% with empagliflozin and 16.1% with placebo, for a highly significant 73% relative risk reduction. Intensification of loop diuretics occurred in 2.6% of the empagliflozin group and 14.2% of controls, for a 82% risk reduction.

“That’s a pretty significant effect,” observed Dr. Ponikowski, professor of cardiology and head of the department of heart diseases at the Medical University of Wroclaw (Poland).

Moreover, a congestion symptoms score comprising a summary of orthopnea, jugular veinous distention, and edema improved by 47% after 12 weeks on empagliflozin, a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement that grew in magnitude over time and at 12 weeks was twice as large, compared with the reduction in placebo group, he added.

There was a trend for fewer unscheduled outpatient visits in the empagliflozin arm of EMPERIAL-Reduced with a rate of 10.4%, compared with 25.8% in controls; however, this 26% reduction in relative risk did not achieve statistical significance.

Intensification of loop diuretics occurred in 9% of EMPERIAL-Preserved participants on empagliflozin and 13.5% on placebo, but this 34% reduction in risk didn’t reach significance.

Adverse events in the EMPERIAL trials were similar across the active treatment and placebo arms. The benign safety profile was similar to what was seen in the earlier major clinical trials of empagliflozin for treatment of type 2 diabetes.

Session chair Stephane Heymans, MD, PhD, of the University of Maastricht (the Netherlands) noted that a substantial minority of patients in EMPERIAL-Reduced were on the combined neprilysin inhibitor sacubitril and the angiotensin receptor blocker valsartan (Entresto), whereas far fewer were in EMPERIAL-Preserved. He wondered if this greater use of background sacubitril/valsartan could explain empagliflozin’s greater efficacy in EMPERIAL-Reduced.

Highly unlikely, according to the investigators.

“It looks like, as is the case with most of our heart failure therapies, that we do see incremental value here. If you met the criteria for these trials, it appears you derived benefit from empagliflozin regardless of whether you were on an angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor or not. I think that speaks to the incremental benefit of SGLT2 inhibitors on top of current guideline-directed medical therapy,” Dr. Abraham said.

Dr. Ponikowski observed that the same point was underscored in the DAPA-HF trial of the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin (Farxiga) in patients with heart failure (DAPA-HF: N Engl J Med. 2019 Nov 21;381[21]:1995-2008).

“You’ll see that the mortality and morbidity and quality-of-life benefit is in those treated with dapagliflozin with or without angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibition; so, regardless of background therapy. And the effect is especially clear in patients on both therapies,” the cardiologist said.

The EMPERIAL trials were sponsored by Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Abraham and Dr. Ponikowksi reported receiving consultant fees from the company for serving on the trials’ executive committee.

[email protected]

Empagliflozin showed favorable effects on diuretic use and congestion symptoms in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), but the oral sodium glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor did not improve the primary endpoint of improved exercise capacity in the EMPERIAL-Reduced trial, investigators reported at the European Society of Cardiology Heart Failure Discoveries virtual meeting.

In the matching EMPERIAL-Preserved trial, conducted in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), empagliflozin (Jardiance) produced modest improvements in diuretic use, as well as a reduction in unscheduled outpatient visits, compared with placebo-treated controls, although these trends failed to achieve statistical significance. And as in the EMPERIAL-Reduced trial, the SGLT2 inhibitor didn’t move the needle at all on the primary endpoint of improved exercise capacity as measured by 6-minute hall walk distance.

EMPERIAL-Reduced and -Preserved were identically designed, concurrent, phase 3, double-blind, 12-week randomized trials of empagliflozin versus placebo in 312 patients with HFrEF and 315 with HFpEF, defined in EMPERIAL-preserved as a left ventricular ejection fraction above 40%. The majority of participants had type 2 diabetes.

From a baseline median 6-minute walk distance of about 300 meters, the 6-minute walk distance at week 12 was actually 4.0 meters worse in the empagliflozin-treated HFrEF patients than it was in controls and a mere 4.0 meters better than with placebo in empagliflozin-treated patients with HFpEF, reported William T. Abraham, MD, professor of medicine, director of the division of cardiovascular medicine, and associate dean at Ohio State University, Columbus.

He indicated that the audience shouldn’t make too much of the failure to achieve the primary endpoint in the two trials in light of the studies’ major limitations: namely, their relatively small size for purposes of evaluating clinical outcomes and the relatively short 12-week duration.

“In many ways, I would say it’s remarkable that we can observe a positive signal, a favorable signal, in outcomes around congestion. In the case of HFrEF it’s statistically significant, and in HFpEF it’s a trend towards improvement. Of course, there are larger trials ongoing that may confirm these observations. Hopefully the EMPERIAL trials predict a good outcome for those ongoing trials,” Dr. Abraham said.

Piotr Ponikowski, MD, presented the study results for the secondary outcomes of congestion symptoms, diuretic use, and utilization of health care resources. In EMPERIAL-Reduced, intensification of diuretic therapy – often a prelude to acute decompensation and a trip to the hospital – occurred at a rate of 4.5% with empagliflozin and 16.1% with placebo, for a highly significant 73% relative risk reduction. Intensification of loop diuretics occurred in 2.6% of the empagliflozin group and 14.2% of controls, for a 82% risk reduction.

“That’s a pretty significant effect,” observed Dr. Ponikowski, professor of cardiology and head of the department of heart diseases at the Medical University of Wroclaw (Poland).

Moreover, a congestion symptoms score comprising a summary of orthopnea, jugular veinous distention, and edema improved by 47% after 12 weeks on empagliflozin, a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement that grew in magnitude over time and at 12 weeks was twice as large, compared with the reduction in placebo group, he added.

There was a trend for fewer unscheduled outpatient visits in the empagliflozin arm of EMPERIAL-Reduced with a rate of 10.4%, compared with 25.8% in controls; however, this 26% reduction in relative risk did not achieve statistical significance.

Intensification of loop diuretics occurred in 9% of EMPERIAL-Preserved participants on empagliflozin and 13.5% on placebo, but this 34% reduction in risk didn’t reach significance.

Adverse events in the EMPERIAL trials were similar across the active treatment and placebo arms. The benign safety profile was similar to what was seen in the earlier major clinical trials of empagliflozin for treatment of type 2 diabetes.

Session chair Stephane Heymans, MD, PhD, of the University of Maastricht (the Netherlands) noted that a substantial minority of patients in EMPERIAL-Reduced were on the combined neprilysin inhibitor sacubitril and the angiotensin receptor blocker valsartan (Entresto), whereas far fewer were in EMPERIAL-Preserved. He wondered if this greater use of background sacubitril/valsartan could explain empagliflozin’s greater efficacy in EMPERIAL-Reduced.

Highly unlikely, according to the investigators.

“It looks like, as is the case with most of our heart failure therapies, that we do see incremental value here. If you met the criteria for these trials, it appears you derived benefit from empagliflozin regardless of whether you were on an angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor or not. I think that speaks to the incremental benefit of SGLT2 inhibitors on top of current guideline-directed medical therapy,” Dr. Abraham said.

Dr. Ponikowski observed that the same point was underscored in the DAPA-HF trial of the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin (Farxiga) in patients with heart failure (DAPA-HF: N Engl J Med. 2019 Nov 21;381[21]:1995-2008).

“You’ll see that the mortality and morbidity and quality-of-life benefit is in those treated with dapagliflozin with or without angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibition; so, regardless of background therapy. And the effect is especially clear in patients on both therapies,” the cardiologist said.

The EMPERIAL trials were sponsored by Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Abraham and Dr. Ponikowksi reported receiving consultant fees from the company for serving on the trials’ executive committee.

[email protected]

Empagliflozin showed favorable effects on diuretic use and congestion symptoms in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), but the oral sodium glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor did not improve the primary endpoint of improved exercise capacity in the EMPERIAL-Reduced trial, investigators reported at the European Society of Cardiology Heart Failure Discoveries virtual meeting.

In the matching EMPERIAL-Preserved trial, conducted in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), empagliflozin (Jardiance) produced modest improvements in diuretic use, as well as a reduction in unscheduled outpatient visits, compared with placebo-treated controls, although these trends failed to achieve statistical significance. And as in the EMPERIAL-Reduced trial, the SGLT2 inhibitor didn’t move the needle at all on the primary endpoint of improved exercise capacity as measured by 6-minute hall walk distance.

EMPERIAL-Reduced and -Preserved were identically designed, concurrent, phase 3, double-blind, 12-week randomized trials of empagliflozin versus placebo in 312 patients with HFrEF and 315 with HFpEF, defined in EMPERIAL-preserved as a left ventricular ejection fraction above 40%. The majority of participants had type 2 diabetes.

From a baseline median 6-minute walk distance of about 300 meters, the 6-minute walk distance at week 12 was actually 4.0 meters worse in the empagliflozin-treated HFrEF patients than it was in controls and a mere 4.0 meters better than with placebo in empagliflozin-treated patients with HFpEF, reported William T. Abraham, MD, professor of medicine, director of the division of cardiovascular medicine, and associate dean at Ohio State University, Columbus.

He indicated that the audience shouldn’t make too much of the failure to achieve the primary endpoint in the two trials in light of the studies’ major limitations: namely, their relatively small size for purposes of evaluating clinical outcomes and the relatively short 12-week duration.

“In many ways, I would say it’s remarkable that we can observe a positive signal, a favorable signal, in outcomes around congestion. In the case of HFrEF it’s statistically significant, and in HFpEF it’s a trend towards improvement. Of course, there are larger trials ongoing that may confirm these observations. Hopefully the EMPERIAL trials predict a good outcome for those ongoing trials,” Dr. Abraham said.

Piotr Ponikowski, MD, presented the study results for the secondary outcomes of congestion symptoms, diuretic use, and utilization of health care resources. In EMPERIAL-Reduced, intensification of diuretic therapy – often a prelude to acute decompensation and a trip to the hospital – occurred at a rate of 4.5% with empagliflozin and 16.1% with placebo, for a highly significant 73% relative risk reduction. Intensification of loop diuretics occurred in 2.6% of the empagliflozin group and 14.2% of controls, for a 82% risk reduction.

“That’s a pretty significant effect,” observed Dr. Ponikowski, professor of cardiology and head of the department of heart diseases at the Medical University of Wroclaw (Poland).

Moreover, a congestion symptoms score comprising a summary of orthopnea, jugular veinous distention, and edema improved by 47% after 12 weeks on empagliflozin, a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement that grew in magnitude over time and at 12 weeks was twice as large, compared with the reduction in placebo group, he added.

There was a trend for fewer unscheduled outpatient visits in the empagliflozin arm of EMPERIAL-Reduced with a rate of 10.4%, compared with 25.8% in controls; however, this 26% reduction in relative risk did not achieve statistical significance.

Intensification of loop diuretics occurred in 9% of EMPERIAL-Preserved participants on empagliflozin and 13.5% on placebo, but this 34% reduction in risk didn’t reach significance.

Adverse events in the EMPERIAL trials were similar across the active treatment and placebo arms. The benign safety profile was similar to what was seen in the earlier major clinical trials of empagliflozin for treatment of type 2 diabetes.

Session chair Stephane Heymans, MD, PhD, of the University of Maastricht (the Netherlands) noted that a substantial minority of patients in EMPERIAL-Reduced were on the combined neprilysin inhibitor sacubitril and the angiotensin receptor blocker valsartan (Entresto), whereas far fewer were in EMPERIAL-Preserved. He wondered if this greater use of background sacubitril/valsartan could explain empagliflozin’s greater efficacy in EMPERIAL-Reduced.

Highly unlikely, according to the investigators.

“It looks like, as is the case with most of our heart failure therapies, that we do see incremental value here. If you met the criteria for these trials, it appears you derived benefit from empagliflozin regardless of whether you were on an angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor or not. I think that speaks to the incremental benefit of SGLT2 inhibitors on top of current guideline-directed medical therapy,” Dr. Abraham said.

Dr. Ponikowski observed that the same point was underscored in the DAPA-HF trial of the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin (Farxiga) in patients with heart failure (DAPA-HF: N Engl J Med. 2019 Nov 21;381[21]:1995-2008).

“You’ll see that the mortality and morbidity and quality-of-life benefit is in those treated with dapagliflozin with or without angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibition; so, regardless of background therapy. And the effect is especially clear in patients on both therapies,” the cardiologist said.

The EMPERIAL trials were sponsored by Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Abraham and Dr. Ponikowksi reported receiving consultant fees from the company for serving on the trials’ executive committee.

[email protected]

The DynamX Bioadaptor – arguably the most original concept in coronary stent design to come along in 3 decades – demonstrated excellent safety and efficacy in a 12-month international, proof-of-concept study, Stefan Verheye, MD, said at the virtual annual meeting of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions.

“There has been no fundamental change in stent design in over 30 years,” declared Dr. Verheye, codirector of the Antwerp (Belgium) Cardiovascular Center. “The DynamX Bioadaptor is a fundamental innovation in device design.”

The investigational device is a 71-mcm-thick, cobalt-chromium metal platform that elutes novolimus from a biodegradable polymer. Circumferential rings in low-stress sections of the device are held together by polymer connectors, and when the polymer erodes at about 6 months the stent segments are able to disengage from each other while maintaining longitudinal continuity. Dr. Verheye called this process “uncaging” the stented artery. The result is restoration of normal vessel angulation and compliance; the artery is no longer artificially straightened and constrained by a relatively stiff stent. Positive adaptive remodeling is preserved with enhanced vessel pulsatility and maintenance of lumenal area for good blood flow.

Dr. Verheye said the impetus for developing this outside-the-box novel stent platform lies in the recognition of a major unmet need for better drug-eluting stent (DES) performance. “Despite excellent acute outcomes, data with current-generation DES show long-term event rates are high and accrue at a rate of 2%-3% per year without a plateau.”

He was coprincipal investigator for the international study, which included 50 patients who received a DynamX Bioadaptor for a single de novo coronary artery lesion no more than 24 mm in length. The acute performance of the device was similar to that of second-generation DES, with a mean acute gain post procedure of 1.63 mm by quantitative coronary angiography and a mean late lumen loss of 0.12 mm when measured again at 9 or 12 months.

Intravascular ultrasound imaging showed a 3% increase in mean target vessel area and a 5% increase in the stented area from post procedure to 9 or 12 months’ follow-up, with no change in mean lumen area, all of which translates into maintenance of good blood flow over time. In contrast, what typically occurs following implantation of current DES is maintenance of target vessel and device areas, but with a loss in mean lumen area, the cardiologist noted.

There were two cardiac deaths but no cases of target lesion revascularization, device thrombosis, or strut fracture within 12 months of the procedure.

“The Bioadaptor performs similarly to second-generation DES in terms of implantation technique, deliverability, conformability, and radial strength during the healing phase, while showing the promise of mitigating the 2%-3% annualized event rate beyond 1 year,” Dr. Verheye concluded, adding, “Obviously, longer-term follow-up in comparative studies will be needed to show a reduction in the device-oriented events that have been observed with current DES.”

Session cochair Davide Capodanno, MD, PhD, of the University of Catania (Italy), declared: “This is an intriguing device because it’s metal, but it’s a kind of pulsatile metal after the biodegradation of the connectors. It’s something I’ve never seen.”

Discussant William Wijns, MD, PhD, said he was “thrilled” by the innovative aspect of the DynamX Bioadaptor, but he’s a long way from being persuaded that the device’s potential physiological advantages will translate into improved clinical outcomes relative to current DES.

“Don’t we all have a strange feeling of deja vu because all these anticipated benefits are the same as those we were told we would see with fully bioresorbable scaffolds? And we know so much after 10 years of experience with bioresorbable scaffolds that probably we will not accept this great story unless we get more and more evidence,” cautioned Dr. Wijns, professor of interventional cardiology at the National University of Ireland, Galway, and chairman of EuroPCR.

The claim regarding bioresorbable scaffolds was that, even though the acute results weren’t as good as with DES, that disadvantage would be outweighed by superior long-term clinical outcomes. But in fact the long-term outcomes turned out to be worse as well.

“We had to give up immediate results with the bioresorbable scaffolds. I don’t think we want to go that route again this time,” the cardiologist said.

Thus, the first thing that’s needed in order to make a convincing case for the Bioadaptor is evidence from a large, randomized, comparative trial demonstrating that the acute performance of the novel device is noninferior to that of current DES, including data on complex lesions. Such a study was supposed to be underway now but has been delayed by the COVID-19 pandemic, he noted.

Once there is evidence that the acute results with the Bioadaptor are truly comparable with those achieved with current DES, there will be a need for long-term data showing that the device reduces the 2%-3% annualized event rate seen with DES beyond 1 year, Dr. Wijns added.

Dr. Verheye reported receiving consultation fees from study sponsor Elixir Medical as well as from Biotronik. Dr. Wijns reported receiving research grants from MicroPort.

[email protected]

The DynamX Bioadaptor – arguably the most original concept in coronary stent design to come along in 3 decades – demonstrated excellent safety and efficacy in a 12-month international, proof-of-concept study, Stefan Verheye, MD, said at the virtual annual meeting of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions.

“There has been no fundamental change in stent design in over 30 years,” declared Dr. Verheye, codirector of the Antwerp (Belgium) Cardiovascular Center. “The DynamX Bioadaptor is a fundamental innovation in device design.”

The investigational device is a 71-mcm-thick, cobalt-chromium metal platform that elutes novolimus from a biodegradable polymer. Circumferential rings in low-stress sections of the device are held together by polymer connectors, and when the polymer erodes at about 6 months the stent segments are able to disengage from each other while maintaining longitudinal continuity. Dr. Verheye called this process “uncaging” the stented artery. The result is restoration of normal vessel angulation and compliance; the artery is no longer artificially straightened and constrained by a relatively stiff stent. Positive adaptive remodeling is preserved with enhanced vessel pulsatility and maintenance of lumenal area for good blood flow.

Dr. Verheye said the impetus for developing this outside-the-box novel stent platform lies in the recognition of a major unmet need for better drug-eluting stent (DES) performance. “Despite excellent acute outcomes, data with current-generation DES show long-term event rates are high and accrue at a rate of 2%-3% per year without a plateau.”

He was coprincipal investigator for the international study, which included 50 patients who received a DynamX Bioadaptor for a single de novo coronary artery lesion no more than 24 mm in length. The acute performance of the device was similar to that of second-generation DES, with a mean acute gain post procedure of 1.63 mm by quantitative coronary angiography and a mean late lumen loss of 0.12 mm when measured again at 9 or 12 months.

Intravascular ultrasound imaging showed a 3% increase in mean target vessel area and a 5% increase in the stented area from post procedure to 9 or 12 months’ follow-up, with no change in mean lumen area, all of which translates into maintenance of good blood flow over time. In contrast, what typically occurs following implantation of current DES is maintenance of target vessel and device areas, but with a loss in mean lumen area, the cardiologist noted.

There were two cardiac deaths but no cases of target lesion revascularization, device thrombosis, or strut fracture within 12 months of the procedure.

“The Bioadaptor performs similarly to second-generation DES in terms of implantation technique, deliverability, conformability, and radial strength during the healing phase, while showing the promise of mitigating the 2%-3% annualized event rate beyond 1 year,” Dr. Verheye concluded, adding, “Obviously, longer-term follow-up in comparative studies will be needed to show a reduction in the device-oriented events that have been observed with current DES.”

Session cochair Davide Capodanno, MD, PhD, of the University of Catania (Italy), declared: “This is an intriguing device because it’s metal, but it’s a kind of pulsatile metal after the biodegradation of the connectors. It’s something I’ve never seen.”

Discussant William Wijns, MD, PhD, said he was “thrilled” by the innovative aspect of the DynamX Bioadaptor, but he’s a long way from being persuaded that the device’s potential physiological advantages will translate into improved clinical outcomes relative to current DES.

“Don’t we all have a strange feeling of deja vu because all these anticipated benefits are the same as those we were told we would see with fully bioresorbable scaffolds? And we know so much after 10 years of experience with bioresorbable scaffolds that probably we will not accept this great story unless we get more and more evidence,” cautioned Dr. Wijns, professor of interventional cardiology at the National University of Ireland, Galway, and chairman of EuroPCR.

The claim regarding bioresorbable scaffolds was that, even though the acute results weren’t as good as with DES, that disadvantage would be outweighed by superior long-term clinical outcomes. But in fact the long-term outcomes turned out to be worse as well.

“We had to give up immediate results with the bioresorbable scaffolds. I don’t think we want to go that route again this time,” the cardiologist said.

Thus, the first thing that’s needed in order to make a convincing case for the Bioadaptor is evidence from a large, randomized, comparative trial demonstrating that the acute performance of the novel device is noninferior to that of current DES, including data on complex lesions. Such a study was supposed to be underway now but has been delayed by the COVID-19 pandemic, he noted.

Once there is evidence that the acute results with the Bioadaptor are truly comparable with those achieved with current DES, there will be a need for long-term data showing that the device reduces the 2%-3% annualized event rate seen with DES beyond 1 year, Dr. Wijns added.

Dr. Verheye reported receiving consultation fees from study sponsor Elixir Medical as well as from Biotronik. Dr. Wijns reported receiving research grants from MicroPort.

[email protected]

The DynamX Bioadaptor – arguably the most original concept in coronary stent design to come along in 3 decades – demonstrated excellent safety and efficacy in a 12-month international, proof-of-concept study, Stefan Verheye, MD, said at the virtual annual meeting of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions.

“There has been no fundamental change in stent design in over 30 years,” declared Dr. Verheye, codirector of the Antwerp (Belgium) Cardiovascular Center. “The DynamX Bioadaptor is a fundamental innovation in device design.”

The investigational device is a 71-mcm-thick, cobalt-chromium metal platform that elutes novolimus from a biodegradable polymer. Circumferential rings in low-stress sections of the device are held together by polymer connectors, and when the polymer erodes at about 6 months the stent segments are able to disengage from each other while maintaining longitudinal continuity. Dr. Verheye called this process “uncaging” the stented artery. The result is restoration of normal vessel angulation and compliance; the artery is no longer artificially straightened and constrained by a relatively stiff stent. Positive adaptive remodeling is preserved with enhanced vessel pulsatility and maintenance of lumenal area for good blood flow.

Dr. Verheye said the impetus for developing this outside-the-box novel stent platform lies in the recognition of a major unmet need for better drug-eluting stent (DES) performance. “Despite excellent acute outcomes, data with current-generation DES show long-term event rates are high and accrue at a rate of 2%-3% per year without a plateau.”

He was coprincipal investigator for the international study, which included 50 patients who received a DynamX Bioadaptor for a single de novo coronary artery lesion no more than 24 mm in length. The acute performance of the device was similar to that of second-generation DES, with a mean acute gain post procedure of 1.63 mm by quantitative coronary angiography and a mean late lumen loss of 0.12 mm when measured again at 9 or 12 months.

Intravascular ultrasound imaging showed a 3% increase in mean target vessel area and a 5% increase in the stented area from post procedure to 9 or 12 months’ follow-up, with no change in mean lumen area, all of which translates into maintenance of good blood flow over time. In contrast, what typically occurs following implantation of current DES is maintenance of target vessel and device areas, but with a loss in mean lumen area, the cardiologist noted.

There were two cardiac deaths but no cases of target lesion revascularization, device thrombosis, or strut fracture within 12 months of the procedure.

“The Bioadaptor performs similarly to second-generation DES in terms of implantation technique, deliverability, conformability, and radial strength during the healing phase, while showing the promise of mitigating the 2%-3% annualized event rate beyond 1 year,” Dr. Verheye concluded, adding, “Obviously, longer-term follow-up in comparative studies will be needed to show a reduction in the device-oriented events that have been observed with current DES.”

Session cochair Davide Capodanno, MD, PhD, of the University of Catania (Italy), declared: “This is an intriguing device because it’s metal, but it’s a kind of pulsatile metal after the biodegradation of the connectors. It’s something I’ve never seen.”

Discussant William Wijns, MD, PhD, said he was “thrilled” by the innovative aspect of the DynamX Bioadaptor, but he’s a long way from being persuaded that the device’s potential physiological advantages will translate into improved clinical outcomes relative to current DES.

“Don’t we all have a strange feeling of deja vu because all these anticipated benefits are the same as those we were told we would see with fully bioresorbable scaffolds? And we know so much after 10 years of experience with bioresorbable scaffolds that probably we will not accept this great story unless we get more and more evidence,” cautioned Dr. Wijns, professor of interventional cardiology at the National University of Ireland, Galway, and chairman of EuroPCR.

The claim regarding bioresorbable scaffolds was that, even though the acute results weren’t as good as with DES, that disadvantage would be outweighed by superior long-term clinical outcomes. But in fact the long-term outcomes turned out to be worse as well.

“We had to give up immediate results with the bioresorbable scaffolds. I don’t think we want to go that route again this time,” the cardiologist said.

Thus, the first thing that’s needed in order to make a convincing case for the Bioadaptor is evidence from a large, randomized, comparative trial demonstrating that the acute performance of the novel device is noninferior to that of current DES, including data on complex lesions. Such a study was supposed to be underway now but has been delayed by the COVID-19 pandemic, he noted.

Once there is evidence that the acute results with the Bioadaptor are truly comparable with those achieved with current DES, there will be a need for long-term data showing that the device reduces the 2%-3% annualized event rate seen with DES beyond 1 year, Dr. Wijns added.

Dr. Verheye reported receiving consultation fees from study sponsor Elixir Medical as well as from Biotronik. Dr. Wijns reported receiving research grants from MicroPort.

[email protected]

With a median follow-up of 10 years after coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), patients who received a radial artery graft rather than a saphenous vein graft as a second conduit were less likely to experience death, MI, or repeat revascularization, according to pooled data from five randomized trials.

The same result from the same set of data was produced after a median of 5 years, but the longer follow-up provides a more compelling case for the superiority of the radial artery graft, according to the authors of this meta-analysis, led by Mario F.L. Gaudino, MD, professor of cardiothoracic surgery at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York.

For the primary composite endpoint of death, MI, or repeat revascularization, the favorable hazard ratio at 5 years corresponded to a 33% risk reduction (HR, 0.67; P = .01), according to the previously published results (Gaudino M et al. N Engl J Med. 2018;378:2069-77).

The new data at 10 years show about the same risk reduction for the primary endpoint, but with more robust statistical significance (HR, 0.73; P < .001).

More importantly, because of the greater number of events by 10 years, the advantage of radial artery graft for the secondary composite outcome of death or MI has now reached statistical significance (HR, 0.77; P = .01).

In addition, there was a 27% reduction in risk of all-cause mortality (HR, 0.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.57-0.93) at 10 years associated with the radial artery graft. But this was not a prespecified endpoint, and so this is a hypothesis-generating post hoc finding.

The data was drawn from five randomized trials with a total of 1,036 patients. When used as an additional conduit to an internal thoracic artery in CABG, radial artery grafts relative to saphenous vein grafts were associated with a lower but nonsignificant risk of adverse outcomes in all five trials.

The advantage of radial artery grafts in the meta-analysis at 5 and now 10 years supports a series of observational studies that have also claimed better results with radial artery grafts.

The analysis was published July 14 in JAMA with essentially the same outcomes reported at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation in March.

However, a editorial that accompanied this meta-analysis in JAMA raised fundamental questions about revascularization.

“Intuitively, high-severity coronary lesions with significant ischemic burden, poor collateralization, and significant myocardium at risk may benefit from a durable revascularization option,” observed the editorial coauthors, Steven E. Nissen, MD, and Faisal G. Bakaeen, MD, both of the Cleveland Clinic. However, they cautioned that there is no definitive evidence that “any revascularization procedure reduces cardiovascular morbidity or mortality in patients with anatomically and physiologically stable coronary artery disease.”

They called the 10-year outcomes from the meta-analysis “the best available long-term data on the potential value of using the radial artery as a bypass conduit,” but warned that no randomized trial has confirmed that two or more conduits are superior to a single internal thoracic artery in CABG to for preventing death and major adverse cardiovascular events.

Such a trial, called ROMA, is now underway (Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2017;52:1031-40), but results are not expected until 2025.

In the meantime, placement of second conduits remains common in CABG procedures, about 400,000 of which are performed each year in the United States. According to Dr. Gaudino, there are indications and contraindications for second conduits, but radial artery should be the preferred standard when these are considered.

“Our data indicate that the radial artery graft should be used to complement the left internal thoracic artery in all patients who meet the indications for radial artery grafts,” he explained in an interview.

“Unfortunately, at the moment radial artery grafts are used in less than 10% of CABG cases in the U.S.,” he reported. “Hopefully, our data will lead to a larger use of this conduit by the surgical community.”

Dr. Gaudino, the principal investigator, reported no potential conflicts of interest relevant to this study.

SOURCE: Gaudino MFL et al. JAMA. 2020;324:179-87.

With a median follow-up of 10 years after coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), patients who received a radial artery graft rather than a saphenous vein graft as a second conduit were less likely to experience death, MI, or repeat revascularization, according to pooled data from five randomized trials.

The same result from the same set of data was produced after a median of 5 years, but the longer follow-up provides a more compelling case for the superiority of the radial artery graft, according to the authors of this meta-analysis, led by Mario F.L. Gaudino, MD, professor of cardiothoracic surgery at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York.

For the primary composite endpoint of death, MI, or repeat revascularization, the favorable hazard ratio at 5 years corresponded to a 33% risk reduction (HR, 0.67; P = .01), according to the previously published results (Gaudino M et al. N Engl J Med. 2018;378:2069-77).

The new data at 10 years show about the same risk reduction for the primary endpoint, but with more robust statistical significance (HR, 0.73; P < .001).

More importantly, because of the greater number of events by 10 years, the advantage of radial artery graft for the secondary composite outcome of death or MI has now reached statistical significance (HR, 0.77; P = .01).

In addition, there was a 27% reduction in risk of all-cause mortality (HR, 0.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.57-0.93) at 10 years associated with the radial artery graft. But this was not a prespecified endpoint, and so this is a hypothesis-generating post hoc finding.

The data was drawn from five randomized trials with a total of 1,036 patients. When used as an additional conduit to an internal thoracic artery in CABG, radial artery grafts relative to saphenous vein grafts were associated with a lower but nonsignificant risk of adverse outcomes in all five trials.

The advantage of radial artery grafts in the meta-analysis at 5 and now 10 years supports a series of observational studies that have also claimed better results with radial artery grafts.

The analysis was published July 14 in JAMA with essentially the same outcomes reported at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation in March.

However, a editorial that accompanied this meta-analysis in JAMA raised fundamental questions about revascularization.

“Intuitively, high-severity coronary lesions with significant ischemic burden, poor collateralization, and significant myocardium at risk may benefit from a durable revascularization option,” observed the editorial coauthors, Steven E. Nissen, MD, and Faisal G. Bakaeen, MD, both of the Cleveland Clinic. However, they cautioned that there is no definitive evidence that “any revascularization procedure reduces cardiovascular morbidity or mortality in patients with anatomically and physiologically stable coronary artery disease.”

They called the 10-year outcomes from the meta-analysis “the best available long-term data on the potential value of using the radial artery as a bypass conduit,” but warned that no randomized trial has confirmed that two or more conduits are superior to a single internal thoracic artery in CABG to for preventing death and major adverse cardiovascular events.

Such a trial, called ROMA, is now underway (Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2017;52:1031-40), but results are not expected until 2025.

In the meantime, placement of second conduits remains common in CABG procedures, about 400,000 of which are performed each year in the United States. According to Dr. Gaudino, there are indications and contraindications for second conduits, but radial artery should be the preferred standard when these are considered.

“Our data indicate that the radial artery graft should be used to complement the left internal thoracic artery in all patients who meet the indications for radial artery grafts,” he explained in an interview.

“Unfortunately, at the moment radial artery grafts are used in less than 10% of CABG cases in the U.S.,” he reported. “Hopefully, our data will lead to a larger use of this conduit by the surgical community.”

Dr. Gaudino, the principal investigator, reported no potential conflicts of interest relevant to this study.

SOURCE: Gaudino MFL et al. JAMA. 2020;324:179-87.

With a median follow-up of 10 years after coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), patients who received a radial artery graft rather than a saphenous vein graft as a second conduit were less likely to experience death, MI, or repeat revascularization, according to pooled data from five randomized trials.

The same result from the same set of data was produced after a median of 5 years, but the longer follow-up provides a more compelling case for the superiority of the radial artery graft, according to the authors of this meta-analysis, led by Mario F.L. Gaudino, MD, professor of cardiothoracic surgery at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York.

For the primary composite endpoint of death, MI, or repeat revascularization, the favorable hazard ratio at 5 years corresponded to a 33% risk reduction (HR, 0.67; P = .01), according to the previously published results (Gaudino M et al. N Engl J Med. 2018;378:2069-77).

The new data at 10 years show about the same risk reduction for the primary endpoint, but with more robust statistical significance (HR, 0.73; P < .001).

More importantly, because of the greater number of events by 10 years, the advantage of radial artery graft for the secondary composite outcome of death or MI has now reached statistical significance (HR, 0.77; P = .01).

In addition, there was a 27% reduction in risk of all-cause mortality (HR, 0.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.57-0.93) at 10 years associated with the radial artery graft. But this was not a prespecified endpoint, and so this is a hypothesis-generating post hoc finding.

The data was drawn from five randomized trials with a total of 1,036 patients. When used as an additional conduit to an internal thoracic artery in CABG, radial artery grafts relative to saphenous vein grafts were associated with a lower but nonsignificant risk of adverse outcomes in all five trials.

The advantage of radial artery grafts in the meta-analysis at 5 and now 10 years supports a series of observational studies that have also claimed better results with radial artery grafts.

The analysis was published July 14 in JAMA with essentially the same outcomes reported at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation in March.

However, a editorial that accompanied this meta-analysis in JAMA raised fundamental questions about revascularization.

“Intuitively, high-severity coronary lesions with significant ischemic burden, poor collateralization, and significant myocardium at risk may benefit from a durable revascularization option,” observed the editorial coauthors, Steven E. Nissen, MD, and Faisal G. Bakaeen, MD, both of the Cleveland Clinic. However, they cautioned that there is no definitive evidence that “any revascularization procedure reduces cardiovascular morbidity or mortality in patients with anatomically and physiologically stable coronary artery disease.”

They called the 10-year outcomes from the meta-analysis “the best available long-term data on the potential value of using the radial artery as a bypass conduit,” but warned that no randomized trial has confirmed that two or more conduits are superior to a single internal thoracic artery in CABG to for preventing death and major adverse cardiovascular events.

Such a trial, called ROMA, is now underway (Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2017;52:1031-40), but results are not expected until 2025.

In the meantime, placement of second conduits remains common in CABG procedures, about 400,000 of which are performed each year in the United States. According to Dr. Gaudino, there are indications and contraindications for second conduits, but radial artery should be the preferred standard when these are considered.

“Our data indicate that the radial artery graft should be used to complement the left internal thoracic artery in all patients who meet the indications for radial artery grafts,” he explained in an interview.

“Unfortunately, at the moment radial artery grafts are used in less than 10% of CABG cases in the U.S.,” he reported. “Hopefully, our data will lead to a larger use of this conduit by the surgical community.”

Dr. Gaudino, the principal investigator, reported no potential conflicts of interest relevant to this study.

SOURCE: Gaudino MFL et al. JAMA. 2020;324:179-87.

The absence of in-person school has harmed children in ways beyond loss of academic learning, according to Josh Sharfstein, MD, vice dean for public health practice and community engagement at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore. In addition to learning, school is a place where many children receive breakfast and lunch every day, as well as support services and the benefits of being in a safe and secure environment, Dr. Sharfstein said in a press briefing sponsored by Johns Hopkins University.

However, although it is an important priority for children to return to school, “we are in the midst of a pandemic that poses real risk,” he said.

In the press briefing, several experts shared ideas and considerations for safely reopening K-12 schools in the fall of 2020.

Data from other countries where schools have reopened, notably Austria and Denmark, have been reassuring about the lack of transmission of SARS-CoV-2 among children in a school setting, said Jennifer Nuzzo, DrPH, an epidemiologist at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security. However, other countries where schools have reopened successfully have reported low levels of viral transmission locally, and a responsible strategy for school reopening in the United States should follow a similar plan, she said. In areas where transmission and infection rates are increasing “it may not be safe to reopen,” but in areas where rates are declining or stable, schools could potentially reopen if they follow safety measures.

Dr. Nuzzo suggested that schools should prioritize students who will benefit most from in-person learning, such as younger children and those with special needs. Considerations include protocols for handwashing and sanitation, and maintaining physical distance by creative use of outdoor classrooms (weather permitting) or other spaces within school buildings. Transportation to and from school also will be an issue to address, she noted.

None of the strategies being considered will completely eliminate risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection in school settings, so allowing parents and students to opt out and choose distance learning will be important as well, said Dr. Nuzzo. In addition, schools may need to consider alternative roles for teachers and staff who don’t feel comfortable being in contact with students and fellow staff members. “All of these things are going to be hard,” Dr. Nuzzo acknowledged. “Hard should not be a deterrent,” to reopening schools, but “we acknowledge the resources that schools will need in order to do this.”

At present, all 50 states and the District of Columbia have released some type of plan for reopening schools, said Megan Collins, MD, MPH, codirector the Johns Hopkins Consortium for School-Based Health Solutions.

Dr. Collins and colleagues have developed a school reopening tracker, which is “a national snapshot of current reopening plans that have been released,” she said. The tracker is being updated continuously as plans evolve. The eSchool+ K-12 School Reopening Tracker identifies 12 reopening categories that states could potentially address in the plans. These categories are divided into Operational and Ethics/Equity. The operational categories include:

• Core academics
• SARS-CoV-2 protection
• Before and after school programs
• School access and transportation
• Student health services
• Food and nutrition.

Ethics/equity categories include the following:

• Parent choice
• Teacher and staff choice
• Children of poverty and systemic disadvantage
• Children with special needs/English as second language/gifted and twice exceptional
• Privacy
• Engagement and transparency.

As of July 15, 2020, 16 states (Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Maryland, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin) had addressed all 12 categories in their reopening plans, Dr. Collins said.

School reopening plans must take equity issues into account, said Annette Anderson, PhD, of the Johns Hopkins University School of Education.

Specifically, developing learning plans for special education students and others at the most risk for learning loss will be essential. “The digital divide has become a digital canyon” in some areas, Dr. Anderson noted, and schools need to rethink eligibility and work to provide access to devices for online learning for all students.

In addition, schools need to convince parents that schools are safe. She recommended that schools consider inviting parents and families to visit buildings in advance of reopening so they can see the safety measures, such as space between desks, cleaning stations, and other protective strategies.

The message to pediatricians and health care professionals when counseling families about returning individual children to school is to consider the risk to the child and the family directly in the context of the local plans, Dr. Sharfstein said during a question and answer session. “One school system’s plan is one school system’s plan,” he said, and added that families who are concerned about the risk should have an online option. However, “if you see a thoughtful approach” to reopening, with safety steps taken and parents informed, with protocols such as keeping small groups of children together to reduce transmission, “it is a pretty good trade-off,” and that is why the American Academy of Pediatrics currently favors children returning to school, he said.

The briefing participants had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

The absence of in-person school has harmed children in ways beyond loss of academic learning, according to Josh Sharfstein, MD, vice dean for public health practice and community engagement at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore. In addition to learning, school is a place where many children receive breakfast and lunch every day, as well as support services and the benefits of being in a safe and secure environment, Dr. Sharfstein said in a press briefing sponsored by Johns Hopkins University.

However, although it is an important priority for children to return to school, “we are in the midst of a pandemic that poses real risk,” he said.

In the press briefing, several experts shared ideas and considerations for safely reopening K-12 schools in the fall of 2020.

Data from other countries where schools have reopened, notably Austria and Denmark, have been reassuring about the lack of transmission of SARS-CoV-2 among children in a school setting, said Jennifer Nuzzo, DrPH, an epidemiologist at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security. However, other countries where schools have reopened successfully have reported low levels of viral transmission locally, and a responsible strategy for school reopening in the United States should follow a similar plan, she said. In areas where transmission and infection rates are increasing “it may not be safe to reopen,” but in areas where rates are declining or stable, schools could potentially reopen if they follow safety measures.

Dr. Nuzzo suggested that schools should prioritize students who will benefit most from in-person learning, such as younger children and those with special needs. Considerations include protocols for handwashing and sanitation, and maintaining physical distance by creative use of outdoor classrooms (weather permitting) or other spaces within school buildings. Transportation to and from school also will be an issue to address, she noted.

None of the strategies being considered will completely eliminate risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection in school settings, so allowing parents and students to opt out and choose distance learning will be important as well, said Dr. Nuzzo. In addition, schools may need to consider alternative roles for teachers and staff who don’t feel comfortable being in contact with students and fellow staff members. “All of these things are going to be hard,” Dr. Nuzzo acknowledged. “Hard should not be a deterrent,” to reopening schools, but “we acknowledge the resources that schools will need in order to do this.”

At present, all 50 states and the District of Columbia have released some type of plan for reopening schools, said Megan Collins, MD, MPH, codirector the Johns Hopkins Consortium for School-Based Health Solutions.

Dr. Collins and colleagues have developed a school reopening tracker, which is “a national snapshot of current reopening plans that have been released,” she said. The tracker is being updated continuously as plans evolve. The eSchool+ K-12 School Reopening Tracker identifies 12 reopening categories that states could potentially address in the plans. These categories are divided into Operational and Ethics/Equity. The operational categories include:

• Core academics
• SARS-CoV-2 protection
• Before and after school programs
• School access and transportation
• Student health services
• Food and nutrition.

Ethics/equity categories include the following:

• Parent choice
• Teacher and staff choice
• Children of poverty and systemic disadvantage
• Children with special needs/English as second language/gifted and twice exceptional
• Privacy
• Engagement and transparency.

As of July 15, 2020, 16 states (Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Maryland, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin) had addressed all 12 categories in their reopening plans, Dr. Collins said.

School reopening plans must take equity issues into account, said Annette Anderson, PhD, of the Johns Hopkins University School of Education.

Specifically, developing learning plans for special education students and others at the most risk for learning loss will be essential. “The digital divide has become a digital canyon” in some areas, Dr. Anderson noted, and schools need to rethink eligibility and work to provide access to devices for online learning for all students.

In addition, schools need to convince parents that schools are safe. She recommended that schools consider inviting parents and families to visit buildings in advance of reopening so they can see the safety measures, such as space between desks, cleaning stations, and other protective strategies.

The message to pediatricians and health care professionals when counseling families about returning individual children to school is to consider the risk to the child and the family directly in the context of the local plans, Dr. Sharfstein said during a question and answer session. “One school system’s plan is one school system’s plan,” he said, and added that families who are concerned about the risk should have an online option. However, “if you see a thoughtful approach” to reopening, with safety steps taken and parents informed, with protocols such as keeping small groups of children together to reduce transmission, “it is a pretty good trade-off,” and that is why the American Academy of Pediatrics currently favors children returning to school, he said.

The briefing participants had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

The absence of in-person school has harmed children in ways beyond loss of academic learning, according to Josh Sharfstein, MD, vice dean for public health practice and community engagement at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore. In addition to learning, school is a place where many children receive breakfast and lunch every day, as well as support services and the benefits of being in a safe and secure environment, Dr. Sharfstein said in a press briefing sponsored by Johns Hopkins University.

However, although it is an important priority for children to return to school, “we are in the midst of a pandemic that poses real risk,” he said.

In the press briefing, several experts shared ideas and considerations for safely reopening K-12 schools in the fall of 2020.

Data from other countries where schools have reopened, notably Austria and Denmark, have been reassuring about the lack of transmission of SARS-CoV-2 among children in a school setting, said Jennifer Nuzzo, DrPH, an epidemiologist at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security. However, other countries where schools have reopened successfully have reported low levels of viral transmission locally, and a responsible strategy for school reopening in the United States should follow a similar plan, she said. In areas where transmission and infection rates are increasing “it may not be safe to reopen,” but in areas where rates are declining or stable, schools could potentially reopen if they follow safety measures.

Dr. Nuzzo suggested that schools should prioritize students who will benefit most from in-person learning, such as younger children and those with special needs. Considerations include protocols for handwashing and sanitation, and maintaining physical distance by creative use of outdoor classrooms (weather permitting) or other spaces within school buildings. Transportation to and from school also will be an issue to address, she noted.

None of the strategies being considered will completely eliminate risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection in school settings, so allowing parents and students to opt out and choose distance learning will be important as well, said Dr. Nuzzo. In addition, schools may need to consider alternative roles for teachers and staff who don’t feel comfortable being in contact with students and fellow staff members. “All of these things are going to be hard,” Dr. Nuzzo acknowledged. “Hard should not be a deterrent,” to reopening schools, but “we acknowledge the resources that schools will need in order to do this.”

At present, all 50 states and the District of Columbia have released some type of plan for reopening schools, said Megan Collins, MD, MPH, codirector the Johns Hopkins Consortium for School-Based Health Solutions.

Dr. Collins and colleagues have developed a school reopening tracker, which is “a national snapshot of current reopening plans that have been released,” she said. The tracker is being updated continuously as plans evolve. The eSchool+ K-12 School Reopening Tracker identifies 12 reopening categories that states could potentially address in the plans. These categories are divided into Operational and Ethics/Equity. The operational categories include:

• Core academics
• SARS-CoV-2 protection
• Before and after school programs
• School access and transportation
• Student health services
• Food and nutrition.

Ethics/equity categories include the following:

• Parent choice
• Teacher and staff choice
• Children of poverty and systemic disadvantage
• Children with special needs/English as second language/gifted and twice exceptional
• Privacy
• Engagement and transparency.

As of July 15, 2020, 16 states (Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Maryland, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin) had addressed all 12 categories in their reopening plans, Dr. Collins said.

School reopening plans must take equity issues into account, said Annette Anderson, PhD, of the Johns Hopkins University School of Education.

Specifically, developing learning plans for special education students and others at the most risk for learning loss will be essential. “The digital divide has become a digital canyon” in some areas, Dr. Anderson noted, and schools need to rethink eligibility and work to provide access to devices for online learning for all students.

In addition, schools need to convince parents that schools are safe. She recommended that schools consider inviting parents and families to visit buildings in advance of reopening so they can see the safety measures, such as space between desks, cleaning stations, and other protective strategies.

The message to pediatricians and health care professionals when counseling families about returning individual children to school is to consider the risk to the child and the family directly in the context of the local plans, Dr. Sharfstein said during a question and answer session. “One school system’s plan is one school system’s plan,” he said, and added that families who are concerned about the risk should have an online option. However, “if you see a thoughtful approach” to reopening, with safety steps taken and parents informed, with protocols such as keeping small groups of children together to reduce transmission, “it is a pretty good trade-off,” and that is why the American Academy of Pediatrics currently favors children returning to school, he said.

The briefing participants had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

Cardiovascular risk factors (CVRFs), including hypertension, diabetes, and smoking, are linked to a significantly increased risk for cognitive decline in midlife in a dose-dependent manner, new research shows. The findings suggest that the relationship between CVRFs and cognition becomes evident much earlier than previously realized. Investigators found that individuals who smoked were 65% more likely to have accelerated cognitive decline, those with hypertension were 87% more likely, and individuals with diabetes had nearly a 200% increased risk.

“What is new here is that almost no one has looked at cardiovascular risk factors in such a young age [mean, 50 years] and cognitive change in middle age from 50 to 55 or so. Almost all other studies have looked at mid- or late-life cardiovascular risk factors and late-life cognition or dementia,” said study investigator Kristine Yaffe, MD.

The research was published online July 15 in Neurology.
 

New insight

Previous research has shown a strong association between CVRFs and a greater risk for cognitive decline and dementia in late life, but the investigators note that data about the influence of CVRFs on cognition in midlife are “sparse.” Longitudinal studies have also shown that several cognitive domains – particularly processing speed and executive function – may start to decline in midlife, but whether CVRFs, many of which also emerge in midlife, contribute to these changes is unclear.

To assess the effect of CVRFs on cognitive changes in midlife, the investigators analyzed data from the ongoing Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults (CARDIA) study. CARDIA is a multicenter longitudinal study designed to measure risk factors for coronary artery disease in a large cohort of Black and White men and women.

The analysis was based on data from 2,675 participants who underwent CVRF assessment and cognitive testing at baseline and 5 years later. At baseline, participants’ mean age was 50.2 years. Approximately 57% of participants were women, 55% were White, and the mean number of years of education was 15. At study outset, 43% (n = 1,133) of participants were considered obese, 31% (n = 826) had hypertension, 15% (n = 701) were current smokers, 11% (n = 290) had diabetes, and 9% (n = 248) had high cholesterol.

Cognition was assessed using the Digit Symbol Substitution Test, which measures processing speed and executive function; the Stroop Test, which measures executive function; and the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test, which measures verbal memory.
 

Dose-dependent effect

Overall results showed that, for 5% of participants, cognitive decline was accelerated at 5 years. In unadjusted models, the odds of developing accelerated cognitive decline over 5 years was associated with hypertension (7.5% vs. 4.3%; odds ratio, 1.79, 95% confidence interval, 1.27-2.52), diabetes (10.3% vs. 4.7%; OR, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.53-3.56), and smoking (7.7% current smokers vs. 4.3% never smokers; OR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.21-2.90). After adjusting for age, sex, and race, the associations remained significant.

The researchers found no significant effect of high cholesterol (6.9% vs. 5.2%; OR, 1.35; 95% CI, 0.80-2.28) or obesity (6.1% vs. 4.8%; OR, 1.29; 95% CI, 0.92-1.82) on accelerated cognitive decline.

Compared with participants with no CVRFs, the likelihood of accelerated cognitive decline was higher for individuals with one or two risk factors (OR, 1.94; 95% CI, 1.16-3.25) and was higher still for those with three or more risk factors (OR, 3.51; 95% CI, 2.05-6.00).

The fact that there was no association between midlife cognitive decline and obesity or high cholesterol did not come as a surprise, said Dr. Yaffe. “Most studies have not shown a consistent finding with high cholesterol and later-life cognition, so it is not surprising we did not see one in midlife, when there is not as much cognitive change.”

The study’s results, said Dr. Yaffe, provide physicians with another good reason to help patients address CVRFs and to work with them to lower blood pressure, stop smoking, reduce diabetes incidence, or control diabetes.

Dr. Yaffe said she and her colleagues plan further research into CVRFs and accelerated cognitive decline. “We want to know if this earlier cognitive decline [in midlife] is connected to greater decline later in life. We also want to know if improving these risk factors in midlife might prevent or slow dementia later.”
 

More to explore

Commenting on the findings, Michelle M. Mielke, PhD, professor of epidemiology and neurology at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said one of the study’s main implications “is that the prevention and treatment of midlife hypertension and diabetes and smoking cessation directly impacts shorter-term changes in cognition.”

She added that the study also provides a foundation for answering further questions about the effects of CVRFs on cognition in midlife. For example, questions about sex differences remain unanswered. Men develop CVRFs earlier than women, but the investigators did not provide the prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors by sex.

“It was also not reported whether a specific midlife cardiovascular risk factor was more strongly associated with accelerated cognitive decline for women or for men,” she said. In addition, the mean age of the population at baseline is the approximate age of the onset of menopause, after which cardiovascular risk factors increase among women.

“Additional research is needed to understand the emergence of cardiovascular risk factors pre- versus post menopause on subsequent cognition and also consider the use of menopausal hormone therapy,” said Dr. Mielke.

“Another future research avenue is to further understand the impact of antihypertensive and diabetes medications,” she continued. “For example, in the current study, it was not clear how many [participants] with hypertension were treated versus untreated and whether this impacted subsequent cognition. Similarly, it is not known whether specific antihypertensives are more beneficial for cognition in midlife.”

CARDIA is supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; the University of Alabama at Birmingham; Northwestern University, Chicago; the University of Minnesota; and the Kaiser Foundation Research Institute. Dr. Yaffe serves on data safety monitoring boards for Eli Lilly and studies sponsored by the National Institute on Aging. She is a board member of Alector and is a member of the Beeson Scientific Advisory Board and the Global Council on Brain Health. Dr. Mielke has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Cardiovascular risk factors (CVRFs), including hypertension, diabetes, and smoking, are linked to a significantly increased risk for cognitive decline in midlife in a dose-dependent manner, new research shows. The findings suggest that the relationship between CVRFs and cognition becomes evident much earlier than previously realized. Investigators found that individuals who smoked were 65% more likely to have accelerated cognitive decline, those with hypertension were 87% more likely, and individuals with diabetes had nearly a 200% increased risk.

“What is new here is that almost no one has looked at cardiovascular risk factors in such a young age [mean, 50 years] and cognitive change in middle age from 50 to 55 or so. Almost all other studies have looked at mid- or late-life cardiovascular risk factors and late-life cognition or dementia,” said study investigator Kristine Yaffe, MD.

The research was published online July 15 in Neurology.
 

New insight

Previous research has shown a strong association between CVRFs and a greater risk for cognitive decline and dementia in late life, but the investigators note that data about the influence of CVRFs on cognition in midlife are “sparse.” Longitudinal studies have also shown that several cognitive domains – particularly processing speed and executive function – may start to decline in midlife, but whether CVRFs, many of which also emerge in midlife, contribute to these changes is unclear.

To assess the effect of CVRFs on cognitive changes in midlife, the investigators analyzed data from the ongoing Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults (CARDIA) study. CARDIA is a multicenter longitudinal study designed to measure risk factors for coronary artery disease in a large cohort of Black and White men and women.

The analysis was based on data from 2,675 participants who underwent CVRF assessment and cognitive testing at baseline and 5 years later. At baseline, participants’ mean age was 50.2 years. Approximately 57% of participants were women, 55% were White, and the mean number of years of education was 15. At study outset, 43% (n = 1,133) of participants were considered obese, 31% (n = 826) had hypertension, 15% (n = 701) were current smokers, 11% (n = 290) had diabetes, and 9% (n = 248) had high cholesterol.

Cognition was assessed using the Digit Symbol Substitution Test, which measures processing speed and executive function; the Stroop Test, which measures executive function; and the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test, which measures verbal memory.
 

Dose-dependent effect

Overall results showed that, for 5% of participants, cognitive decline was accelerated at 5 years. In unadjusted models, the odds of developing accelerated cognitive decline over 5 years was associated with hypertension (7.5% vs. 4.3%; odds ratio, 1.79, 95% confidence interval, 1.27-2.52), diabetes (10.3% vs. 4.7%; OR, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.53-3.56), and smoking (7.7% current smokers vs. 4.3% never smokers; OR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.21-2.90). After adjusting for age, sex, and race, the associations remained significant.

The researchers found no significant effect of high cholesterol (6.9% vs. 5.2%; OR, 1.35; 95% CI, 0.80-2.28) or obesity (6.1% vs. 4.8%; OR, 1.29; 95% CI, 0.92-1.82) on accelerated cognitive decline.

Compared with participants with no CVRFs, the likelihood of accelerated cognitive decline was higher for individuals with one or two risk factors (OR, 1.94; 95% CI, 1.16-3.25) and was higher still for those with three or more risk factors (OR, 3.51; 95% CI, 2.05-6.00).

The fact that there was no association between midlife cognitive decline and obesity or high cholesterol did not come as a surprise, said Dr. Yaffe. “Most studies have not shown a consistent finding with high cholesterol and later-life cognition, so it is not surprising we did not see one in midlife, when there is not as much cognitive change.”

The study’s results, said Dr. Yaffe, provide physicians with another good reason to help patients address CVRFs and to work with them to lower blood pressure, stop smoking, reduce diabetes incidence, or control diabetes.

Dr. Yaffe said she and her colleagues plan further research into CVRFs and accelerated cognitive decline. “We want to know if this earlier cognitive decline [in midlife] is connected to greater decline later in life. We also want to know if improving these risk factors in midlife might prevent or slow dementia later.”
 

More to explore

Commenting on the findings, Michelle M. Mielke, PhD, professor of epidemiology and neurology at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said one of the study’s main implications “is that the prevention and treatment of midlife hypertension and diabetes and smoking cessation directly impacts shorter-term changes in cognition.”

She added that the study also provides a foundation for answering further questions about the effects of CVRFs on cognition in midlife. For example, questions about sex differences remain unanswered. Men develop CVRFs earlier than women, but the investigators did not provide the prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors by sex.

“It was also not reported whether a specific midlife cardiovascular risk factor was more strongly associated with accelerated cognitive decline for women or for men,” she said. In addition, the mean age of the population at baseline is the approximate age of the onset of menopause, after which cardiovascular risk factors increase among women.

“Additional research is needed to understand the emergence of cardiovascular risk factors pre- versus post menopause on subsequent cognition and also consider the use of menopausal hormone therapy,” said Dr. Mielke.

“Another future research avenue is to further understand the impact of antihypertensive and diabetes medications,” she continued. “For example, in the current study, it was not clear how many [participants] with hypertension were treated versus untreated and whether this impacted subsequent cognition. Similarly, it is not known whether specific antihypertensives are more beneficial for cognition in midlife.”

CARDIA is supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; the University of Alabama at Birmingham; Northwestern University, Chicago; the University of Minnesota; and the Kaiser Foundation Research Institute. Dr. Yaffe serves on data safety monitoring boards for Eli Lilly and studies sponsored by the National Institute on Aging. She is a board member of Alector and is a member of the Beeson Scientific Advisory Board and the Global Council on Brain Health. Dr. Mielke has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Cardiovascular risk factors (CVRFs), including hypertension, diabetes, and smoking, are linked to a significantly increased risk for cognitive decline in midlife in a dose-dependent manner, new research shows. The findings suggest that the relationship between CVRFs and cognition becomes evident much earlier than previously realized. Investigators found that individuals who smoked were 65% more likely to have accelerated cognitive decline, those with hypertension were 87% more likely, and individuals with diabetes had nearly a 200% increased risk.

“What is new here is that almost no one has looked at cardiovascular risk factors in such a young age [mean, 50 years] and cognitive change in middle age from 50 to 55 or so. Almost all other studies have looked at mid- or late-life cardiovascular risk factors and late-life cognition or dementia,” said study investigator Kristine Yaffe, MD.

The research was published online July 15 in Neurology.
 

New insight

Previous research has shown a strong association between CVRFs and a greater risk for cognitive decline and dementia in late life, but the investigators note that data about the influence of CVRFs on cognition in midlife are “sparse.” Longitudinal studies have also shown that several cognitive domains – particularly processing speed and executive function – may start to decline in midlife, but whether CVRFs, many of which also emerge in midlife, contribute to these changes is unclear.

To assess the effect of CVRFs on cognitive changes in midlife, the investigators analyzed data from the ongoing Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults (CARDIA) study. CARDIA is a multicenter longitudinal study designed to measure risk factors for coronary artery disease in a large cohort of Black and White men and women.

The analysis was based on data from 2,675 participants who underwent CVRF assessment and cognitive testing at baseline and 5 years later. At baseline, participants’ mean age was 50.2 years. Approximately 57% of participants were women, 55% were White, and the mean number of years of education was 15. At study outset, 43% (n = 1,133) of participants were considered obese, 31% (n = 826) had hypertension, 15% (n = 701) were current smokers, 11% (n = 290) had diabetes, and 9% (n = 248) had high cholesterol.

Cognition was assessed using the Digit Symbol Substitution Test, which measures processing speed and executive function; the Stroop Test, which measures executive function; and the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test, which measures verbal memory.
 

Dose-dependent effect

Overall results showed that, for 5% of participants, cognitive decline was accelerated at 5 years. In unadjusted models, the odds of developing accelerated cognitive decline over 5 years was associated with hypertension (7.5% vs. 4.3%; odds ratio, 1.79, 95% confidence interval, 1.27-2.52), diabetes (10.3% vs. 4.7%; OR, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.53-3.56), and smoking (7.7% current smokers vs. 4.3% never smokers; OR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.21-2.90). After adjusting for age, sex, and race, the associations remained significant.

The researchers found no significant effect of high cholesterol (6.9% vs. 5.2%; OR, 1.35; 95% CI, 0.80-2.28) or obesity (6.1% vs. 4.8%; OR, 1.29; 95% CI, 0.92-1.82) on accelerated cognitive decline.

Compared with participants with no CVRFs, the likelihood of accelerated cognitive decline was higher for individuals with one or two risk factors (OR, 1.94; 95% CI, 1.16-3.25) and was higher still for those with three or more risk factors (OR, 3.51; 95% CI, 2.05-6.00).

The fact that there was no association between midlife cognitive decline and obesity or high cholesterol did not come as a surprise, said Dr. Yaffe. “Most studies have not shown a consistent finding with high cholesterol and later-life cognition, so it is not surprising we did not see one in midlife, when there is not as much cognitive change.”

The study’s results, said Dr. Yaffe, provide physicians with another good reason to help patients address CVRFs and to work with them to lower blood pressure, stop smoking, reduce diabetes incidence, or control diabetes.

Dr. Yaffe said she and her colleagues plan further research into CVRFs and accelerated cognitive decline. “We want to know if this earlier cognitive decline [in midlife] is connected to greater decline later in life. We also want to know if improving these risk factors in midlife might prevent or slow dementia later.”
 

More to explore

Commenting on the findings, Michelle M. Mielke, PhD, professor of epidemiology and neurology at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said one of the study’s main implications “is that the prevention and treatment of midlife hypertension and diabetes and smoking cessation directly impacts shorter-term changes in cognition.”

She added that the study also provides a foundation for answering further questions about the effects of CVRFs on cognition in midlife. For example, questions about sex differences remain unanswered. Men develop CVRFs earlier than women, but the investigators did not provide the prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors by sex.

“It was also not reported whether a specific midlife cardiovascular risk factor was more strongly associated with accelerated cognitive decline for women or for men,” she said. In addition, the mean age of the population at baseline is the approximate age of the onset of menopause, after which cardiovascular risk factors increase among women.

“Additional research is needed to understand the emergence of cardiovascular risk factors pre- versus post menopause on subsequent cognition and also consider the use of menopausal hormone therapy,” said Dr. Mielke.

“Another future research avenue is to further understand the impact of antihypertensive and diabetes medications,” she continued. “For example, in the current study, it was not clear how many [participants] with hypertension were treated versus untreated and whether this impacted subsequent cognition. Similarly, it is not known whether specific antihypertensives are more beneficial for cognition in midlife.”

CARDIA is supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; the University of Alabama at Birmingham; Northwestern University, Chicago; the University of Minnesota; and the Kaiser Foundation Research Institute. Dr. Yaffe serves on data safety monitoring boards for Eli Lilly and studies sponsored by the National Institute on Aging. She is a board member of Alector and is a member of the Beeson Scientific Advisory Board and the Global Council on Brain Health. Dr. Mielke has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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