MDedge Emergency Medicine

With New York nurse practitioners recently gaining full practice authority (FPA), half of the country’s NPs now have the ability to provide patients with easier access to care, according to leading national nurse organizations.

New York joins 24 other states, the District of Columbia, and two U.S. territories that have adopted FPA legislation, as reported by the American Association of Nurse Practitioners (AANP). Like other states, New York has been under an emergency order during the pandemic that allowed NPs to practice to their full authority because of staffing shortages. That order was extended multiple times and was expected to expire this month, AANP reports.

“This has been in the making for nurse practitioners in New York since 2014, trying to get full practice authority,” Michelle Jones, RN, MSN, ANP-C, director at large for the New York State Nurses Association, said in an interview.

NPs who were allowed to practice independently during the pandemic campaigned for that provision to become permanent once the emergency order expired, she said. Ms. Jones explained that the FPA law expands the scope of practice and “removes unnecessary barriers,” namely an agreement with doctors to oversee NPs’ actions.

FPA gives NPs the authority to evaluate patients; diagnose, order, and interpret diagnostic tests; and initiate and manage treatments – including prescribing medications – without oversight by a doctor or state medical board, according to AANP.

Before the pandemic, New York NPs had “reduced” practice authority with those who had more than 3,600 hours of experience required to maintain a collaborative practice agreement with doctors and those with less experience maintaining a written agreement. The change gives full practice authority to those with more than 3,600 hours of experience, Stephen A. Ferrara, DNP, FNP-BC, AANP regional director, said in an interview.

Ferrara, who practices in New York, said the state is the largest to change to FPA. He said the state and others that have moved to FPA have determined that there “has been no lapse in quality care” during the emergency order period and that the regulatory barriers kept NPs from providing access to care.

Jones said that the law also will allow NPs to open private practices and serve underserved patients in areas that lack access to health care. “This is a step to improve access to health care and health equity of the New York population.”

It’s been a while since another state passed FPA legislation, Massachusetts in January 2021 and Delaware in August 2021, according to AANP.

Earlier this month, AANP released new data showing a 9% increase in NPs licensed to practice in the United States, rising from 325,000 in May 2021 to 355,000.

The New York legislation “will help New York attract and retain nurse practitioners and provide New Yorkers better access to quality care,” AANP President April Kapu, DNP, APRN, said in a statement.

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

With New York nurse practitioners recently gaining full practice authority (FPA), half of the country’s NPs now have the ability to provide patients with easier access to care, according to leading national nurse organizations.

New York joins 24 other states, the District of Columbia, and two U.S. territories that have adopted FPA legislation, as reported by the American Association of Nurse Practitioners (AANP). Like other states, New York has been under an emergency order during the pandemic that allowed NPs to practice to their full authority because of staffing shortages. That order was extended multiple times and was expected to expire this month, AANP reports.

“This has been in the making for nurse practitioners in New York since 2014, trying to get full practice authority,” Michelle Jones, RN, MSN, ANP-C, director at large for the New York State Nurses Association, said in an interview.

NPs who were allowed to practice independently during the pandemic campaigned for that provision to become permanent once the emergency order expired, she said. Ms. Jones explained that the FPA law expands the scope of practice and “removes unnecessary barriers,” namely an agreement with doctors to oversee NPs’ actions.

FPA gives NPs the authority to evaluate patients; diagnose, order, and interpret diagnostic tests; and initiate and manage treatments – including prescribing medications – without oversight by a doctor or state medical board, according to AANP.

Before the pandemic, New York NPs had “reduced” practice authority with those who had more than 3,600 hours of experience required to maintain a collaborative practice agreement with doctors and those with less experience maintaining a written agreement. The change gives full practice authority to those with more than 3,600 hours of experience, Stephen A. Ferrara, DNP, FNP-BC, AANP regional director, said in an interview.

Ferrara, who practices in New York, said the state is the largest to change to FPA. He said the state and others that have moved to FPA have determined that there “has been no lapse in quality care” during the emergency order period and that the regulatory barriers kept NPs from providing access to care.

Jones said that the law also will allow NPs to open private practices and serve underserved patients in areas that lack access to health care. “This is a step to improve access to health care and health equity of the New York population.”

It’s been a while since another state passed FPA legislation, Massachusetts in January 2021 and Delaware in August 2021, according to AANP.

Earlier this month, AANP released new data showing a 9% increase in NPs licensed to practice in the United States, rising from 325,000 in May 2021 to 355,000.

The New York legislation “will help New York attract and retain nurse practitioners and provide New Yorkers better access to quality care,” AANP President April Kapu, DNP, APRN, said in a statement.

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

With New York nurse practitioners recently gaining full practice authority (FPA), half of the country’s NPs now have the ability to provide patients with easier access to care, according to leading national nurse organizations.

New York joins 24 other states, the District of Columbia, and two U.S. territories that have adopted FPA legislation, as reported by the American Association of Nurse Practitioners (AANP). Like other states, New York has been under an emergency order during the pandemic that allowed NPs to practice to their full authority because of staffing shortages. That order was extended multiple times and was expected to expire this month, AANP reports.

“This has been in the making for nurse practitioners in New York since 2014, trying to get full practice authority,” Michelle Jones, RN, MSN, ANP-C, director at large for the New York State Nurses Association, said in an interview.

NPs who were allowed to practice independently during the pandemic campaigned for that provision to become permanent once the emergency order expired, she said. Ms. Jones explained that the FPA law expands the scope of practice and “removes unnecessary barriers,” namely an agreement with doctors to oversee NPs’ actions.

FPA gives NPs the authority to evaluate patients; diagnose, order, and interpret diagnostic tests; and initiate and manage treatments – including prescribing medications – without oversight by a doctor or state medical board, according to AANP.

Before the pandemic, New York NPs had “reduced” practice authority with those who had more than 3,600 hours of experience required to maintain a collaborative practice agreement with doctors and those with less experience maintaining a written agreement. The change gives full practice authority to those with more than 3,600 hours of experience, Stephen A. Ferrara, DNP, FNP-BC, AANP regional director, said in an interview.

Ferrara, who practices in New York, said the state is the largest to change to FPA. He said the state and others that have moved to FPA have determined that there “has been no lapse in quality care” during the emergency order period and that the regulatory barriers kept NPs from providing access to care.

Jones said that the law also will allow NPs to open private practices and serve underserved patients in areas that lack access to health care. “This is a step to improve access to health care and health equity of the New York population.”

It’s been a while since another state passed FPA legislation, Massachusetts in January 2021 and Delaware in August 2021, according to AANP.

Earlier this month, AANP released new data showing a 9% increase in NPs licensed to practice in the United States, rising from 325,000 in May 2021 to 355,000.

The New York legislation “will help New York attract and retain nurse practitioners and provide New Yorkers better access to quality care,” AANP President April Kapu, DNP, APRN, said in a statement.

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

Klay Noto wants to be the kind of doctor he never had when he began to question his gender identity.

A second-year student at Tulane University in New Orleans, he wants to listen compassionately to patients’ concerns and recognize the hurt when they question who they are. He will be the kind of doctor who knows that a breast exam can be traumatizing if someone has been breast binding or that instructing a patient to take everything off and put on a gown can be triggering for someone with gender dysphoria.

Being in the room for hard conversations is part of why he pursued med school. “There aren’t many LGBT people in medicine and as I started to understand all the dynamics that go into it, I started to see that I could do it and I could be that different kind of doctor,” he told this news organization.

Mr. Noto, who transitioned after college, wants to see more transgender people like himself teaching gender medicine, and for all medical students to be trained in what it means to be transgender and how to give compassionate and comprehensive care to all patients.

Gains have been made in providing curriculum in transgender care that trains medical students in such concepts as how to approach gender identity with sensitivity and how to manage hormone therapy and surgery for transitioning patients who request that, according to those interviewed for this story.

But they agree there’s a long way to go to having widespread medical school integration of the health care needs of about 1.4 million transgender people in the United States.

According to the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) Curriculum Inventory data collected from 131 U.S. medical schools, more than 65% offered some form of transgender-related education in 2018, and more than 80% of those provided such curriculum in required courses.
 

Lack of transgender, nonbinary faculty

Jason Klein, MD, is a pediatric endocrinologist and medical director of the Transgender Youth Health Program at New York (N.Y.) University.

He said in an interview that the number of programs nationally that have gender medicine as a structured part of their curriculum has increased over the last 5-10 years, but that education is not standardized from program to program.

The program at NYU includes lecture-style learning, case presentations, real-world conversations with people in the community, group discussions, and patient care, Dr. Klein said. There are formal lectures as part of adolescent medicine where students learn the differences between gender and sexual identity, and education on medical treatment of transgender and nonbinary adolescents, starting with puberty blockers and moving into affirming hormones.

Doctors also learn to know their limits and decide when to refer patients to a specialist.

“The focus is really about empathic and supportive care,” said Dr. Klein, assistant professor in the department of pediatrics at Hassenfeld Children’s Hospital at NYU Langone Health. “It’s about communication and understanding and the language we use and how to deliver affirming care in a health care setting in general.”

Imagine the potential stressors, he said, of a transgender person entering a typical health care setting. The electronic health record may only have room for the legal name of a person and not the name a person may currently be using. The intake form typically asks patients to check either male or female. The bathrooms give the same two choices. 

“Every physician should know how to speak with, treat, emote with, and empathize with care for the trans and nonbinary individual,” Dr. Klein said.

Dr. Klein noted there is a glaring shortage of trans and nonbinary physicians to lead efforts to expand education on integrating the medical, psychological, and psychosocial care that patients will receive.

Currently, gender medicine is not included on board exams for adolescent medicine or endocrinology, he said.

“Adding formal training in gender medicine to board exams would really help solidify the importance of this arena of medicine,” he noted.
 

First AAMC standards

In 2014, the AAMC released the first standards to guide curricula across medical school and residency to support training doctors to be competent in caring for transgender patients.

The standards include recommending that all doctors be able to communicate with patients related to their gender identity and understand how to deliver high-quality care to transgender and gender-diverse patients within their specialty, Kristen L. Eckstrand, MD, a coauthor of the guidelines, told this news organization.

“Many medical schools have developed their own curricula to meet these standards,” said Dr. Eckstrand, medical director for LGBTQIA+ Health at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center.

Norma Poll-Hunter, PhD, AAMC’s senior director for workforce diversity, noted that the organization recently released its diversity, equity, and inclusion competencies that guide the medical education of students, residents, and faculty.

Dr. Poll-Hunter told this news organization that AAMC partners with the Building the Next Generation of Academic Physicians LGBT Health Workforce Conference “to support safe spaces for scholarly efforts and mentorship to advance this area of work.”
 

Team approach at Rutgers

Among the medical schools that incorporate comprehensive transgender care into the curriculum is Rutgers University’s Robert Wood Johnson Medical School in New Brunswick, N.J.

Gloria Bachmann, MD, is professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the school and medical director of its partner, the PROUD Gender Center of New Jersey. PROUD stands for “Promoting Respect, Outreach, Understanding, and Dignity,” and the center provides comprehensive care for transgender and nonbinary patients in one location.

Courtesy Rutgers University

Dr. Bachmann said Rutgers takes a team approach with both instructors and learners teaching medical students about transgender care. The teachers are not only professors in traditional classroom lectures, but patient navigators and nurses at the PROUD center, established as part of the medical school in 2020. Students learn from the navigators, for instance, how to help patients through the spectrum of inpatient and outpatient care.

“All of our learners do get to care for individuals who identify as transgender,” said Dr. Bachmann.

Among the improvements in educating students on transgender care over the years, she said, is the emphasis on social determinants of health. In the transgender population, initial questions may include whether the person is able to access care through insurance as laws vary widely on what care and procedures are covered.

As another example, Dr. Bachmann cites: “If they are seen on an emergency basis and are sent home with medication and follow-up, can they afford it?”

Another consideration is whether there is a home to which they can return.

“Many individuals who are transgender may not have a home. Their family may not be accepting of them. Therefore, it’s the social determinants of health as well as their transgender identity that have to be put into the equation of best care,” she said.
 

Giving back to the trans community

Mr. Noto doesn’t know whether he will specialize in gender medicine, but he is committed to serving the transgender community in whatever physician path he chooses.

He said he realizes he is fortunate to have strong family support and good insurance and that he can afford fees, such as the copay to see transgender care specialists. Many in the community do not have those resources and are likely to get care “only if they have to.”

At Tulane, training in transgender care starts during orientation week and continues on different levels, with different options, throughout medical school and residency, he added.

Mr. Noto said he would like to see more mandatory learning such as a “queer-centered exam, where you have to give an organ inventory and you have to ask patients if it’s OK to talk about X, Y, and Z.” He’d also like more opportunities for clinical interaction with transgender patients, such as queer-centered rotations.

When physicians aren’t well trained in transgender care, you have patients educating the doctors, which, Mr. Noto said, should not be acceptable.

“People come to you on their worst day. And to not be informed about them in my mind is negligent. In what other population can you choose not to learn about someone just because you don’t want to?” he said.

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

Klay Noto wants to be the kind of doctor he never had when he began to question his gender identity.

A second-year student at Tulane University in New Orleans, he wants to listen compassionately to patients’ concerns and recognize the hurt when they question who they are. He will be the kind of doctor who knows that a breast exam can be traumatizing if someone has been breast binding or that instructing a patient to take everything off and put on a gown can be triggering for someone with gender dysphoria.

Being in the room for hard conversations is part of why he pursued med school. “There aren’t many LGBT people in medicine and as I started to understand all the dynamics that go into it, I started to see that I could do it and I could be that different kind of doctor,” he told this news organization.

Mr. Noto, who transitioned after college, wants to see more transgender people like himself teaching gender medicine, and for all medical students to be trained in what it means to be transgender and how to give compassionate and comprehensive care to all patients.

Gains have been made in providing curriculum in transgender care that trains medical students in such concepts as how to approach gender identity with sensitivity and how to manage hormone therapy and surgery for transitioning patients who request that, according to those interviewed for this story.

But they agree there’s a long way to go to having widespread medical school integration of the health care needs of about 1.4 million transgender people in the United States.

According to the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) Curriculum Inventory data collected from 131 U.S. medical schools, more than 65% offered some form of transgender-related education in 2018, and more than 80% of those provided such curriculum in required courses.
 

Lack of transgender, nonbinary faculty

Jason Klein, MD, is a pediatric endocrinologist and medical director of the Transgender Youth Health Program at New York (N.Y.) University.

He said in an interview that the number of programs nationally that have gender medicine as a structured part of their curriculum has increased over the last 5-10 years, but that education is not standardized from program to program.

The program at NYU includes lecture-style learning, case presentations, real-world conversations with people in the community, group discussions, and patient care, Dr. Klein said. There are formal lectures as part of adolescent medicine where students learn the differences between gender and sexual identity, and education on medical treatment of transgender and nonbinary adolescents, starting with puberty blockers and moving into affirming hormones.

Doctors also learn to know their limits and decide when to refer patients to a specialist.

“The focus is really about empathic and supportive care,” said Dr. Klein, assistant professor in the department of pediatrics at Hassenfeld Children’s Hospital at NYU Langone Health. “It’s about communication and understanding and the language we use and how to deliver affirming care in a health care setting in general.”

Imagine the potential stressors, he said, of a transgender person entering a typical health care setting. The electronic health record may only have room for the legal name of a person and not the name a person may currently be using. The intake form typically asks patients to check either male or female. The bathrooms give the same two choices. 

“Every physician should know how to speak with, treat, emote with, and empathize with care for the trans and nonbinary individual,” Dr. Klein said.

Dr. Klein noted there is a glaring shortage of trans and nonbinary physicians to lead efforts to expand education on integrating the medical, psychological, and psychosocial care that patients will receive.

Currently, gender medicine is not included on board exams for adolescent medicine or endocrinology, he said.

“Adding formal training in gender medicine to board exams would really help solidify the importance of this arena of medicine,” he noted.
 

First AAMC standards

In 2014, the AAMC released the first standards to guide curricula across medical school and residency to support training doctors to be competent in caring for transgender patients.

The standards include recommending that all doctors be able to communicate with patients related to their gender identity and understand how to deliver high-quality care to transgender and gender-diverse patients within their specialty, Kristen L. Eckstrand, MD, a coauthor of the guidelines, told this news organization.

“Many medical schools have developed their own curricula to meet these standards,” said Dr. Eckstrand, medical director for LGBTQIA+ Health at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center.

Norma Poll-Hunter, PhD, AAMC’s senior director for workforce diversity, noted that the organization recently released its diversity, equity, and inclusion competencies that guide the medical education of students, residents, and faculty.

Dr. Poll-Hunter told this news organization that AAMC partners with the Building the Next Generation of Academic Physicians LGBT Health Workforce Conference “to support safe spaces for scholarly efforts and mentorship to advance this area of work.”
 

Team approach at Rutgers

Among the medical schools that incorporate comprehensive transgender care into the curriculum is Rutgers University’s Robert Wood Johnson Medical School in New Brunswick, N.J.

Gloria Bachmann, MD, is professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the school and medical director of its partner, the PROUD Gender Center of New Jersey. PROUD stands for “Promoting Respect, Outreach, Understanding, and Dignity,” and the center provides comprehensive care for transgender and nonbinary patients in one location.

Courtesy Rutgers University

Dr. Bachmann said Rutgers takes a team approach with both instructors and learners teaching medical students about transgender care. The teachers are not only professors in traditional classroom lectures, but patient navigators and nurses at the PROUD center, established as part of the medical school in 2020. Students learn from the navigators, for instance, how to help patients through the spectrum of inpatient and outpatient care.

“All of our learners do get to care for individuals who identify as transgender,” said Dr. Bachmann.

Among the improvements in educating students on transgender care over the years, she said, is the emphasis on social determinants of health. In the transgender population, initial questions may include whether the person is able to access care through insurance as laws vary widely on what care and procedures are covered.

As another example, Dr. Bachmann cites: “If they are seen on an emergency basis and are sent home with medication and follow-up, can they afford it?”

Another consideration is whether there is a home to which they can return.

“Many individuals who are transgender may not have a home. Their family may not be accepting of them. Therefore, it’s the social determinants of health as well as their transgender identity that have to be put into the equation of best care,” she said.
 

Giving back to the trans community

Mr. Noto doesn’t know whether he will specialize in gender medicine, but he is committed to serving the transgender community in whatever physician path he chooses.

He said he realizes he is fortunate to have strong family support and good insurance and that he can afford fees, such as the copay to see transgender care specialists. Many in the community do not have those resources and are likely to get care “only if they have to.”

At Tulane, training in transgender care starts during orientation week and continues on different levels, with different options, throughout medical school and residency, he added.

Mr. Noto said he would like to see more mandatory learning such as a “queer-centered exam, where you have to give an organ inventory and you have to ask patients if it’s OK to talk about X, Y, and Z.” He’d also like more opportunities for clinical interaction with transgender patients, such as queer-centered rotations.

When physicians aren’t well trained in transgender care, you have patients educating the doctors, which, Mr. Noto said, should not be acceptable.

“People come to you on their worst day. And to not be informed about them in my mind is negligent. In what other population can you choose not to learn about someone just because you don’t want to?” he said.

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

Klay Noto wants to be the kind of doctor he never had when he began to question his gender identity.

A second-year student at Tulane University in New Orleans, he wants to listen compassionately to patients’ concerns and recognize the hurt when they question who they are. He will be the kind of doctor who knows that a breast exam can be traumatizing if someone has been breast binding or that instructing a patient to take everything off and put on a gown can be triggering for someone with gender dysphoria.

Being in the room for hard conversations is part of why he pursued med school. “There aren’t many LGBT people in medicine and as I started to understand all the dynamics that go into it, I started to see that I could do it and I could be that different kind of doctor,” he told this news organization.

Mr. Noto, who transitioned after college, wants to see more transgender people like himself teaching gender medicine, and for all medical students to be trained in what it means to be transgender and how to give compassionate and comprehensive care to all patients.

Gains have been made in providing curriculum in transgender care that trains medical students in such concepts as how to approach gender identity with sensitivity and how to manage hormone therapy and surgery for transitioning patients who request that, according to those interviewed for this story.

But they agree there’s a long way to go to having widespread medical school integration of the health care needs of about 1.4 million transgender people in the United States.

According to the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) Curriculum Inventory data collected from 131 U.S. medical schools, more than 65% offered some form of transgender-related education in 2018, and more than 80% of those provided such curriculum in required courses.
 

Lack of transgender, nonbinary faculty

Jason Klein, MD, is a pediatric endocrinologist and medical director of the Transgender Youth Health Program at New York (N.Y.) University.

He said in an interview that the number of programs nationally that have gender medicine as a structured part of their curriculum has increased over the last 5-10 years, but that education is not standardized from program to program.

The program at NYU includes lecture-style learning, case presentations, real-world conversations with people in the community, group discussions, and patient care, Dr. Klein said. There are formal lectures as part of adolescent medicine where students learn the differences between gender and sexual identity, and education on medical treatment of transgender and nonbinary adolescents, starting with puberty blockers and moving into affirming hormones.

Doctors also learn to know their limits and decide when to refer patients to a specialist.

“The focus is really about empathic and supportive care,” said Dr. Klein, assistant professor in the department of pediatrics at Hassenfeld Children’s Hospital at NYU Langone Health. “It’s about communication and understanding and the language we use and how to deliver affirming care in a health care setting in general.”

Imagine the potential stressors, he said, of a transgender person entering a typical health care setting. The electronic health record may only have room for the legal name of a person and not the name a person may currently be using. The intake form typically asks patients to check either male or female. The bathrooms give the same two choices. 

“Every physician should know how to speak with, treat, emote with, and empathize with care for the trans and nonbinary individual,” Dr. Klein said.

Dr. Klein noted there is a glaring shortage of trans and nonbinary physicians to lead efforts to expand education on integrating the medical, psychological, and psychosocial care that patients will receive.

Currently, gender medicine is not included on board exams for adolescent medicine or endocrinology, he said.

“Adding formal training in gender medicine to board exams would really help solidify the importance of this arena of medicine,” he noted.
 

First AAMC standards

In 2014, the AAMC released the first standards to guide curricula across medical school and residency to support training doctors to be competent in caring for transgender patients.

The standards include recommending that all doctors be able to communicate with patients related to their gender identity and understand how to deliver high-quality care to transgender and gender-diverse patients within their specialty, Kristen L. Eckstrand, MD, a coauthor of the guidelines, told this news organization.

“Many medical schools have developed their own curricula to meet these standards,” said Dr. Eckstrand, medical director for LGBTQIA+ Health at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center.

Norma Poll-Hunter, PhD, AAMC’s senior director for workforce diversity, noted that the organization recently released its diversity, equity, and inclusion competencies that guide the medical education of students, residents, and faculty.

Dr. Poll-Hunter told this news organization that AAMC partners with the Building the Next Generation of Academic Physicians LGBT Health Workforce Conference “to support safe spaces for scholarly efforts and mentorship to advance this area of work.”
 

Team approach at Rutgers

Among the medical schools that incorporate comprehensive transgender care into the curriculum is Rutgers University’s Robert Wood Johnson Medical School in New Brunswick, N.J.

Gloria Bachmann, MD, is professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the school and medical director of its partner, the PROUD Gender Center of New Jersey. PROUD stands for “Promoting Respect, Outreach, Understanding, and Dignity,” and the center provides comprehensive care for transgender and nonbinary patients in one location.

Courtesy Rutgers University

Dr. Bachmann said Rutgers takes a team approach with both instructors and learners teaching medical students about transgender care. The teachers are not only professors in traditional classroom lectures, but patient navigators and nurses at the PROUD center, established as part of the medical school in 2020. Students learn from the navigators, for instance, how to help patients through the spectrum of inpatient and outpatient care.

“All of our learners do get to care for individuals who identify as transgender,” said Dr. Bachmann.

Among the improvements in educating students on transgender care over the years, she said, is the emphasis on social determinants of health. In the transgender population, initial questions may include whether the person is able to access care through insurance as laws vary widely on what care and procedures are covered.

As another example, Dr. Bachmann cites: “If they are seen on an emergency basis and are sent home with medication and follow-up, can they afford it?”

Another consideration is whether there is a home to which they can return.

“Many individuals who are transgender may not have a home. Their family may not be accepting of them. Therefore, it’s the social determinants of health as well as their transgender identity that have to be put into the equation of best care,” she said.
 

Giving back to the trans community

Mr. Noto doesn’t know whether he will specialize in gender medicine, but he is committed to serving the transgender community in whatever physician path he chooses.

He said he realizes he is fortunate to have strong family support and good insurance and that he can afford fees, such as the copay to see transgender care specialists. Many in the community do not have those resources and are likely to get care “only if they have to.”

At Tulane, training in transgender care starts during orientation week and continues on different levels, with different options, throughout medical school and residency, he added.

Mr. Noto said he would like to see more mandatory learning such as a “queer-centered exam, where you have to give an organ inventory and you have to ask patients if it’s OK to talk about X, Y, and Z.” He’d also like more opportunities for clinical interaction with transgender patients, such as queer-centered rotations.

When physicians aren’t well trained in transgender care, you have patients educating the doctors, which, Mr. Noto said, should not be acceptable.

“People come to you on their worst day. And to not be informed about them in my mind is negligent. In what other population can you choose not to learn about someone just because you don’t want to?” he said.

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

A network meta-analysis of 42 clinical trials concludes that rosuvastatin, simvastatin, and atorvastatin are the statins most effective at lowering non-high-density-lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C) in people with diabetes and at risk for cardiovascular disease.

The analysis focused on the efficacy of statin treatment on reducing non-HDL-C, as opposed to reducing low-density-lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), which has traditionally been used as a surrogate to determine cardiovascular disease risk from hypercholesterolemia.

“The National Cholesterol Education Program in the United States recommends that LDL-C values should be used to estimate the risk of cardiovascular disease related to lipoproteins,” lead author Alexander Hodkinson, MD, senior National Institute for Health Research fellow, University of Manchester, England, told this news organization.

“But we believe that non-high-density-lipoprotein cholesterol is more strongly associated with the risk of cardiovascular disease, because non-HDL-C combines all the bad types of cholesterol, which LDL-C misses, so it could be a better tool than LDL-C for assessing CVD risk and effects of treatment. We already knew which of the statins reduce LDL-C, but we wanted to know which ones reduced non-HDL-C; hence the reason for our study,” Dr. Hodkinson said.

The findings were published online  in BMJ.

In April 2021, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in the United Kingdom updated guidelines for adults with diabetes to recommend that non-HDL-C should replace LDL-C as the primary target for reducing the risk for cardiovascular disease with lipid-lowering treatment.

Currently, NICE is alone in its recommendation. Other international guidelines do not have a non-HDL-C target and use LDL-C reduction instead. These include guidelines from the European Society of Cardiology (ESC), the American College of Cardiology (ACC), the American Heart Association (AHA), and the National Lipid Association.

Non–HDL-C is simple to calculate and can easily be done by clinicians by subtracting HDL-C from the total cholesterol level, he added.

This analysis compared the effectiveness of different statins at different intensities in reducing levels of non-HDL-C in 42 randomized controlled trials that included 20,193 adults with diabetes.

Compared with placebo, rosuvastatin, given at moderate- and high-intensity doses, and simvastatin and atorvastatin at high-intensity doses, were the best at lowering levels of non-HDL-C over an average treatment period of 12 weeks.

High-intensity rosuvastatin led to a 2.31 mmol/L reduction in non-HDL-C (95% credible interval, –3.39 to –1.21). Moderate-intensity rosuvastatin led to a 2.27 mmol/L reduction in non-HDL-C (95% credible interval, –3.00 to –1.49).

High-intensity simvastatin led to a 2.26 mmol/L reduction in non-HDL-C (95% credible interval, –2.99 to –1.51).

High-intensity atorvastatin led to a 2.20 mmol/L reduction in non-HDL-C (95% credible interval, –2.69 to –1.70).

Atorvastatin and simvastatin at any intensity and pravastatin at low intensity were also effective in reducing levels of non-HDL-C, the researchers noted.

In 4,670 patients who were at great risk for a major cardiovascular event, atorvastatin at high intensity showed the largest reduction in levels of non-HDL-C (1.98 mmol/L; 95% credible interval, –4.16 to 0.26).

In addition, high-intensity simvastatin and rosuvastatin were the most effective in reducing LDL-C.

High-intensity simvastatin led to a 1.93 mmol/L reduction in LDL-C (95% credible interval, –2.63 to –1.21), and high-intensity rosuvastatin led to a 1.76 mmol/L reduction in LDL-C (95% credible interval, –2.37 to –1.15).

In four studies, significant reductions in nonfatal myocardial infarction were shown for atorvastatin at moderate intensity, compared with placebo (relative risk, 0.57; 95% confidence interval, 0.43-.76). No significant differences were seen for discontinuations, nonfatal stroke, or cardiovascular death.

“We hope our findings will help guide clinicians on statin selection itself, and what types of doses they should be giving patients. These results support using NICE’s new policy guidelines on cholesterol monitoring, using this non-HDL-C measure, which contains all the bad types of cholesterol for patients with diabetes,” Dr. Hodkinson said.

“This study further emphasizes what we have known about the benefit of statin therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes,” Prakash Deedwania, MD, professor of medicine, University of California, San Francisco, told this news organization.

Dr. Deedwania and others have published data on patients with diabetes that showed that treatment with high-intensity atorvastatin was associated with significant reductions in major adverse cardiovascular events.

“Here they use non-HDL cholesterol as a target. The NICE guidelines are the only guidelines looking at non-HDL cholesterol; however, all guidelines suggest an LDL to be less than 70 in all people with diabetes, and for those with recent acute coronary syndromes, the latest evidence suggests the LDL should actually be less than 50,” said Dr. Deedwania, spokesperson for the AHA and ACC.

As far as which measure to use, he believes both are useful. “It’s six of one and half a dozen of the other, in my opinion. The societies have not recommended non-HDL cholesterol and it’s easier to stay with what is readily available for clinicians, and using LDL cholesterol is still okay. The results of this analysis are confirmatory, in that looking at non-HDL cholesterol gives results very similar to what these statins have shown for their effect on LDL cholesterol,” he said.
 

Non-HDL cholesterol a better marker?

For Robert Rosenson, MD, director of metabolism and lipids at Mount Sinai Health System and professor of medicine and cardiology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, non-HDL cholesterol is becoming an important marker of risk for several reasons.

“The focus on LDL cholesterol has been due to the causal relationship of LDL with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, but in the last few decades, non-HDL has emerged because more people are overweight, have insulin resistance, and have diabetes,” Dr. Rosenson told this news organization. “In those situations, the LDL cholesterol underrepresents the risk of the LDL particles. With insulin resistance, the particles become more triglycerides and less cholesterol, so on a per-particle basis, you need to get more LDL particles to get to a certain LDL cholesterol concentration.”

Non-HDL cholesterol testing does not require fasting, another advantage of using it to monitor cholesterol, he added.

What is often forgotten is that moderate- to high-intensity statins have very good triglyceride-lowering effects, Dr. Rosenson said.

“This article highlights that, by using higher doses, you get more triglyceride-lowering. Hopefully, this will get practitioners to recognize that non-HDL cholesterol is a better predictor of risk in people with diabetes,” he said.

The study was funded by the National Institute for Health Research. Dr. Hodkinson, Dr. Rosenson, and Dr. Deedwania report no relevant financial relationships.

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

A network meta-analysis of 42 clinical trials concludes that rosuvastatin, simvastatin, and atorvastatin are the statins most effective at lowering non-high-density-lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C) in people with diabetes and at risk for cardiovascular disease.

The analysis focused on the efficacy of statin treatment on reducing non-HDL-C, as opposed to reducing low-density-lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), which has traditionally been used as a surrogate to determine cardiovascular disease risk from hypercholesterolemia.

“The National Cholesterol Education Program in the United States recommends that LDL-C values should be used to estimate the risk of cardiovascular disease related to lipoproteins,” lead author Alexander Hodkinson, MD, senior National Institute for Health Research fellow, University of Manchester, England, told this news organization.

“But we believe that non-high-density-lipoprotein cholesterol is more strongly associated with the risk of cardiovascular disease, because non-HDL-C combines all the bad types of cholesterol, which LDL-C misses, so it could be a better tool than LDL-C for assessing CVD risk and effects of treatment. We already knew which of the statins reduce LDL-C, but we wanted to know which ones reduced non-HDL-C; hence the reason for our study,” Dr. Hodkinson said.

The findings were published online  in BMJ.

In April 2021, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in the United Kingdom updated guidelines for adults with diabetes to recommend that non-HDL-C should replace LDL-C as the primary target for reducing the risk for cardiovascular disease with lipid-lowering treatment.

Currently, NICE is alone in its recommendation. Other international guidelines do not have a non-HDL-C target and use LDL-C reduction instead. These include guidelines from the European Society of Cardiology (ESC), the American College of Cardiology (ACC), the American Heart Association (AHA), and the National Lipid Association.

Non–HDL-C is simple to calculate and can easily be done by clinicians by subtracting HDL-C from the total cholesterol level, he added.

This analysis compared the effectiveness of different statins at different intensities in reducing levels of non-HDL-C in 42 randomized controlled trials that included 20,193 adults with diabetes.

Compared with placebo, rosuvastatin, given at moderate- and high-intensity doses, and simvastatin and atorvastatin at high-intensity doses, were the best at lowering levels of non-HDL-C over an average treatment period of 12 weeks.

High-intensity rosuvastatin led to a 2.31 mmol/L reduction in non-HDL-C (95% credible interval, –3.39 to –1.21). Moderate-intensity rosuvastatin led to a 2.27 mmol/L reduction in non-HDL-C (95% credible interval, –3.00 to –1.49).

High-intensity simvastatin led to a 2.26 mmol/L reduction in non-HDL-C (95% credible interval, –2.99 to –1.51).

High-intensity atorvastatin led to a 2.20 mmol/L reduction in non-HDL-C (95% credible interval, –2.69 to –1.70).

Atorvastatin and simvastatin at any intensity and pravastatin at low intensity were also effective in reducing levels of non-HDL-C, the researchers noted.

In 4,670 patients who were at great risk for a major cardiovascular event, atorvastatin at high intensity showed the largest reduction in levels of non-HDL-C (1.98 mmol/L; 95% credible interval, –4.16 to 0.26).

In addition, high-intensity simvastatin and rosuvastatin were the most effective in reducing LDL-C.

High-intensity simvastatin led to a 1.93 mmol/L reduction in LDL-C (95% credible interval, –2.63 to –1.21), and high-intensity rosuvastatin led to a 1.76 mmol/L reduction in LDL-C (95% credible interval, –2.37 to –1.15).

In four studies, significant reductions in nonfatal myocardial infarction were shown for atorvastatin at moderate intensity, compared with placebo (relative risk, 0.57; 95% confidence interval, 0.43-.76). No significant differences were seen for discontinuations, nonfatal stroke, or cardiovascular death.

“We hope our findings will help guide clinicians on statin selection itself, and what types of doses they should be giving patients. These results support using NICE’s new policy guidelines on cholesterol monitoring, using this non-HDL-C measure, which contains all the bad types of cholesterol for patients with diabetes,” Dr. Hodkinson said.

“This study further emphasizes what we have known about the benefit of statin therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes,” Prakash Deedwania, MD, professor of medicine, University of California, San Francisco, told this news organization.

Dr. Deedwania and others have published data on patients with diabetes that showed that treatment with high-intensity atorvastatin was associated with significant reductions in major adverse cardiovascular events.

“Here they use non-HDL cholesterol as a target. The NICE guidelines are the only guidelines looking at non-HDL cholesterol; however, all guidelines suggest an LDL to be less than 70 in all people with diabetes, and for those with recent acute coronary syndromes, the latest evidence suggests the LDL should actually be less than 50,” said Dr. Deedwania, spokesperson for the AHA and ACC.

As far as which measure to use, he believes both are useful. “It’s six of one and half a dozen of the other, in my opinion. The societies have not recommended non-HDL cholesterol and it’s easier to stay with what is readily available for clinicians, and using LDL cholesterol is still okay. The results of this analysis are confirmatory, in that looking at non-HDL cholesterol gives results very similar to what these statins have shown for their effect on LDL cholesterol,” he said.
 

Non-HDL cholesterol a better marker?

For Robert Rosenson, MD, director of metabolism and lipids at Mount Sinai Health System and professor of medicine and cardiology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, non-HDL cholesterol is becoming an important marker of risk for several reasons.

“The focus on LDL cholesterol has been due to the causal relationship of LDL with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, but in the last few decades, non-HDL has emerged because more people are overweight, have insulin resistance, and have diabetes,” Dr. Rosenson told this news organization. “In those situations, the LDL cholesterol underrepresents the risk of the LDL particles. With insulin resistance, the particles become more triglycerides and less cholesterol, so on a per-particle basis, you need to get more LDL particles to get to a certain LDL cholesterol concentration.”

Non-HDL cholesterol testing does not require fasting, another advantage of using it to monitor cholesterol, he added.

What is often forgotten is that moderate- to high-intensity statins have very good triglyceride-lowering effects, Dr. Rosenson said.

“This article highlights that, by using higher doses, you get more triglyceride-lowering. Hopefully, this will get practitioners to recognize that non-HDL cholesterol is a better predictor of risk in people with diabetes,” he said.

The study was funded by the National Institute for Health Research. Dr. Hodkinson, Dr. Rosenson, and Dr. Deedwania report no relevant financial relationships.

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

A network meta-analysis of 42 clinical trials concludes that rosuvastatin, simvastatin, and atorvastatin are the statins most effective at lowering non-high-density-lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C) in people with diabetes and at risk for cardiovascular disease.

The analysis focused on the efficacy of statin treatment on reducing non-HDL-C, as opposed to reducing low-density-lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), which has traditionally been used as a surrogate to determine cardiovascular disease risk from hypercholesterolemia.

“The National Cholesterol Education Program in the United States recommends that LDL-C values should be used to estimate the risk of cardiovascular disease related to lipoproteins,” lead author Alexander Hodkinson, MD, senior National Institute for Health Research fellow, University of Manchester, England, told this news organization.

“But we believe that non-high-density-lipoprotein cholesterol is more strongly associated with the risk of cardiovascular disease, because non-HDL-C combines all the bad types of cholesterol, which LDL-C misses, so it could be a better tool than LDL-C for assessing CVD risk and effects of treatment. We already knew which of the statins reduce LDL-C, but we wanted to know which ones reduced non-HDL-C; hence the reason for our study,” Dr. Hodkinson said.

The findings were published online  in BMJ.

In April 2021, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in the United Kingdom updated guidelines for adults with diabetes to recommend that non-HDL-C should replace LDL-C as the primary target for reducing the risk for cardiovascular disease with lipid-lowering treatment.

Currently, NICE is alone in its recommendation. Other international guidelines do not have a non-HDL-C target and use LDL-C reduction instead. These include guidelines from the European Society of Cardiology (ESC), the American College of Cardiology (ACC), the American Heart Association (AHA), and the National Lipid Association.

Non–HDL-C is simple to calculate and can easily be done by clinicians by subtracting HDL-C from the total cholesterol level, he added.

This analysis compared the effectiveness of different statins at different intensities in reducing levels of non-HDL-C in 42 randomized controlled trials that included 20,193 adults with diabetes.

Compared with placebo, rosuvastatin, given at moderate- and high-intensity doses, and simvastatin and atorvastatin at high-intensity doses, were the best at lowering levels of non-HDL-C over an average treatment period of 12 weeks.

High-intensity rosuvastatin led to a 2.31 mmol/L reduction in non-HDL-C (95% credible interval, –3.39 to –1.21). Moderate-intensity rosuvastatin led to a 2.27 mmol/L reduction in non-HDL-C (95% credible interval, –3.00 to –1.49).

High-intensity simvastatin led to a 2.26 mmol/L reduction in non-HDL-C (95% credible interval, –2.99 to –1.51).

High-intensity atorvastatin led to a 2.20 mmol/L reduction in non-HDL-C (95% credible interval, –2.69 to –1.70).

Atorvastatin and simvastatin at any intensity and pravastatin at low intensity were also effective in reducing levels of non-HDL-C, the researchers noted.

In 4,670 patients who were at great risk for a major cardiovascular event, atorvastatin at high intensity showed the largest reduction in levels of non-HDL-C (1.98 mmol/L; 95% credible interval, –4.16 to 0.26).

In addition, high-intensity simvastatin and rosuvastatin were the most effective in reducing LDL-C.

High-intensity simvastatin led to a 1.93 mmol/L reduction in LDL-C (95% credible interval, –2.63 to –1.21), and high-intensity rosuvastatin led to a 1.76 mmol/L reduction in LDL-C (95% credible interval, –2.37 to –1.15).

In four studies, significant reductions in nonfatal myocardial infarction were shown for atorvastatin at moderate intensity, compared with placebo (relative risk, 0.57; 95% confidence interval, 0.43-.76). No significant differences were seen for discontinuations, nonfatal stroke, or cardiovascular death.

“We hope our findings will help guide clinicians on statin selection itself, and what types of doses they should be giving patients. These results support using NICE’s new policy guidelines on cholesterol monitoring, using this non-HDL-C measure, which contains all the bad types of cholesterol for patients with diabetes,” Dr. Hodkinson said.

“This study further emphasizes what we have known about the benefit of statin therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes,” Prakash Deedwania, MD, professor of medicine, University of California, San Francisco, told this news organization.

Dr. Deedwania and others have published data on patients with diabetes that showed that treatment with high-intensity atorvastatin was associated with significant reductions in major adverse cardiovascular events.

“Here they use non-HDL cholesterol as a target. The NICE guidelines are the only guidelines looking at non-HDL cholesterol; however, all guidelines suggest an LDL to be less than 70 in all people with diabetes, and for those with recent acute coronary syndromes, the latest evidence suggests the LDL should actually be less than 50,” said Dr. Deedwania, spokesperson for the AHA and ACC.

As far as which measure to use, he believes both are useful. “It’s six of one and half a dozen of the other, in my opinion. The societies have not recommended non-HDL cholesterol and it’s easier to stay with what is readily available for clinicians, and using LDL cholesterol is still okay. The results of this analysis are confirmatory, in that looking at non-HDL cholesterol gives results very similar to what these statins have shown for their effect on LDL cholesterol,” he said.
 

Non-HDL cholesterol a better marker?

For Robert Rosenson, MD, director of metabolism and lipids at Mount Sinai Health System and professor of medicine and cardiology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, non-HDL cholesterol is becoming an important marker of risk for several reasons.

“The focus on LDL cholesterol has been due to the causal relationship of LDL with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, but in the last few decades, non-HDL has emerged because more people are overweight, have insulin resistance, and have diabetes,” Dr. Rosenson told this news organization. “In those situations, the LDL cholesterol underrepresents the risk of the LDL particles. With insulin resistance, the particles become more triglycerides and less cholesterol, so on a per-particle basis, you need to get more LDL particles to get to a certain LDL cholesterol concentration.”

Non-HDL cholesterol testing does not require fasting, another advantage of using it to monitor cholesterol, he added.

What is often forgotten is that moderate- to high-intensity statins have very good triglyceride-lowering effects, Dr. Rosenson said.

“This article highlights that, by using higher doses, you get more triglyceride-lowering. Hopefully, this will get practitioners to recognize that non-HDL cholesterol is a better predictor of risk in people with diabetes,” he said.

The study was funded by the National Institute for Health Research. Dr. Hodkinson, Dr. Rosenson, and Dr. Deedwania report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Long-term cannabis use is linked to hippocampal atrophy and poorer cognitive function in midlife – known risk factors for dementia.

A large prospective, longitudinal study showed long-term cannabis users had an intelligence quotient (IQ) decline from age 18 to midlife (mean, 5.5 IQ points), poorer learning and processing speed, compared with childhood, and self-reported memory and attention problems. Long-term cannabis users also showed hippocampal atrophy at midlife (age 45), which combined with mild midlife cognitive deficits, all known risk factors for dementia.

“Long-term cannabis users – people who have used cannabis from 18 or 19 years old and continued using through midlife – showed cognitive deficits, compared with nonusers. They also showed more severe cognitive deficits, compared with long-term alcohol users and long-term tobacco users. But people who used infrequently or recreationally in midlife did not show as severe cognitive deficits. Cognitive deficits were confined to cannabis users,” lead investigator Madeline Meier, PhD, associate professor of psychology, Arizona State University, Tempe, said in an interview.

“Long-term cannabis users had smaller hippocampal volume, but we also found that smaller hippocampal volume did not explain the cognitive deficits among the long-term cannabis users,” she added.

The study was recently published online in the American Journal of Psychiatry.
 

Growing use in Boomers

Long-term cannabis use has been associated with memory problems. Studies examining the impact of cannabis use on the brain have shown conflicting results. Some suggest regular use in adolescence is associated with altered connectivity and reduced volume of brain regions involved in executive functions such as memory, learning, and impulse control compared with those who do not use cannabis.

Others found no significant structural differences between the brains of cannabis users and nonusers.

An earlier, large longitudinal study in New Zealand found that persistent cannabis use (with frequent use starting in adolescence) was associated with a loss of an average of six (or up to eight) IQ points measured in mid-adulthood.

Cannabis use is increasing among Baby Boomers – a group born between 1946 and 1964 – who used cannabis at historically high rates as young adults, and who now use it at historically high rates in midlife and as older adults.

To date, case-control studies, which are predominantly in adolescents and young adults, have found that cannabis users show subtle cognitive deficits and structural brain differences, but it is unclear whether these differences in young cannabis users might be larger in midlife and in older adults who have longer histories of use.

The study included a representative cohort of 1,037 individuals in Dunedin, New Zealand, born between April 1972 and March 1973, and followed from age 3 to 45.

Cannabis use and dependence were assessed at ages 18, 21, 26, 32, 38, and 45. IQ was assessed at ages 7, 9, 11, and 45. Specific neuropsychological functions and hippocampal volume were assessed at age 45. 

“Most of the previous research has focused on adolescent and young-adult cannabis users. What we’re looking at here is long-term cannabis users in midlife, and we’re finding that long-term users show cognitive deficits. But we’re not just looking at a snapshot of people in midlife, we’re also doing a longitudinal comparison – comparing them to themselves in childhood. We saw that long-term cannabis users showed a decline in IQ from childhood to adulthood,” said Dr. Meier. 

Participants in the study are members of the Dunedin Longitudinal Study, a representative birth cohort (n = 1,037; 91% of eligible births; 52% male) born between April 1972 and March 1973 in Dunedin, New Zealand, who participated in the first assessment at age 3.

This cohort matched socioeconomic status (SES), key health indicators, and demographics. Assessments were carried out at birth and ages 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 18, 21, 26, 32, 38, and 45. IQ was assessed at ages 7, 9, 11, and 45. Specific neuropsychological functions and hippocampal volume were assessed at age 45. 
 

Shrinking hippocampal volume

Cannabis use, cognitive function, and hippocampal volume were assessed comparing long-term cannabis users (n = 84) against five distinct groups:

• Lifelong cannabis nonusers (n = 196) – to replicate the control group most often reported in the case-control literature
• Midlife recreational cannabis users (n = 65) – to determine if cognitive deficits and structural brain differences are apparent in nonproblem users – the majority of cannabis users
• Long-term tobacco users (n = 75)
• Long-term alcohol users (n = 57) – benchmark comparisons for any cannabis findings and to disentangle potential cannabis effects from tobacco and alcohol effects
• Cannabis quitters (n = 58) – to determine whether differences are apparent after cessation

Tests were conducted on dose-response associations using continuously measured persistence of cannabis use, rigorously adjusting for numerous confounders derived from multiple longitudinal waves and data sources.

The investigators also tested whether associations between continuously measured persistence of cannabis use and cognitive deficits were mediated by hippocampal volume differences.

The hippocampus was the area of focus because it has a high density of cannabinoid receptors and is also instrumental for learning and memory, which is one of the most consistently impaired cognitive domains in cannabis users, and has been the brain region that most consistently emerges as smaller in cannabis users relative to controls. Structural MRI was done at age 45 for 875 participants (93% of age 45 participants).

Of 997 cohort members still alive at age 45, 938 (94.1%) were assessed at age 45. Age 45 participants did not differ significantly from other participants on childhood SES, childhood self-control, or childhood IQ. Cognitive functioning among midlife recreational cannabis users was similar to representative cohort norms, suggesting that infrequent recreational cannabis use in midlife is unlikely to compromise cognitive functioning.

However, long-term cannabis users did not perform significantly worse on any test than cannabis quitters. Cannabis quitters showed subtle cognitive deficits that may explain inconsistent findings on the benefits of cessation.

Smaller hippocampal volume is thought to be a possible mediator of cannabis-related cognitive deficits because the hippocampus is rich in CB1 receptors and is involved in learning and memory.

Long-term cannabis users had smaller bilateral volume in total hippocampus and 5 of 12 structurally and functionally distinct subregions (tail, hippocampal amygdala transition area, CA1, molecular layer, and dentate gyrus), and significantly smaller volumes than midlife recreational cannabis users in the left and right hippocampus, and 3 of 12 subfields (tail, CA1, and molecular layer), compared with non-users, consistent with case-control studies.
 

More potent

“If you’ve been using cannabis very long term and now are in midlife, you might want to consider quitting. Quitting is associated with slightly better cognitive performance in midlife. We also need to watch for risk of dementia. We know that people who show cognitive deficits at midlife are at elevated risk for later life dementia. And the deficits we saw among long-term cannabis users (although fairly mild), they were in the range in terms of effect size of what we see among people in other studies who have gone on to develop dementia in later life,” said Dr. Meier.

The study findings conflict with those of other studies, including one by the same research group, which compared the cognitive functioning of twins who were discordant for cannabis use and found little evidence of cannabis-related cognitive deficits. Because long-term cannabis users also use tobacco, alcohol, and other illicit drugs, disentangling cannabis effects from other substances is challenging.

“Long-term cannabis users tend to be long-term polysubstance users, so it’s hard to isolate,” said Dr. Meier.

Additionally, some group sizes were small, raising concerns about low statistical power.

“Group sizes were small but we didn’t rely only on those group comparisons; however, we did find statistical differences. We also tested highly statistically powered dose-response associations between persistence of cannabis use over ages 18-45 and each of our outcomes (IQ, learning, and processing speed in midlife) while adjusting possible alternate explanations such as low childhood IQ, other substance use, [and] socioeconomic backgrounds.

“These dose-response associations used large sample sizes, were highly powered, and took into account a number of alternative explanations. These two different approaches showed very similar findings and one bolstered the other,” said Dr. Meier.

The study’s results were based on individuals who began using cannabis in the 1980s or ‘90s, but the concentration of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) has risen in recent years.

“When the study began, THC concentration was approximately 4%. Over the last decade we have seen it go up to 12% or even higher. A recent study surveying U.S. dispensaries found 20% THC. If THC accounts for impairment, then the effects can be larger [with higher concentrations]. One of the challenges in the U.S. is that there are laws prohibiting researchers from testing cannabis, so we have to rely on product labels, which we know are unreliable,” said Dr. Meier.

A separate report is forthcoming with results of exploratory analyses of associations between long-term cannabis use and comprehensive MRI measures of global and regional gray and white matter.

The data will also be used to answer a number of different questions about cognitive deficits, brain structure, aging preparedness, social preparedness (strength of social networks), financial and health preparedness, and biological aging (the pace of aging relative to chronological age) in long-term cannabis users, Dr. Meier noted.
 

‘Fantastic’ research

Commenting on the research for this news organization , Andrew J. Saxon, MD, professor, department of psychiatry & behavioral sciences at University of Washington, Seattle, and a member of the American Psychiatric Association’s Council on Addiction Psychiatry, said the study “provides more evidence that heavy and regular cannabis use is not benign behavior.”

“It’s a fantastic piece of research in which they enrolled participants at birth and have followed them up to age 45. In most of the other research that has been done, we have no idea what their baseline was. What’s so remarkable here is that they can clearly demonstrate the loss of IQ points from childhood to age 45,” said Dr. Saxon.

“It is clear that, in people using cannabis long term, cognition is impaired. It would be good to have a better handle on how much cognitive function can be regained if you quit, because that could be a motivator for quitting in people where cannabis is having an adverse effect on their lives,” he added.

On the issue of THC potency, Dr. Saxon said that, while it’s true the potency of cannabis is increasing in terms of THC concentrations, the question is: “Do people who use cannabis use a set amount or do they imbibe until they achieve the state of altered consciousness that they’re seeking? Although there has been some research in the area of self-regulation and cannabis potency, we do not yet have the answers to determine if there is any causation,” said Dr. Saxon.

Dr. Meier and Dr. Saxon reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest.

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

Long-term cannabis use is linked to hippocampal atrophy and poorer cognitive function in midlife – known risk factors for dementia.

A large prospective, longitudinal study showed long-term cannabis users had an intelligence quotient (IQ) decline from age 18 to midlife (mean, 5.5 IQ points), poorer learning and processing speed, compared with childhood, and self-reported memory and attention problems. Long-term cannabis users also showed hippocampal atrophy at midlife (age 45), which combined with mild midlife cognitive deficits, all known risk factors for dementia.

“Long-term cannabis users – people who have used cannabis from 18 or 19 years old and continued using through midlife – showed cognitive deficits, compared with nonusers. They also showed more severe cognitive deficits, compared with long-term alcohol users and long-term tobacco users. But people who used infrequently or recreationally in midlife did not show as severe cognitive deficits. Cognitive deficits were confined to cannabis users,” lead investigator Madeline Meier, PhD, associate professor of psychology, Arizona State University, Tempe, said in an interview.

“Long-term cannabis users had smaller hippocampal volume, but we also found that smaller hippocampal volume did not explain the cognitive deficits among the long-term cannabis users,” she added.

The study was recently published online in the American Journal of Psychiatry.
 

Growing use in Boomers

Long-term cannabis use has been associated with memory problems. Studies examining the impact of cannabis use on the brain have shown conflicting results. Some suggest regular use in adolescence is associated with altered connectivity and reduced volume of brain regions involved in executive functions such as memory, learning, and impulse control compared with those who do not use cannabis.

Others found no significant structural differences between the brains of cannabis users and nonusers.

An earlier, large longitudinal study in New Zealand found that persistent cannabis use (with frequent use starting in adolescence) was associated with a loss of an average of six (or up to eight) IQ points measured in mid-adulthood.

Cannabis use is increasing among Baby Boomers – a group born between 1946 and 1964 – who used cannabis at historically high rates as young adults, and who now use it at historically high rates in midlife and as older adults.

To date, case-control studies, which are predominantly in adolescents and young adults, have found that cannabis users show subtle cognitive deficits and structural brain differences, but it is unclear whether these differences in young cannabis users might be larger in midlife and in older adults who have longer histories of use.

The study included a representative cohort of 1,037 individuals in Dunedin, New Zealand, born between April 1972 and March 1973, and followed from age 3 to 45.

Cannabis use and dependence were assessed at ages 18, 21, 26, 32, 38, and 45. IQ was assessed at ages 7, 9, 11, and 45. Specific neuropsychological functions and hippocampal volume were assessed at age 45. 

“Most of the previous research has focused on adolescent and young-adult cannabis users. What we’re looking at here is long-term cannabis users in midlife, and we’re finding that long-term users show cognitive deficits. But we’re not just looking at a snapshot of people in midlife, we’re also doing a longitudinal comparison – comparing them to themselves in childhood. We saw that long-term cannabis users showed a decline in IQ from childhood to adulthood,” said Dr. Meier. 

Participants in the study are members of the Dunedin Longitudinal Study, a representative birth cohort (n = 1,037; 91% of eligible births; 52% male) born between April 1972 and March 1973 in Dunedin, New Zealand, who participated in the first assessment at age 3.

This cohort matched socioeconomic status (SES), key health indicators, and demographics. Assessments were carried out at birth and ages 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 18, 21, 26, 32, 38, and 45. IQ was assessed at ages 7, 9, 11, and 45. Specific neuropsychological functions and hippocampal volume were assessed at age 45. 
 

Shrinking hippocampal volume

Cannabis use, cognitive function, and hippocampal volume were assessed comparing long-term cannabis users (n = 84) against five distinct groups:

• Lifelong cannabis nonusers (n = 196) – to replicate the control group most often reported in the case-control literature
• Midlife recreational cannabis users (n = 65) – to determine if cognitive deficits and structural brain differences are apparent in nonproblem users – the majority of cannabis users
• Long-term tobacco users (n = 75)
• Long-term alcohol users (n = 57) – benchmark comparisons for any cannabis findings and to disentangle potential cannabis effects from tobacco and alcohol effects
• Cannabis quitters (n = 58) – to determine whether differences are apparent after cessation

Tests were conducted on dose-response associations using continuously measured persistence of cannabis use, rigorously adjusting for numerous confounders derived from multiple longitudinal waves and data sources.

The investigators also tested whether associations between continuously measured persistence of cannabis use and cognitive deficits were mediated by hippocampal volume differences.

The hippocampus was the area of focus because it has a high density of cannabinoid receptors and is also instrumental for learning and memory, which is one of the most consistently impaired cognitive domains in cannabis users, and has been the brain region that most consistently emerges as smaller in cannabis users relative to controls. Structural MRI was done at age 45 for 875 participants (93% of age 45 participants).

Of 997 cohort members still alive at age 45, 938 (94.1%) were assessed at age 45. Age 45 participants did not differ significantly from other participants on childhood SES, childhood self-control, or childhood IQ. Cognitive functioning among midlife recreational cannabis users was similar to representative cohort norms, suggesting that infrequent recreational cannabis use in midlife is unlikely to compromise cognitive functioning.

However, long-term cannabis users did not perform significantly worse on any test than cannabis quitters. Cannabis quitters showed subtle cognitive deficits that may explain inconsistent findings on the benefits of cessation.

Smaller hippocampal volume is thought to be a possible mediator of cannabis-related cognitive deficits because the hippocampus is rich in CB1 receptors and is involved in learning and memory.

Long-term cannabis users had smaller bilateral volume in total hippocampus and 5 of 12 structurally and functionally distinct subregions (tail, hippocampal amygdala transition area, CA1, molecular layer, and dentate gyrus), and significantly smaller volumes than midlife recreational cannabis users in the left and right hippocampus, and 3 of 12 subfields (tail, CA1, and molecular layer), compared with non-users, consistent with case-control studies.
 

More potent

“If you’ve been using cannabis very long term and now are in midlife, you might want to consider quitting. Quitting is associated with slightly better cognitive performance in midlife. We also need to watch for risk of dementia. We know that people who show cognitive deficits at midlife are at elevated risk for later life dementia. And the deficits we saw among long-term cannabis users (although fairly mild), they were in the range in terms of effect size of what we see among people in other studies who have gone on to develop dementia in later life,” said Dr. Meier.

The study findings conflict with those of other studies, including one by the same research group, which compared the cognitive functioning of twins who were discordant for cannabis use and found little evidence of cannabis-related cognitive deficits. Because long-term cannabis users also use tobacco, alcohol, and other illicit drugs, disentangling cannabis effects from other substances is challenging.

“Long-term cannabis users tend to be long-term polysubstance users, so it’s hard to isolate,” said Dr. Meier.

Additionally, some group sizes were small, raising concerns about low statistical power.

“Group sizes were small but we didn’t rely only on those group comparisons; however, we did find statistical differences. We also tested highly statistically powered dose-response associations between persistence of cannabis use over ages 18-45 and each of our outcomes (IQ, learning, and processing speed in midlife) while adjusting possible alternate explanations such as low childhood IQ, other substance use, [and] socioeconomic backgrounds.

“These dose-response associations used large sample sizes, were highly powered, and took into account a number of alternative explanations. These two different approaches showed very similar findings and one bolstered the other,” said Dr. Meier.

The study’s results were based on individuals who began using cannabis in the 1980s or ‘90s, but the concentration of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) has risen in recent years.

“When the study began, THC concentration was approximately 4%. Over the last decade we have seen it go up to 12% or even higher. A recent study surveying U.S. dispensaries found 20% THC. If THC accounts for impairment, then the effects can be larger [with higher concentrations]. One of the challenges in the U.S. is that there are laws prohibiting researchers from testing cannabis, so we have to rely on product labels, which we know are unreliable,” said Dr. Meier.

A separate report is forthcoming with results of exploratory analyses of associations between long-term cannabis use and comprehensive MRI measures of global and regional gray and white matter.

The data will also be used to answer a number of different questions about cognitive deficits, brain structure, aging preparedness, social preparedness (strength of social networks), financial and health preparedness, and biological aging (the pace of aging relative to chronological age) in long-term cannabis users, Dr. Meier noted.
 

‘Fantastic’ research

Commenting on the research for this news organization , Andrew J. Saxon, MD, professor, department of psychiatry & behavioral sciences at University of Washington, Seattle, and a member of the American Psychiatric Association’s Council on Addiction Psychiatry, said the study “provides more evidence that heavy and regular cannabis use is not benign behavior.”

“It’s a fantastic piece of research in which they enrolled participants at birth and have followed them up to age 45. In most of the other research that has been done, we have no idea what their baseline was. What’s so remarkable here is that they can clearly demonstrate the loss of IQ points from childhood to age 45,” said Dr. Saxon.

“It is clear that, in people using cannabis long term, cognition is impaired. It would be good to have a better handle on how much cognitive function can be regained if you quit, because that could be a motivator for quitting in people where cannabis is having an adverse effect on their lives,” he added.

On the issue of THC potency, Dr. Saxon said that, while it’s true the potency of cannabis is increasing in terms of THC concentrations, the question is: “Do people who use cannabis use a set amount or do they imbibe until they achieve the state of altered consciousness that they’re seeking? Although there has been some research in the area of self-regulation and cannabis potency, we do not yet have the answers to determine if there is any causation,” said Dr. Saxon.

Dr. Meier and Dr. Saxon reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest.

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

Long-term cannabis use is linked to hippocampal atrophy and poorer cognitive function in midlife – known risk factors for dementia.

A large prospective, longitudinal study showed long-term cannabis users had an intelligence quotient (IQ) decline from age 18 to midlife (mean, 5.5 IQ points), poorer learning and processing speed, compared with childhood, and self-reported memory and attention problems. Long-term cannabis users also showed hippocampal atrophy at midlife (age 45), which combined with mild midlife cognitive deficits, all known risk factors for dementia.

“Long-term cannabis users – people who have used cannabis from 18 or 19 years old and continued using through midlife – showed cognitive deficits, compared with nonusers. They also showed more severe cognitive deficits, compared with long-term alcohol users and long-term tobacco users. But people who used infrequently or recreationally in midlife did not show as severe cognitive deficits. Cognitive deficits were confined to cannabis users,” lead investigator Madeline Meier, PhD, associate professor of psychology, Arizona State University, Tempe, said in an interview.

“Long-term cannabis users had smaller hippocampal volume, but we also found that smaller hippocampal volume did not explain the cognitive deficits among the long-term cannabis users,” she added.

The study was recently published online in the American Journal of Psychiatry.
 

Growing use in Boomers

Long-term cannabis use has been associated with memory problems. Studies examining the impact of cannabis use on the brain have shown conflicting results. Some suggest regular use in adolescence is associated with altered connectivity and reduced volume of brain regions involved in executive functions such as memory, learning, and impulse control compared with those who do not use cannabis.

Others found no significant structural differences between the brains of cannabis users and nonusers.

An earlier, large longitudinal study in New Zealand found that persistent cannabis use (with frequent use starting in adolescence) was associated with a loss of an average of six (or up to eight) IQ points measured in mid-adulthood.

Cannabis use is increasing among Baby Boomers – a group born between 1946 and 1964 – who used cannabis at historically high rates as young adults, and who now use it at historically high rates in midlife and as older adults.

To date, case-control studies, which are predominantly in adolescents and young adults, have found that cannabis users show subtle cognitive deficits and structural brain differences, but it is unclear whether these differences in young cannabis users might be larger in midlife and in older adults who have longer histories of use.

The study included a representative cohort of 1,037 individuals in Dunedin, New Zealand, born between April 1972 and March 1973, and followed from age 3 to 45.

Cannabis use and dependence were assessed at ages 18, 21, 26, 32, 38, and 45. IQ was assessed at ages 7, 9, 11, and 45. Specific neuropsychological functions and hippocampal volume were assessed at age 45. 

“Most of the previous research has focused on adolescent and young-adult cannabis users. What we’re looking at here is long-term cannabis users in midlife, and we’re finding that long-term users show cognitive deficits. But we’re not just looking at a snapshot of people in midlife, we’re also doing a longitudinal comparison – comparing them to themselves in childhood. We saw that long-term cannabis users showed a decline in IQ from childhood to adulthood,” said Dr. Meier. 

Participants in the study are members of the Dunedin Longitudinal Study, a representative birth cohort (n = 1,037; 91% of eligible births; 52% male) born between April 1972 and March 1973 in Dunedin, New Zealand, who participated in the first assessment at age 3.

This cohort matched socioeconomic status (SES), key health indicators, and demographics. Assessments were carried out at birth and ages 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 18, 21, 26, 32, 38, and 45. IQ was assessed at ages 7, 9, 11, and 45. Specific neuropsychological functions and hippocampal volume were assessed at age 45. 
 

Shrinking hippocampal volume

Cannabis use, cognitive function, and hippocampal volume were assessed comparing long-term cannabis users (n = 84) against five distinct groups:

• Lifelong cannabis nonusers (n = 196) – to replicate the control group most often reported in the case-control literature
• Midlife recreational cannabis users (n = 65) – to determine if cognitive deficits and structural brain differences are apparent in nonproblem users – the majority of cannabis users
• Long-term tobacco users (n = 75)
• Long-term alcohol users (n = 57) – benchmark comparisons for any cannabis findings and to disentangle potential cannabis effects from tobacco and alcohol effects
• Cannabis quitters (n = 58) – to determine whether differences are apparent after cessation

Tests were conducted on dose-response associations using continuously measured persistence of cannabis use, rigorously adjusting for numerous confounders derived from multiple longitudinal waves and data sources.

The investigators also tested whether associations between continuously measured persistence of cannabis use and cognitive deficits were mediated by hippocampal volume differences.

The hippocampus was the area of focus because it has a high density of cannabinoid receptors and is also instrumental for learning and memory, which is one of the most consistently impaired cognitive domains in cannabis users, and has been the brain region that most consistently emerges as smaller in cannabis users relative to controls. Structural MRI was done at age 45 for 875 participants (93% of age 45 participants).

Of 997 cohort members still alive at age 45, 938 (94.1%) were assessed at age 45. Age 45 participants did not differ significantly from other participants on childhood SES, childhood self-control, or childhood IQ. Cognitive functioning among midlife recreational cannabis users was similar to representative cohort norms, suggesting that infrequent recreational cannabis use in midlife is unlikely to compromise cognitive functioning.

However, long-term cannabis users did not perform significantly worse on any test than cannabis quitters. Cannabis quitters showed subtle cognitive deficits that may explain inconsistent findings on the benefits of cessation.

Smaller hippocampal volume is thought to be a possible mediator of cannabis-related cognitive deficits because the hippocampus is rich in CB1 receptors and is involved in learning and memory.

Long-term cannabis users had smaller bilateral volume in total hippocampus and 5 of 12 structurally and functionally distinct subregions (tail, hippocampal amygdala transition area, CA1, molecular layer, and dentate gyrus), and significantly smaller volumes than midlife recreational cannabis users in the left and right hippocampus, and 3 of 12 subfields (tail, CA1, and molecular layer), compared with non-users, consistent with case-control studies.
 

More potent

“If you’ve been using cannabis very long term and now are in midlife, you might want to consider quitting. Quitting is associated with slightly better cognitive performance in midlife. We also need to watch for risk of dementia. We know that people who show cognitive deficits at midlife are at elevated risk for later life dementia. And the deficits we saw among long-term cannabis users (although fairly mild), they were in the range in terms of effect size of what we see among people in other studies who have gone on to develop dementia in later life,” said Dr. Meier.

The study findings conflict with those of other studies, including one by the same research group, which compared the cognitive functioning of twins who were discordant for cannabis use and found little evidence of cannabis-related cognitive deficits. Because long-term cannabis users also use tobacco, alcohol, and other illicit drugs, disentangling cannabis effects from other substances is challenging.

“Long-term cannabis users tend to be long-term polysubstance users, so it’s hard to isolate,” said Dr. Meier.

Additionally, some group sizes were small, raising concerns about low statistical power.

“Group sizes were small but we didn’t rely only on those group comparisons; however, we did find statistical differences. We also tested highly statistically powered dose-response associations between persistence of cannabis use over ages 18-45 and each of our outcomes (IQ, learning, and processing speed in midlife) while adjusting possible alternate explanations such as low childhood IQ, other substance use, [and] socioeconomic backgrounds.

“These dose-response associations used large sample sizes, were highly powered, and took into account a number of alternative explanations. These two different approaches showed very similar findings and one bolstered the other,” said Dr. Meier.

The study’s results were based on individuals who began using cannabis in the 1980s or ‘90s, but the concentration of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) has risen in recent years.

“When the study began, THC concentration was approximately 4%. Over the last decade we have seen it go up to 12% or even higher. A recent study surveying U.S. dispensaries found 20% THC. If THC accounts for impairment, then the effects can be larger [with higher concentrations]. One of the challenges in the U.S. is that there are laws prohibiting researchers from testing cannabis, so we have to rely on product labels, which we know are unreliable,” said Dr. Meier.

A separate report is forthcoming with results of exploratory analyses of associations between long-term cannabis use and comprehensive MRI measures of global and regional gray and white matter.

The data will also be used to answer a number of different questions about cognitive deficits, brain structure, aging preparedness, social preparedness (strength of social networks), financial and health preparedness, and biological aging (the pace of aging relative to chronological age) in long-term cannabis users, Dr. Meier noted.
 

‘Fantastic’ research

Commenting on the research for this news organization , Andrew J. Saxon, MD, professor, department of psychiatry & behavioral sciences at University of Washington, Seattle, and a member of the American Psychiatric Association’s Council on Addiction Psychiatry, said the study “provides more evidence that heavy and regular cannabis use is not benign behavior.”

“It’s a fantastic piece of research in which they enrolled participants at birth and have followed them up to age 45. In most of the other research that has been done, we have no idea what their baseline was. What’s so remarkable here is that they can clearly demonstrate the loss of IQ points from childhood to age 45,” said Dr. Saxon.

“It is clear that, in people using cannabis long term, cognition is impaired. It would be good to have a better handle on how much cognitive function can be regained if you quit, because that could be a motivator for quitting in people where cannabis is having an adverse effect on their lives,” he added.

On the issue of THC potency, Dr. Saxon said that, while it’s true the potency of cannabis is increasing in terms of THC concentrations, the question is: “Do people who use cannabis use a set amount or do they imbibe until they achieve the state of altered consciousness that they’re seeking? Although there has been some research in the area of self-regulation and cannabis potency, we do not yet have the answers to determine if there is any causation,” said Dr. Saxon.

Dr. Meier and Dr. Saxon reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest.

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

All along, Julia Maeda knew she wanted to have her baby naturally. For her, that meant in a hospital, vaginally, without an epidural for pain relief.

This was her first pregnancy. And although she is a nurse, she was working with cancer patients at the time, not with laboring mothers or babies. “I really didn’t know what I was getting into,” said Ms. Maeda, now 32. “I didn’t do much preparation.”

Her home state of Mississippi has the highest cesarean section rate in the United States – nearly 4 in 10 women who give birth there deliver their babies via C-section. Almost 2 weeks past her due date in 2019, Ms. Maeda became one of them after her doctor came to her bedside while she was in labor.

“‘You’re not in distress, and your baby is not in distress – but we don’t want you to get that way, so we need to think about a C-section,’” she recalled her doctor saying. “I was totally defeated. I just gave in.”

C-sections are sometimes necessary and even lifesaving, but public health experts have long contended that too many performed in the U.S. aren’t. They argue it is major surgery accompanied by significant risk and a high price tag.

Overall, 31.8% of all births in the U.S. were C-sections in 2020, just a slight tick up from 31.7% the year before, according to the latest data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. But that’s close to the peak in 2009, when it was 32.9%. And the rates are far higher in many states, especially across the South.

These high C-section rates have persisted – and in some states, such as Alabama and Kentucky, even grown slightly – despite continual calls to reduce them. And although the pandemic presented new challenges for pregnant women, research suggests that the U.S. C-section rate was unaffected by COVID. Instead, obstetricians and other health experts say the high rate is an intractable problem.

Some states, such as California and New Jersey, have reduced their rates through a variety of strategies, including sharing C-section data with doctors and hospitals. But change has proved difficult elsewhere, especially in the South and in Texas, where women are generally less healthy heading into their pregnancies and maternal and infant health problems are among the highest in the United States.

“We have to restructure how we think about C-sections,” said Veronica Gillispie-Bell, MD, an ob.gyn. who is medical director of the Louisiana Perinatal Quality Collaborative, Kenner, La., a group of 43 birthing hospitals focused on lowering Louisiana’s C-section rate. “It’s a lifesaving technique, but it’s also not without risks.”

She said C-sections, like any operation, create scar tissue, including in the uterus, which may complicate future pregnancies or abdominal surgeries. C-sections also typically lead to an extended hospital stay and recovery period and increase the chance of infection. Babies face risks, too. In rare cases, they can be nicked or cut during an incision. 

Although C-sections are sometimes necessary, public health leaders say these surgeries have been overused in many places. Black women, particularly, are more likely to give birth by C-section than any other racial group in the country. Often, hospitals and even regions have wide, unexplained variations in rates.

“If you were delivering in Miami-Dade County, you had a 75% greater chance of having a cesarean than in northern Florida,” said William Sappenfield, MD, an ob.gyn. and epidemiologist at the University of South Florida, Tampa, who has studied the state’s high C-section rate.

Some physicians say their rates are driven by mothers who request the procedure, not by doctors. But Rebekah Gee, MD, an ob.gyn. at Louisiana State University Healthcare Network, New Orleans, and former secretary of the Louisiana Department of Health, said she saw C-section rates go dramatically up at 4 and 5 p.m. – around the time when doctors tend to want to go home.

She led several initiatives to improve birth outcomes in Louisiana, including leveling Medicaid payment rates to hospitals for vaginal deliveries and C-sections. In most places, C-sections are significantly more expensive than vaginal deliveries, making high C-section rates not only a concern for expectant mothers but also for taxpayers.

Medicaid pays for 60% of all births in Louisiana, according to KFF, and about half of all births in most Southern states, compared with 42% nationally. That’s one reason some states – including Louisiana, Tennessee, and Minnesota – have tried to tackle high C-section rates by changing how much Medicaid pays for them. But payment reform alone isn’t enough, Dr. Gee said.

“There was a guy in central Louisiana who was doing more C-sections and early elective deliveries than anyone in the U.S.,” she said. “When you have a culture like that, it’s hard to shift from it.”

Linda Schwimmer, president and CEO of the New Jersey Health Care Quality Institute, said many hospitals and doctors don’t even know their C-section rates. Sharing this data with doctors and hospitals – and making it public – made some providers uncomfortable, she said, but it ultimately worked. New Jersey’s C-section rate among first-time, low-risk mothers dropped from 33.1% in 2013 to 26.7% 6 years later once the state began sharing these data, among other initiatives.

The New Jersey Health Care Quality Institute and other groups like it around the country focus on reducing a subset of C-sections called “nulliparous, term, singleton, vertex” C-sections, or surgeries on first-time, full-term moms giving birth to a single infant who is positioned head-down in the uterus.

NTSV C-sections are important to track because women who have a C-section during their first pregnancy face a 90% chance of having another in subsequent pregnancies. Across the U.S., the rate for these C-sections was 25.9% in 2020 and 25.6% in 2019.

Elliott Main, MD, a maternal-fetal specialist at Stanford (Calif.) University and the medical director of the California Maternal Quality Care Collaborative, coauthored a paper, published in JAMA last year, that outlines interventions the collaborative took that lowered California’s NTSV C-Section rate from 26.0% in 2014 to 22.8% in 2019. Nationally, the rate was unchanged during that period.  

Allowing women to labor for longer stretches of time before resorting to surgery is important, he said.

The cervix must be 10 cm dilated before a woman gives birth. The threshold for “active labor” used to be when the cervix was dilated at least 4 cm. In more recent years, though, the onset of active labor has been changed to 5-6 cm.

“People show up at the hospital too early,” said Toni Hill, president of the Mississippi Midwives Alliance. “If you show up to the hospital at 2-3 centimeters, you can be at 2-3 centimeters for weeks. I don’t even consider that labor.”

Too often, she said, women at an early stage of labor end up being induced and deliver via C-section.

“It’s almost like, at this point, C-sections are being handed out like lollipops,” said LA’Patricia Washington, a doula based in Jackson, Miss. Doulas are trained, nonmedical workers who help parents before, during, and after delivery.

Ms. Washington works with a nonprofit group, the Jackson Safer Childbirth Experience, that pays for doulas to help expectant mothers in the region. Some state Medicaid programs, such as New Jersey’s, reimburse for services by doulas because research shows they can reduce C-section rates. California has been trying to roll out the same benefit for its Medicaid members.

In 2020, when Julia Maeda became pregnant again, she paid out-of-pocket for a doula to attend the birth. The experience of having her son via C-section the previous year had been “emotionally and psychologically traumatic,” Ms. Maeda said.

She told her ob.gyn. that she wanted a VBAC, short for “vaginal birth after cesarean.” But, she said, “he just shook his head and said, ‘That’s not a good idea.’”

She had VBAC anyway. Ms. Maeda credits her doula with making it happen. 

“Maybe just her presence relayed to the nursing staff that this was something I was serious about,” Ms. Maeda said. “They want you to have your baby during business hours. And biology doesn’t work that way.”
 

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

All along, Julia Maeda knew she wanted to have her baby naturally. For her, that meant in a hospital, vaginally, without an epidural for pain relief.

This was her first pregnancy. And although she is a nurse, she was working with cancer patients at the time, not with laboring mothers or babies. “I really didn’t know what I was getting into,” said Ms. Maeda, now 32. “I didn’t do much preparation.”

Her home state of Mississippi has the highest cesarean section rate in the United States – nearly 4 in 10 women who give birth there deliver their babies via C-section. Almost 2 weeks past her due date in 2019, Ms. Maeda became one of them after her doctor came to her bedside while she was in labor.

“‘You’re not in distress, and your baby is not in distress – but we don’t want you to get that way, so we need to think about a C-section,’” she recalled her doctor saying. “I was totally defeated. I just gave in.”

C-sections are sometimes necessary and even lifesaving, but public health experts have long contended that too many performed in the U.S. aren’t. They argue it is major surgery accompanied by significant risk and a high price tag.

Overall, 31.8% of all births in the U.S. were C-sections in 2020, just a slight tick up from 31.7% the year before, according to the latest data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. But that’s close to the peak in 2009, when it was 32.9%. And the rates are far higher in many states, especially across the South.

These high C-section rates have persisted – and in some states, such as Alabama and Kentucky, even grown slightly – despite continual calls to reduce them. And although the pandemic presented new challenges for pregnant women, research suggests that the U.S. C-section rate was unaffected by COVID. Instead, obstetricians and other health experts say the high rate is an intractable problem.

Some states, such as California and New Jersey, have reduced their rates through a variety of strategies, including sharing C-section data with doctors and hospitals. But change has proved difficult elsewhere, especially in the South and in Texas, where women are generally less healthy heading into their pregnancies and maternal and infant health problems are among the highest in the United States.

“We have to restructure how we think about C-sections,” said Veronica Gillispie-Bell, MD, an ob.gyn. who is medical director of the Louisiana Perinatal Quality Collaborative, Kenner, La., a group of 43 birthing hospitals focused on lowering Louisiana’s C-section rate. “It’s a lifesaving technique, but it’s also not without risks.”

She said C-sections, like any operation, create scar tissue, including in the uterus, which may complicate future pregnancies or abdominal surgeries. C-sections also typically lead to an extended hospital stay and recovery period and increase the chance of infection. Babies face risks, too. In rare cases, they can be nicked or cut during an incision. 

Although C-sections are sometimes necessary, public health leaders say these surgeries have been overused in many places. Black women, particularly, are more likely to give birth by C-section than any other racial group in the country. Often, hospitals and even regions have wide, unexplained variations in rates.

“If you were delivering in Miami-Dade County, you had a 75% greater chance of having a cesarean than in northern Florida,” said William Sappenfield, MD, an ob.gyn. and epidemiologist at the University of South Florida, Tampa, who has studied the state’s high C-section rate.

Some physicians say their rates are driven by mothers who request the procedure, not by doctors. But Rebekah Gee, MD, an ob.gyn. at Louisiana State University Healthcare Network, New Orleans, and former secretary of the Louisiana Department of Health, said she saw C-section rates go dramatically up at 4 and 5 p.m. – around the time when doctors tend to want to go home.

She led several initiatives to improve birth outcomes in Louisiana, including leveling Medicaid payment rates to hospitals for vaginal deliveries and C-sections. In most places, C-sections are significantly more expensive than vaginal deliveries, making high C-section rates not only a concern for expectant mothers but also for taxpayers.

Medicaid pays for 60% of all births in Louisiana, according to KFF, and about half of all births in most Southern states, compared with 42% nationally. That’s one reason some states – including Louisiana, Tennessee, and Minnesota – have tried to tackle high C-section rates by changing how much Medicaid pays for them. But payment reform alone isn’t enough, Dr. Gee said.

“There was a guy in central Louisiana who was doing more C-sections and early elective deliveries than anyone in the U.S.,” she said. “When you have a culture like that, it’s hard to shift from it.”

Linda Schwimmer, president and CEO of the New Jersey Health Care Quality Institute, said many hospitals and doctors don’t even know their C-section rates. Sharing this data with doctors and hospitals – and making it public – made some providers uncomfortable, she said, but it ultimately worked. New Jersey’s C-section rate among first-time, low-risk mothers dropped from 33.1% in 2013 to 26.7% 6 years later once the state began sharing these data, among other initiatives.

The New Jersey Health Care Quality Institute and other groups like it around the country focus on reducing a subset of C-sections called “nulliparous, term, singleton, vertex” C-sections, or surgeries on first-time, full-term moms giving birth to a single infant who is positioned head-down in the uterus.

NTSV C-sections are important to track because women who have a C-section during their first pregnancy face a 90% chance of having another in subsequent pregnancies. Across the U.S., the rate for these C-sections was 25.9% in 2020 and 25.6% in 2019.

Elliott Main, MD, a maternal-fetal specialist at Stanford (Calif.) University and the medical director of the California Maternal Quality Care Collaborative, coauthored a paper, published in JAMA last year, that outlines interventions the collaborative took that lowered California’s NTSV C-Section rate from 26.0% in 2014 to 22.8% in 2019. Nationally, the rate was unchanged during that period.  

Allowing women to labor for longer stretches of time before resorting to surgery is important, he said.

The cervix must be 10 cm dilated before a woman gives birth. The threshold for “active labor” used to be when the cervix was dilated at least 4 cm. In more recent years, though, the onset of active labor has been changed to 5-6 cm.

“People show up at the hospital too early,” said Toni Hill, president of the Mississippi Midwives Alliance. “If you show up to the hospital at 2-3 centimeters, you can be at 2-3 centimeters for weeks. I don’t even consider that labor.”

Too often, she said, women at an early stage of labor end up being induced and deliver via C-section.

“It’s almost like, at this point, C-sections are being handed out like lollipops,” said LA’Patricia Washington, a doula based in Jackson, Miss. Doulas are trained, nonmedical workers who help parents before, during, and after delivery.

Ms. Washington works with a nonprofit group, the Jackson Safer Childbirth Experience, that pays for doulas to help expectant mothers in the region. Some state Medicaid programs, such as New Jersey’s, reimburse for services by doulas because research shows they can reduce C-section rates. California has been trying to roll out the same benefit for its Medicaid members.

In 2020, when Julia Maeda became pregnant again, she paid out-of-pocket for a doula to attend the birth. The experience of having her son via C-section the previous year had been “emotionally and psychologically traumatic,” Ms. Maeda said.

She told her ob.gyn. that she wanted a VBAC, short for “vaginal birth after cesarean.” But, she said, “he just shook his head and said, ‘That’s not a good idea.’”

She had VBAC anyway. Ms. Maeda credits her doula with making it happen. 

“Maybe just her presence relayed to the nursing staff that this was something I was serious about,” Ms. Maeda said. “They want you to have your baby during business hours. And biology doesn’t work that way.”
 

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

All along, Julia Maeda knew she wanted to have her baby naturally. For her, that meant in a hospital, vaginally, without an epidural for pain relief.

This was her first pregnancy. And although she is a nurse, she was working with cancer patients at the time, not with laboring mothers or babies. “I really didn’t know what I was getting into,” said Ms. Maeda, now 32. “I didn’t do much preparation.”

Her home state of Mississippi has the highest cesarean section rate in the United States – nearly 4 in 10 women who give birth there deliver their babies via C-section. Almost 2 weeks past her due date in 2019, Ms. Maeda became one of them after her doctor came to her bedside while she was in labor.

“‘You’re not in distress, and your baby is not in distress – but we don’t want you to get that way, so we need to think about a C-section,’” she recalled her doctor saying. “I was totally defeated. I just gave in.”

C-sections are sometimes necessary and even lifesaving, but public health experts have long contended that too many performed in the U.S. aren’t. They argue it is major surgery accompanied by significant risk and a high price tag.

Overall, 31.8% of all births in the U.S. were C-sections in 2020, just a slight tick up from 31.7% the year before, according to the latest data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. But that’s close to the peak in 2009, when it was 32.9%. And the rates are far higher in many states, especially across the South.

These high C-section rates have persisted – and in some states, such as Alabama and Kentucky, even grown slightly – despite continual calls to reduce them. And although the pandemic presented new challenges for pregnant women, research suggests that the U.S. C-section rate was unaffected by COVID. Instead, obstetricians and other health experts say the high rate is an intractable problem.

Some states, such as California and New Jersey, have reduced their rates through a variety of strategies, including sharing C-section data with doctors and hospitals. But change has proved difficult elsewhere, especially in the South and in Texas, where women are generally less healthy heading into their pregnancies and maternal and infant health problems are among the highest in the United States.

“We have to restructure how we think about C-sections,” said Veronica Gillispie-Bell, MD, an ob.gyn. who is medical director of the Louisiana Perinatal Quality Collaborative, Kenner, La., a group of 43 birthing hospitals focused on lowering Louisiana’s C-section rate. “It’s a lifesaving technique, but it’s also not without risks.”

She said C-sections, like any operation, create scar tissue, including in the uterus, which may complicate future pregnancies or abdominal surgeries. C-sections also typically lead to an extended hospital stay and recovery period and increase the chance of infection. Babies face risks, too. In rare cases, they can be nicked or cut during an incision. 

Although C-sections are sometimes necessary, public health leaders say these surgeries have been overused in many places. Black women, particularly, are more likely to give birth by C-section than any other racial group in the country. Often, hospitals and even regions have wide, unexplained variations in rates.

“If you were delivering in Miami-Dade County, you had a 75% greater chance of having a cesarean than in northern Florida,” said William Sappenfield, MD, an ob.gyn. and epidemiologist at the University of South Florida, Tampa, who has studied the state’s high C-section rate.

Some physicians say their rates are driven by mothers who request the procedure, not by doctors. But Rebekah Gee, MD, an ob.gyn. at Louisiana State University Healthcare Network, New Orleans, and former secretary of the Louisiana Department of Health, said she saw C-section rates go dramatically up at 4 and 5 p.m. – around the time when doctors tend to want to go home.

She led several initiatives to improve birth outcomes in Louisiana, including leveling Medicaid payment rates to hospitals for vaginal deliveries and C-sections. In most places, C-sections are significantly more expensive than vaginal deliveries, making high C-section rates not only a concern for expectant mothers but also for taxpayers.

Medicaid pays for 60% of all births in Louisiana, according to KFF, and about half of all births in most Southern states, compared with 42% nationally. That’s one reason some states – including Louisiana, Tennessee, and Minnesota – have tried to tackle high C-section rates by changing how much Medicaid pays for them. But payment reform alone isn’t enough, Dr. Gee said.

“There was a guy in central Louisiana who was doing more C-sections and early elective deliveries than anyone in the U.S.,” she said. “When you have a culture like that, it’s hard to shift from it.”

Linda Schwimmer, president and CEO of the New Jersey Health Care Quality Institute, said many hospitals and doctors don’t even know their C-section rates. Sharing this data with doctors and hospitals – and making it public – made some providers uncomfortable, she said, but it ultimately worked. New Jersey’s C-section rate among first-time, low-risk mothers dropped from 33.1% in 2013 to 26.7% 6 years later once the state began sharing these data, among other initiatives.

The New Jersey Health Care Quality Institute and other groups like it around the country focus on reducing a subset of C-sections called “nulliparous, term, singleton, vertex” C-sections, or surgeries on first-time, full-term moms giving birth to a single infant who is positioned head-down in the uterus.

NTSV C-sections are important to track because women who have a C-section during their first pregnancy face a 90% chance of having another in subsequent pregnancies. Across the U.S., the rate for these C-sections was 25.9% in 2020 and 25.6% in 2019.

Elliott Main, MD, a maternal-fetal specialist at Stanford (Calif.) University and the medical director of the California Maternal Quality Care Collaborative, coauthored a paper, published in JAMA last year, that outlines interventions the collaborative took that lowered California’s NTSV C-Section rate from 26.0% in 2014 to 22.8% in 2019. Nationally, the rate was unchanged during that period.  

Allowing women to labor for longer stretches of time before resorting to surgery is important, he said.

The cervix must be 10 cm dilated before a woman gives birth. The threshold for “active labor” used to be when the cervix was dilated at least 4 cm. In more recent years, though, the onset of active labor has been changed to 5-6 cm.

“People show up at the hospital too early,” said Toni Hill, president of the Mississippi Midwives Alliance. “If you show up to the hospital at 2-3 centimeters, you can be at 2-3 centimeters for weeks. I don’t even consider that labor.”

Too often, she said, women at an early stage of labor end up being induced and deliver via C-section.

“It’s almost like, at this point, C-sections are being handed out like lollipops,” said LA’Patricia Washington, a doula based in Jackson, Miss. Doulas are trained, nonmedical workers who help parents before, during, and after delivery.

Ms. Washington works with a nonprofit group, the Jackson Safer Childbirth Experience, that pays for doulas to help expectant mothers in the region. Some state Medicaid programs, such as New Jersey’s, reimburse for services by doulas because research shows they can reduce C-section rates. California has been trying to roll out the same benefit for its Medicaid members.

In 2020, when Julia Maeda became pregnant again, she paid out-of-pocket for a doula to attend the birth. The experience of having her son via C-section the previous year had been “emotionally and psychologically traumatic,” Ms. Maeda said.

She told her ob.gyn. that she wanted a VBAC, short for “vaginal birth after cesarean.” But, she said, “he just shook his head and said, ‘That’s not a good idea.’”

She had VBAC anyway. Ms. Maeda credits her doula with making it happen. 

“Maybe just her presence relayed to the nursing staff that this was something I was serious about,” Ms. Maeda said. “They want you to have your baby during business hours. And biology doesn’t work that way.”
 

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

The addition of aspirin to standard guideline management for blood pressure did not reduce the risk of cardiovascular events among adults with hypertension and controlled systolic blood pressure in a study.

The benefits of aspirin use for the primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) have been questioned in light of data showing neutral outcomes in low-risk patients and concerns about increased bleeding risk and mortality in healthy older adults, wrote Rita Del Pinto, MD, of University of L’Aquila (Italy) and colleagues in JAMA Network Open.

In the study, Dr. Del Pinto and colleagues conducted a post hoc analysis of data from more than 2,500 participants in SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial), a multicenter, randomized trial conducted from 2010 to 2013.

The goal of SPRINT was to compare intensive and standard blood pressure–lowering strategies for hypertension patients. The primary outcome of the current study was risk of a first cardiovascular event, which included adjudicated myocardial infarction, non–myocardial infarction acute coronary syndrome, stroke, acute heart failure, and CVD death.“There has been considerable improvement in the management of cardiovascular risk factors since the first reports on aspirin use for cardiovascular prevention,” Dr. Del Pinto said in an interview.

“As for hypertension, not only have more effective antihypertensive medications become available, but also evidence has recently emerged in support of a downwards redefinition of blood pressure targets during treatment,” she said. “In this context, in an era when great attention is paid to the personalization of treatment, no specific studies had addressed the association of aspirin use as a primary prevention strategy in a cohort of relatively old, high-risk individuals with treated systolic blood pressure steadily below the recommended target,” she added.

The researchers assessed whether aspirin use in addition to standard blood pressure management (a target of less than 140 mm Hg) decreased risk and improved survival.

The study population included 2,664 adult patients; 29.3% were women, and 24.5% were aged 75 years and older. Half of the patients (1,332) received aspirin and 1,332 did not.

In a multivariate analysis, 42 cardiovascular events occurred in the aspirin group, compared with 20 events in those not exposed to aspirin (hazard ratio, 2.30). The findings were consistent in subgroup analyses of younger individuals, current and former smokers, and patients on statins.

An additional subgroup analysis of individuals randomized to standard care or intensive care in the SPRINT study showed no significant difference in primary outcome rates between individuals who received aspirin and those who did not. The rates for aspirin use vs. non–aspirin use were 5.85% vs. 3.60% in the standard treatment group and 4.66% vs. 2.56% in the intensive treatment group.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the post hoc design, short follow-up period, and lack of data on the initiation of aspirin and bleeding events, the researchers wrote. However, the results suggest that modern management of hypertension may have redefined the potential benefits of aspirin in patients with hypertension, they concluded.

Findings confirm value of preventive care

“The study was conducted as a post-hoc analysis on an experimental cohort, which must be considered when interpreting the results,” Dr. Del Pinto said.

Despite the limitations, the study findings affirm that effective treatment of major cardiovascular risk factors, such as hypertension, with proven drugs is “a mainstay of the primary prevention of ASCVD,” she emphasized.

As for additional research, “Testing our findings in a dedicated setting with sufficiently long follow-up, where aspirin dose and indication, as well as any possible bleeding event, are reported could expand the clinical meaning of our observations,” said Dr. Del Pinto. “Also, the clinical impact of aspirin, even in combination with novel cardiovascular drugs such as direct oral anticoagulants, in populations exposed to combinations of risk factors, deserves further investigation.”

Data support shared decision-making

“While recent evidence has not shown a benefit of aspirin in the primary prevention of ASCVD in several populations, the subpopulation of patients with hypertension as an ASCVD risk factor is also of interest to the clinician,” Suman Pal, MD, of the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, said in an interview. “The lack of benefit of aspirin in this study, despite its limitations, was surprising, and I would be eager to see how the role of aspirin in ASCVD prevention would continue to evolve in conjunction with improvement in other therapies for modification of risk factors.”

“The decision to continue aspirin in this subgroup of patients should warrant a discussion with patients and a reexamination of risks and benefits until further data are available,” Dr. Pal emphasized. 

Larger studies with long-term follow-ups would be required to further clarify the role of aspirin in primary prevention of ASCVD in patients with hypertension without diabetes or chronic kidney disease, he added.

Data were supplied courtesy of BioLINCC. The study received no outside funding. The researchers and Dr. Pal had no financial conflicts to disclose.

The addition of aspirin to standard guideline management for blood pressure did not reduce the risk of cardiovascular events among adults with hypertension and controlled systolic blood pressure in a study.

The benefits of aspirin use for the primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) have been questioned in light of data showing neutral outcomes in low-risk patients and concerns about increased bleeding risk and mortality in healthy older adults, wrote Rita Del Pinto, MD, of University of L’Aquila (Italy) and colleagues in JAMA Network Open.

In the study, Dr. Del Pinto and colleagues conducted a post hoc analysis of data from more than 2,500 participants in SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial), a multicenter, randomized trial conducted from 2010 to 2013.

The goal of SPRINT was to compare intensive and standard blood pressure–lowering strategies for hypertension patients. The primary outcome of the current study was risk of a first cardiovascular event, which included adjudicated myocardial infarction, non–myocardial infarction acute coronary syndrome, stroke, acute heart failure, and CVD death.“There has been considerable improvement in the management of cardiovascular risk factors since the first reports on aspirin use for cardiovascular prevention,” Dr. Del Pinto said in an interview.

“As for hypertension, not only have more effective antihypertensive medications become available, but also evidence has recently emerged in support of a downwards redefinition of blood pressure targets during treatment,” she said. “In this context, in an era when great attention is paid to the personalization of treatment, no specific studies had addressed the association of aspirin use as a primary prevention strategy in a cohort of relatively old, high-risk individuals with treated systolic blood pressure steadily below the recommended target,” she added.

The researchers assessed whether aspirin use in addition to standard blood pressure management (a target of less than 140 mm Hg) decreased risk and improved survival.

The study population included 2,664 adult patients; 29.3% were women, and 24.5% were aged 75 years and older. Half of the patients (1,332) received aspirin and 1,332 did not.

In a multivariate analysis, 42 cardiovascular events occurred in the aspirin group, compared with 20 events in those not exposed to aspirin (hazard ratio, 2.30). The findings were consistent in subgroup analyses of younger individuals, current and former smokers, and patients on statins.

An additional subgroup analysis of individuals randomized to standard care or intensive care in the SPRINT study showed no significant difference in primary outcome rates between individuals who received aspirin and those who did not. The rates for aspirin use vs. non–aspirin use were 5.85% vs. 3.60% in the standard treatment group and 4.66% vs. 2.56% in the intensive treatment group.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the post hoc design, short follow-up period, and lack of data on the initiation of aspirin and bleeding events, the researchers wrote. However, the results suggest that modern management of hypertension may have redefined the potential benefits of aspirin in patients with hypertension, they concluded.

Findings confirm value of preventive care

“The study was conducted as a post-hoc analysis on an experimental cohort, which must be considered when interpreting the results,” Dr. Del Pinto said.

Despite the limitations, the study findings affirm that effective treatment of major cardiovascular risk factors, such as hypertension, with proven drugs is “a mainstay of the primary prevention of ASCVD,” she emphasized.

As for additional research, “Testing our findings in a dedicated setting with sufficiently long follow-up, where aspirin dose and indication, as well as any possible bleeding event, are reported could expand the clinical meaning of our observations,” said Dr. Del Pinto. “Also, the clinical impact of aspirin, even in combination with novel cardiovascular drugs such as direct oral anticoagulants, in populations exposed to combinations of risk factors, deserves further investigation.”

Data support shared decision-making

“While recent evidence has not shown a benefit of aspirin in the primary prevention of ASCVD in several populations, the subpopulation of patients with hypertension as an ASCVD risk factor is also of interest to the clinician,” Suman Pal, MD, of the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, said in an interview. “The lack of benefit of aspirin in this study, despite its limitations, was surprising, and I would be eager to see how the role of aspirin in ASCVD prevention would continue to evolve in conjunction with improvement in other therapies for modification of risk factors.”

“The decision to continue aspirin in this subgroup of patients should warrant a discussion with patients and a reexamination of risks and benefits until further data are available,” Dr. Pal emphasized. 

Larger studies with long-term follow-ups would be required to further clarify the role of aspirin in primary prevention of ASCVD in patients with hypertension without diabetes or chronic kidney disease, he added.

Data were supplied courtesy of BioLINCC. The study received no outside funding. The researchers and Dr. Pal had no financial conflicts to disclose.

The addition of aspirin to standard guideline management for blood pressure did not reduce the risk of cardiovascular events among adults with hypertension and controlled systolic blood pressure in a study.

The benefits of aspirin use for the primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) have been questioned in light of data showing neutral outcomes in low-risk patients and concerns about increased bleeding risk and mortality in healthy older adults, wrote Rita Del Pinto, MD, of University of L’Aquila (Italy) and colleagues in JAMA Network Open.

In the study, Dr. Del Pinto and colleagues conducted a post hoc analysis of data from more than 2,500 participants in SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial), a multicenter, randomized trial conducted from 2010 to 2013.

The goal of SPRINT was to compare intensive and standard blood pressure–lowering strategies for hypertension patients. The primary outcome of the current study was risk of a first cardiovascular event, which included adjudicated myocardial infarction, non–myocardial infarction acute coronary syndrome, stroke, acute heart failure, and CVD death.“There has been considerable improvement in the management of cardiovascular risk factors since the first reports on aspirin use for cardiovascular prevention,” Dr. Del Pinto said in an interview.

“As for hypertension, not only have more effective antihypertensive medications become available, but also evidence has recently emerged in support of a downwards redefinition of blood pressure targets during treatment,” she said. “In this context, in an era when great attention is paid to the personalization of treatment, no specific studies had addressed the association of aspirin use as a primary prevention strategy in a cohort of relatively old, high-risk individuals with treated systolic blood pressure steadily below the recommended target,” she added.

The researchers assessed whether aspirin use in addition to standard blood pressure management (a target of less than 140 mm Hg) decreased risk and improved survival.

The study population included 2,664 adult patients; 29.3% were women, and 24.5% were aged 75 years and older. Half of the patients (1,332) received aspirin and 1,332 did not.

In a multivariate analysis, 42 cardiovascular events occurred in the aspirin group, compared with 20 events in those not exposed to aspirin (hazard ratio, 2.30). The findings were consistent in subgroup analyses of younger individuals, current and former smokers, and patients on statins.

An additional subgroup analysis of individuals randomized to standard care or intensive care in the SPRINT study showed no significant difference in primary outcome rates between individuals who received aspirin and those who did not. The rates for aspirin use vs. non–aspirin use were 5.85% vs. 3.60% in the standard treatment group and 4.66% vs. 2.56% in the intensive treatment group.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the post hoc design, short follow-up period, and lack of data on the initiation of aspirin and bleeding events, the researchers wrote. However, the results suggest that modern management of hypertension may have redefined the potential benefits of aspirin in patients with hypertension, they concluded.

Findings confirm value of preventive care

“The study was conducted as a post-hoc analysis on an experimental cohort, which must be considered when interpreting the results,” Dr. Del Pinto said.

Despite the limitations, the study findings affirm that effective treatment of major cardiovascular risk factors, such as hypertension, with proven drugs is “a mainstay of the primary prevention of ASCVD,” she emphasized.

As for additional research, “Testing our findings in a dedicated setting with sufficiently long follow-up, where aspirin dose and indication, as well as any possible bleeding event, are reported could expand the clinical meaning of our observations,” said Dr. Del Pinto. “Also, the clinical impact of aspirin, even in combination with novel cardiovascular drugs such as direct oral anticoagulants, in populations exposed to combinations of risk factors, deserves further investigation.”

Data support shared decision-making

“While recent evidence has not shown a benefit of aspirin in the primary prevention of ASCVD in several populations, the subpopulation of patients with hypertension as an ASCVD risk factor is also of interest to the clinician,” Suman Pal, MD, of the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, said in an interview. “The lack of benefit of aspirin in this study, despite its limitations, was surprising, and I would be eager to see how the role of aspirin in ASCVD prevention would continue to evolve in conjunction with improvement in other therapies for modification of risk factors.”

“The decision to continue aspirin in this subgroup of patients should warrant a discussion with patients and a reexamination of risks and benefits until further data are available,” Dr. Pal emphasized. 

Larger studies with long-term follow-ups would be required to further clarify the role of aspirin in primary prevention of ASCVD in patients with hypertension without diabetes or chronic kidney disease, he added.

Data were supplied courtesy of BioLINCC. The study received no outside funding. The researchers and Dr. Pal had no financial conflicts to disclose.

It may seem like déjà vu, as not much has changed regarding the rankings of top U.S. medical schools over the past 2 years.

The University of Washington, Seattle retained its ranking from the U.S. News & World Report as the top medical school for primary care for 2023. Also repeating its 2022 standing as the top medical school for research is Harvard University. Both schools ranked in the top 10 for primary care and research, with Harvard also ranking in the top spot for half of eight specialties reported.

In the primary care ranking, the top 10 schools after the University of Washington were the University of California, San Francisco; the University of Minnesota; Oregon Health and Science University; the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; the University of Colorado; the University of Nebraska Medical Center; the University of California, Davis; and Harvard. Three schools tied for the no. 10 slot: the University of Kansas Medical Center, the University of Massachusetts Chan Medical Center, and the University of Pittsburgh.

The top five schools with the most graduates practicing in primary care specialties are Des Moines University, Iowa (50.6%); the University of Pikeville (Ky.) (46.8%); Western University of Health Sciences, Pomona, California (46%); William Carey University College of Osteopathic Medicine, Hattiesburg, Mississippi (44.7%); and A.T. Still University of Health Sciences, Kirksville, Missouri (44.3%).
 

Best for research

When it comes to schools ranking the highest for research, the Grossman School of Medicine at New York University takes the no. 2 spot after Harvard. Three schools were tied for the no. 3 spot: Columbia University, Johns Hopkins University, and the University of California, San Francisco; and two schools for no. 6: Duke University and the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. No. 8 goes to Stanford University, followed by the University of Washington. Rounding out the top 10 is Yale University.

Specialty ranks

The top-ranked schools in eight specialties are as follows:

• Anesthesiology: Harvard
• Family medicine: the University of Washington
• Internal medicine: Johns Hopkins
• Obstetrics/gynecology: Harvard
• Pediatrics: the University of Pennsylvania (Perelman)
• Psychiatry: Harvard
• Radiology: Johns Hopkins
• Surgery: Harvard

Most diverse student body

If you’re looking for a school with significant minority representation, Howard University, Washington, D.C., ranked highest (76.8%), followed by the Wertheim College of Medicine at Florida International University, Miami (43.2%). The University of California, Davis (40%), Sacramento, California, and the University of Vermont (Larner), Burlington (14.1%), tied for third.

Three southern schools take top honors for the most graduates practicing in underserved areas, starting with the University of South Carolina (70.9%), followed by the University of Mississippi (66.2%), and East Tennessee State University (Quillen), Johnson City, Tennessee (65.8%).

The colleges with the most graduates practicing in rural areas are William Carey University College of Osteopathic Medicine (28%), the University of Pikesville (25.6%), and the University of Mississippi (22.1%).
 

College debt

The medical school where graduates have the most debt is Nova Southeastern University Patel College of Osteopathic Medicine, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Graduates incurred an average debt of $309,206. Western University of Health Sciences graduates racked up $276,840 in debt, followed by graduates of West Virginia School of Osteopathic Medicine, owing $268,416.

Ranking criteria

Each year, U.S. News ranks hundreds of U.S. colleges and universities. Medical schools fall under the rankings for best graduate schools.

U.S. News surveyed 192 medical and osteopathic schools accredited in 2021 by the Liaison Committee on Medical Education or the American Osteopathic Association. Among the schools surveyed in fall 2021 and early 2022, 130 schools responded. Of those, 124 were included in both the research and primary care rankings.

The criteria for ranking include faculty resources, academic achievements of entering students, and qualitative assessments by schools and residency directors.

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

It may seem like déjà vu, as not much has changed regarding the rankings of top U.S. medical schools over the past 2 years.

The University of Washington, Seattle retained its ranking from the U.S. News & World Report as the top medical school for primary care for 2023. Also repeating its 2022 standing as the top medical school for research is Harvard University. Both schools ranked in the top 10 for primary care and research, with Harvard also ranking in the top spot for half of eight specialties reported.

In the primary care ranking, the top 10 schools after the University of Washington were the University of California, San Francisco; the University of Minnesota; Oregon Health and Science University; the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; the University of Colorado; the University of Nebraska Medical Center; the University of California, Davis; and Harvard. Three schools tied for the no. 10 slot: the University of Kansas Medical Center, the University of Massachusetts Chan Medical Center, and the University of Pittsburgh.

The top five schools with the most graduates practicing in primary care specialties are Des Moines University, Iowa (50.6%); the University of Pikeville (Ky.) (46.8%); Western University of Health Sciences, Pomona, California (46%); William Carey University College of Osteopathic Medicine, Hattiesburg, Mississippi (44.7%); and A.T. Still University of Health Sciences, Kirksville, Missouri (44.3%).
 

Best for research

When it comes to schools ranking the highest for research, the Grossman School of Medicine at New York University takes the no. 2 spot after Harvard. Three schools were tied for the no. 3 spot: Columbia University, Johns Hopkins University, and the University of California, San Francisco; and two schools for no. 6: Duke University and the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. No. 8 goes to Stanford University, followed by the University of Washington. Rounding out the top 10 is Yale University.

Specialty ranks

The top-ranked schools in eight specialties are as follows:

• Anesthesiology: Harvard
• Family medicine: the University of Washington
• Internal medicine: Johns Hopkins
• Obstetrics/gynecology: Harvard
• Pediatrics: the University of Pennsylvania (Perelman)
• Psychiatry: Harvard
• Radiology: Johns Hopkins
• Surgery: Harvard

Most diverse student body

If you’re looking for a school with significant minority representation, Howard University, Washington, D.C., ranked highest (76.8%), followed by the Wertheim College of Medicine at Florida International University, Miami (43.2%). The University of California, Davis (40%), Sacramento, California, and the University of Vermont (Larner), Burlington (14.1%), tied for third.

Three southern schools take top honors for the most graduates practicing in underserved areas, starting with the University of South Carolina (70.9%), followed by the University of Mississippi (66.2%), and East Tennessee State University (Quillen), Johnson City, Tennessee (65.8%).

The colleges with the most graduates practicing in rural areas are William Carey University College of Osteopathic Medicine (28%), the University of Pikesville (25.6%), and the University of Mississippi (22.1%).
 

College debt

The medical school where graduates have the most debt is Nova Southeastern University Patel College of Osteopathic Medicine, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Graduates incurred an average debt of $309,206. Western University of Health Sciences graduates racked up $276,840 in debt, followed by graduates of West Virginia School of Osteopathic Medicine, owing $268,416.

Ranking criteria

Each year, U.S. News ranks hundreds of U.S. colleges and universities. Medical schools fall under the rankings for best graduate schools.

U.S. News surveyed 192 medical and osteopathic schools accredited in 2021 by the Liaison Committee on Medical Education or the American Osteopathic Association. Among the schools surveyed in fall 2021 and early 2022, 130 schools responded. Of those, 124 were included in both the research and primary care rankings.

The criteria for ranking include faculty resources, academic achievements of entering students, and qualitative assessments by schools and residency directors.

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

It may seem like déjà vu, as not much has changed regarding the rankings of top U.S. medical schools over the past 2 years.

The University of Washington, Seattle retained its ranking from the U.S. News & World Report as the top medical school for primary care for 2023. Also repeating its 2022 standing as the top medical school for research is Harvard University. Both schools ranked in the top 10 for primary care and research, with Harvard also ranking in the top spot for half of eight specialties reported.

In the primary care ranking, the top 10 schools after the University of Washington were the University of California, San Francisco; the University of Minnesota; Oregon Health and Science University; the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; the University of Colorado; the University of Nebraska Medical Center; the University of California, Davis; and Harvard. Three schools tied for the no. 10 slot: the University of Kansas Medical Center, the University of Massachusetts Chan Medical Center, and the University of Pittsburgh.

The top five schools with the most graduates practicing in primary care specialties are Des Moines University, Iowa (50.6%); the University of Pikeville (Ky.) (46.8%); Western University of Health Sciences, Pomona, California (46%); William Carey University College of Osteopathic Medicine, Hattiesburg, Mississippi (44.7%); and A.T. Still University of Health Sciences, Kirksville, Missouri (44.3%).
 

Best for research

When it comes to schools ranking the highest for research, the Grossman School of Medicine at New York University takes the no. 2 spot after Harvard. Three schools were tied for the no. 3 spot: Columbia University, Johns Hopkins University, and the University of California, San Francisco; and two schools for no. 6: Duke University and the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. No. 8 goes to Stanford University, followed by the University of Washington. Rounding out the top 10 is Yale University.

Specialty ranks

The top-ranked schools in eight specialties are as follows:

• Anesthesiology: Harvard
• Family medicine: the University of Washington
• Internal medicine: Johns Hopkins
• Obstetrics/gynecology: Harvard
• Pediatrics: the University of Pennsylvania (Perelman)
• Psychiatry: Harvard
• Radiology: Johns Hopkins
• Surgery: Harvard

Most diverse student body

If you’re looking for a school with significant minority representation, Howard University, Washington, D.C., ranked highest (76.8%), followed by the Wertheim College of Medicine at Florida International University, Miami (43.2%). The University of California, Davis (40%), Sacramento, California, and the University of Vermont (Larner), Burlington (14.1%), tied for third.

Three southern schools take top honors for the most graduates practicing in underserved areas, starting with the University of South Carolina (70.9%), followed by the University of Mississippi (66.2%), and East Tennessee State University (Quillen), Johnson City, Tennessee (65.8%).

The colleges with the most graduates practicing in rural areas are William Carey University College of Osteopathic Medicine (28%), the University of Pikesville (25.6%), and the University of Mississippi (22.1%).
 

College debt

The medical school where graduates have the most debt is Nova Southeastern University Patel College of Osteopathic Medicine, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Graduates incurred an average debt of $309,206. Western University of Health Sciences graduates racked up $276,840 in debt, followed by graduates of West Virginia School of Osteopathic Medicine, owing $268,416.

Ranking criteria

Each year, U.S. News ranks hundreds of U.S. colleges and universities. Medical schools fall under the rankings for best graduate schools.

U.S. News surveyed 192 medical and osteopathic schools accredited in 2021 by the Liaison Committee on Medical Education or the American Osteopathic Association. Among the schools surveyed in fall 2021 and early 2022, 130 schools responded. Of those, 124 were included in both the research and primary care rankings.

The criteria for ranking include faculty resources, academic achievements of entering students, and qualitative assessments by schools and residency directors.

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

Hospitalized patients who are asymptomatic Clostridioides difficile carriers may infect people they live with after they return home, a study based on U.S. insurance claim data suggests.

Although C. difficile infection (CDI) is considered to be a common hospital-acquired infection, reports of community-associated CDI in patients who have not been hospitalized are increasing, the authors wrote in Emerging Infectious Diseases.

“Individuals in households where another family member was recently hospitalized but not diagnosed with a CDI appear to be at increased risk for CDI,” said lead author Aaron C. Miller, PhD, a research assistant professor in the department of internal medicine at the University of Iowa, Iowa City. “When individuals are hospitalized, they may become colonized with C. difficile without developing symptoms and subsequently transmit the pathogen to other family members after they return home,” he said by email.

Dr. Miller and colleagues analyzed insurance claims data from 2001 through 2017 using the U.S. Commercial Claims and Medicare Supplemental datasets of IBM MarketScan Research Databases. Over that period, they searched employer-sponsored commercial insurance claims and Medicare supplemental claims of 194,424 enrollees, and they linked claims from multiple family members in the same enrollment plan.

They identified 224,818 CDI cases, and 3,871 of them were considered potential asymptomatic C. difficile transmissions from a recently hospitalized family member.

The researchers gathered monthly C. difficile incidence data from households with a family member who had been hospitalized within the past 60 days and compared them with data from households without a hospitalized family member.

Enrollees exposed to a recently hospitalized family member had a 73% greater incidence of CDI compared with enrollees who were not exposed. The longer the family member’s hospital stay, the greater the risk that someone in the household became infected.

Compared with people whose family members were hospitalized less than 1 day, people whose family members were hospitalized from 1 to 3 days had an incidence rate ratio (IRR) of 1.30 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.19-1.41), and those whose family members were hospitalized for more than 30 days had an IRR of 2.45 (95% CI, 1.66-3.60).

CDI incidence increased with age. Compared with people 17 years of age or younger, the IRR increased to 9.32 (95% CI, 8.92-9.73) for those over 65.

Females had higher CDI incidence than males (IRR 1.30; 95% CI, 1.28-1.33).

Households with an infant also had higher CDI incidence than those without (IRR 1.5; 95% CI, 1.44-1.58).

People taking antimicrobials had higher CDI IRRs: 2.69 (95% CI, 2.59-2.79) for low-CDI-risk antibiotics and 8.83 (95% CI, 8.63-9.03) for high-CDI-risk antibiotics.

People taking proton-pump inhibitors had an IRR of 2.23 (95% CI, 2.15-2.30).
 

Reactions from four experts

Douglas S. Paauw MD, MACP, professor of medicine and the chair for patient-centered clinical education at the University of Washington, Seattle, was not surprised by the findings. “We have wondered for a while how community-acquired CDI occurs,” he said in an email. “This important study offers a plausible explanation for some cases.”

Dr. Paauw advises doctors to consider CDI in their patients who have been exposed to hospitalized people.

David M. Aronoff, MD, FIDSA, FAAM, professor of medicine and the chair of the department of medicine at Indiana University, Indianapolis, advises providers to educate hospital patients being discharged about how CDI is spread and how they can practice good hand hygiene at home.

“An open question of this strong study is whether we should be testing certain hospital patients for asymptomatic C. difficile carriage before they are discharged,” he added in an email.

In a phone interview, Paul G. Auwaerter, MD, MBA, professor of medicine and clinical director of the division of infectious diseases at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, noted that community-acquired CDI is frequent enough that his institution performs routine C. difficile testing on all patients with unexplained severe diarrhea.

“This intriguing study bears additional research and follow-up because clearly these spores are hardy,” he said. “But a key point in this billings- and claims-based study is that no one knows where household members acquired CDI, whether it was actually through household transmission.”

Ramin Asgary, MD, MPH, FASTMH, associate professor of global health in the Milken Institute School of Public Health at George Washington University, Washington, cautioned about “an increasing issue with drug-resistant CDI.

“This important, timely study provides another step in the right direction to better understanding and addressing CDI and other hospital-based infections that have become increasing threats to the safety of our patients, their families, and health care in general,” he said in an email.

Dr. Miller said that the scale and scope of the data are strengths of the study, and he acknowledged that its basis in claims and billing data is a limitation. He and his group plan to explore genetic relationships involved in CDI transmission.

The study was funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. All authors and independent experts have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Hospitalized patients who are asymptomatic Clostridioides difficile carriers may infect people they live with after they return home, a study based on U.S. insurance claim data suggests.

Although C. difficile infection (CDI) is considered to be a common hospital-acquired infection, reports of community-associated CDI in patients who have not been hospitalized are increasing, the authors wrote in Emerging Infectious Diseases.

“Individuals in households where another family member was recently hospitalized but not diagnosed with a CDI appear to be at increased risk for CDI,” said lead author Aaron C. Miller, PhD, a research assistant professor in the department of internal medicine at the University of Iowa, Iowa City. “When individuals are hospitalized, they may become colonized with C. difficile without developing symptoms and subsequently transmit the pathogen to other family members after they return home,” he said by email.

Dr. Miller and colleagues analyzed insurance claims data from 2001 through 2017 using the U.S. Commercial Claims and Medicare Supplemental datasets of IBM MarketScan Research Databases. Over that period, they searched employer-sponsored commercial insurance claims and Medicare supplemental claims of 194,424 enrollees, and they linked claims from multiple family members in the same enrollment plan.

They identified 224,818 CDI cases, and 3,871 of them were considered potential asymptomatic C. difficile transmissions from a recently hospitalized family member.

The researchers gathered monthly C. difficile incidence data from households with a family member who had been hospitalized within the past 60 days and compared them with data from households without a hospitalized family member.

Enrollees exposed to a recently hospitalized family member had a 73% greater incidence of CDI compared with enrollees who were not exposed. The longer the family member’s hospital stay, the greater the risk that someone in the household became infected.

Compared with people whose family members were hospitalized less than 1 day, people whose family members were hospitalized from 1 to 3 days had an incidence rate ratio (IRR) of 1.30 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.19-1.41), and those whose family members were hospitalized for more than 30 days had an IRR of 2.45 (95% CI, 1.66-3.60).

CDI incidence increased with age. Compared with people 17 years of age or younger, the IRR increased to 9.32 (95% CI, 8.92-9.73) for those over 65.

Females had higher CDI incidence than males (IRR 1.30; 95% CI, 1.28-1.33).

Households with an infant also had higher CDI incidence than those without (IRR 1.5; 95% CI, 1.44-1.58).

People taking antimicrobials had higher CDI IRRs: 2.69 (95% CI, 2.59-2.79) for low-CDI-risk antibiotics and 8.83 (95% CI, 8.63-9.03) for high-CDI-risk antibiotics.

People taking proton-pump inhibitors had an IRR of 2.23 (95% CI, 2.15-2.30).
 

Reactions from four experts

Douglas S. Paauw MD, MACP, professor of medicine and the chair for patient-centered clinical education at the University of Washington, Seattle, was not surprised by the findings. “We have wondered for a while how community-acquired CDI occurs,” he said in an email. “This important study offers a plausible explanation for some cases.”

Dr. Paauw advises doctors to consider CDI in their patients who have been exposed to hospitalized people.

David M. Aronoff, MD, FIDSA, FAAM, professor of medicine and the chair of the department of medicine at Indiana University, Indianapolis, advises providers to educate hospital patients being discharged about how CDI is spread and how they can practice good hand hygiene at home.

“An open question of this strong study is whether we should be testing certain hospital patients for asymptomatic C. difficile carriage before they are discharged,” he added in an email.

In a phone interview, Paul G. Auwaerter, MD, MBA, professor of medicine and clinical director of the division of infectious diseases at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, noted that community-acquired CDI is frequent enough that his institution performs routine C. difficile testing on all patients with unexplained severe diarrhea.

“This intriguing study bears additional research and follow-up because clearly these spores are hardy,” he said. “But a key point in this billings- and claims-based study is that no one knows where household members acquired CDI, whether it was actually through household transmission.”

Ramin Asgary, MD, MPH, FASTMH, associate professor of global health in the Milken Institute School of Public Health at George Washington University, Washington, cautioned about “an increasing issue with drug-resistant CDI.

“This important, timely study provides another step in the right direction to better understanding and addressing CDI and other hospital-based infections that have become increasing threats to the safety of our patients, their families, and health care in general,” he said in an email.

Dr. Miller said that the scale and scope of the data are strengths of the study, and he acknowledged that its basis in claims and billing data is a limitation. He and his group plan to explore genetic relationships involved in CDI transmission.

The study was funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. All authors and independent experts have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Hospitalized patients who are asymptomatic Clostridioides difficile carriers may infect people they live with after they return home, a study based on U.S. insurance claim data suggests.

Although C. difficile infection (CDI) is considered to be a common hospital-acquired infection, reports of community-associated CDI in patients who have not been hospitalized are increasing, the authors wrote in Emerging Infectious Diseases.

“Individuals in households where another family member was recently hospitalized but not diagnosed with a CDI appear to be at increased risk for CDI,” said lead author Aaron C. Miller, PhD, a research assistant professor in the department of internal medicine at the University of Iowa, Iowa City. “When individuals are hospitalized, they may become colonized with C. difficile without developing symptoms and subsequently transmit the pathogen to other family members after they return home,” he said by email.

Dr. Miller and colleagues analyzed insurance claims data from 2001 through 2017 using the U.S. Commercial Claims and Medicare Supplemental datasets of IBM MarketScan Research Databases. Over that period, they searched employer-sponsored commercial insurance claims and Medicare supplemental claims of 194,424 enrollees, and they linked claims from multiple family members in the same enrollment plan.

They identified 224,818 CDI cases, and 3,871 of them were considered potential asymptomatic C. difficile transmissions from a recently hospitalized family member.

The researchers gathered monthly C. difficile incidence data from households with a family member who had been hospitalized within the past 60 days and compared them with data from households without a hospitalized family member.

Enrollees exposed to a recently hospitalized family member had a 73% greater incidence of CDI compared with enrollees who were not exposed. The longer the family member’s hospital stay, the greater the risk that someone in the household became infected.

Compared with people whose family members were hospitalized less than 1 day, people whose family members were hospitalized from 1 to 3 days had an incidence rate ratio (IRR) of 1.30 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.19-1.41), and those whose family members were hospitalized for more than 30 days had an IRR of 2.45 (95% CI, 1.66-3.60).

CDI incidence increased with age. Compared with people 17 years of age or younger, the IRR increased to 9.32 (95% CI, 8.92-9.73) for those over 65.

Females had higher CDI incidence than males (IRR 1.30; 95% CI, 1.28-1.33).

Households with an infant also had higher CDI incidence than those without (IRR 1.5; 95% CI, 1.44-1.58).

People taking antimicrobials had higher CDI IRRs: 2.69 (95% CI, 2.59-2.79) for low-CDI-risk antibiotics and 8.83 (95% CI, 8.63-9.03) for high-CDI-risk antibiotics.

People taking proton-pump inhibitors had an IRR of 2.23 (95% CI, 2.15-2.30).
 

Reactions from four experts

Douglas S. Paauw MD, MACP, professor of medicine and the chair for patient-centered clinical education at the University of Washington, Seattle, was not surprised by the findings. “We have wondered for a while how community-acquired CDI occurs,” he said in an email. “This important study offers a plausible explanation for some cases.”

Dr. Paauw advises doctors to consider CDI in their patients who have been exposed to hospitalized people.

David M. Aronoff, MD, FIDSA, FAAM, professor of medicine and the chair of the department of medicine at Indiana University, Indianapolis, advises providers to educate hospital patients being discharged about how CDI is spread and how they can practice good hand hygiene at home.

“An open question of this strong study is whether we should be testing certain hospital patients for asymptomatic C. difficile carriage before they are discharged,” he added in an email.

In a phone interview, Paul G. Auwaerter, MD, MBA, professor of medicine and clinical director of the division of infectious diseases at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, noted that community-acquired CDI is frequent enough that his institution performs routine C. difficile testing on all patients with unexplained severe diarrhea.

“This intriguing study bears additional research and follow-up because clearly these spores are hardy,” he said. “But a key point in this billings- and claims-based study is that no one knows where household members acquired CDI, whether it was actually through household transmission.”

Ramin Asgary, MD, MPH, FASTMH, associate professor of global health in the Milken Institute School of Public Health at George Washington University, Washington, cautioned about “an increasing issue with drug-resistant CDI.

“This important, timely study provides another step in the right direction to better understanding and addressing CDI and other hospital-based infections that have become increasing threats to the safety of our patients, their families, and health care in general,” he said in an email.

Dr. Miller said that the scale and scope of the data are strengths of the study, and he acknowledged that its basis in claims and billing data is a limitation. He and his group plan to explore genetic relationships involved in CDI transmission.

The study was funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. All authors and independent experts have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

At least one in four adults worldwide is thought to have nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, a major risk factor for cardiovascular disease (CVD), which is the leading cause of death in NAFLD, but the condition is widely underdiagnosed, according to a new American Heart Association scientific statement on NAFLD and cardiovascular risks.

The statement, published in Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology, aims to increase awareness of NAFLD among cardiologists and other clinicians treating vulnerable patients. It pulls together the existing evidence for using imaging to diagnose NAFLD as well as the role of current and emerging treatments for managing the disease.

“NAFLD is common, but most patients are undiagnosed,” statement writing committee chair P. Barton Duell, MD, said in an interview. “The identification of normal liver enzyme levels does not exclude the diagnosis of NAFLD. Early diagnosis and treatment are necessary to improve the health of patients with established NAFLD, as well as preventing the development of NAFLD in patients who are at risk for the condition.”

Dr. Duell is a professor at the Knight Cardiovascular Institute and division of endocrinology, diabetes and clinical nutrition at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.

This is the AHA’s first scientific statement on NAFLD. In 2021, the association issued a statement on obesity and CVD). Also in 2021, a multiorganization group headed by the American Gastroenterological Association published a “Call to Action” on nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) , a form of NAFLD that’s characterized by inflammation and scarring of the liver, and typically requires a liver biopsy for diagnosis.

Key take-homes

The AHA statement on NAFLD is sweeping. Among its key take-home messages:

• Calling into question the effectiveness of AST and ALT testing for diagnosing NAFLD and NASH.
• Providing context to the role of insulin resistance – either with or without diabetes – as well as obesity (particularly visceral adiposity), metabolic syndrome, and dyslipidemia in NAFLD.
• Advocating for lifestyle interventions – diet, exercise, weight loss and alcohol avoidance – as the key therapeutic intervention for NAFLD.
• Asserting that glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonists may modestly improve NAFLD.

The statement also tackles the differences in terminology different organizations use to describe NAFLD. “The terminology section is important to ensure everyone is using the right terminology in assessing patients, as well as choosing appropriate treatment interventions,” Dr. Duell said.

The statement also explores genetic factors that can predispose people to NAFLD, Dr. Duell pointed out, and it goes into detail about strategies for screening NAFLD and NASH. “It is not possible to diagnose NAFLD without understanding the pros and cons of various screening modalities, as well as the lack of sensitivity of some tests for detection of NAFLD We hope this information will increase success in screening for and early identification of NAFLD.”

Dr. Duell explained the rationale for issuing the statement. “Rates of NAFLD are increasing worldwide in association with rising rates of elevated body mass index and the metabolic syndrome, but the condition is commonly undiagnosed,” he said. “This allows patients to experience progression of disease, leading to hepatic and cardiovascular complications.” 

Avoiding NAFLD risk factors along with early diagnosis and treatment “may have the potential to mitigate long-term complications from NAFLD,” Dr. Duell said.

“This is one of first times where we really look at cardiovascular risks associated with NAFLD and pinpoint the risk factors, the imaging tools that can be used for diagnosing fatty liver disease, and ultimately what potential treatments we can consider,” Tiffany M. Powell-Wiley, MD, MPH, author of the AHA statement on obesity and CV risk, said in an interview.

“NAFLD has not been at the forefront of  cardiologists’ minds, but this statement highlights the importance of liver fat as a fat depot,” said Dr. Powell-Wiley, chief of the Social Determinants of Obesity and Cardiovascular Risk Laboratory at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute in Bethesda, Md.

“It does provide greater clarity for us as cardiologists, especially when thinking about what is required for diagnosis and ultimately how this relates to cardiovascular disease for people with fatty liver disease,” she said.

Dr. Duell and Dr. Powell-Wiley have no relevant relationships to disclose.


 

At least one in four adults worldwide is thought to have nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, a major risk factor for cardiovascular disease (CVD), which is the leading cause of death in NAFLD, but the condition is widely underdiagnosed, according to a new American Heart Association scientific statement on NAFLD and cardiovascular risks.

The statement, published in Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology, aims to increase awareness of NAFLD among cardiologists and other clinicians treating vulnerable patients. It pulls together the existing evidence for using imaging to diagnose NAFLD as well as the role of current and emerging treatments for managing the disease.

“NAFLD is common, but most patients are undiagnosed,” statement writing committee chair P. Barton Duell, MD, said in an interview. “The identification of normal liver enzyme levels does not exclude the diagnosis of NAFLD. Early diagnosis and treatment are necessary to improve the health of patients with established NAFLD, as well as preventing the development of NAFLD in patients who are at risk for the condition.”

Dr. Duell is a professor at the Knight Cardiovascular Institute and division of endocrinology, diabetes and clinical nutrition at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.

This is the AHA’s first scientific statement on NAFLD. In 2021, the association issued a statement on obesity and CVD). Also in 2021, a multiorganization group headed by the American Gastroenterological Association published a “Call to Action” on nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) , a form of NAFLD that’s characterized by inflammation and scarring of the liver, and typically requires a liver biopsy for diagnosis.

Key take-homes

The AHA statement on NAFLD is sweeping. Among its key take-home messages:

• Calling into question the effectiveness of AST and ALT testing for diagnosing NAFLD and NASH.
• Providing context to the role of insulin resistance – either with or without diabetes – as well as obesity (particularly visceral adiposity), metabolic syndrome, and dyslipidemia in NAFLD.
• Advocating for lifestyle interventions – diet, exercise, weight loss and alcohol avoidance – as the key therapeutic intervention for NAFLD.
• Asserting that glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonists may modestly improve NAFLD.

The statement also tackles the differences in terminology different organizations use to describe NAFLD. “The terminology section is important to ensure everyone is using the right terminology in assessing patients, as well as choosing appropriate treatment interventions,” Dr. Duell said.

The statement also explores genetic factors that can predispose people to NAFLD, Dr. Duell pointed out, and it goes into detail about strategies for screening NAFLD and NASH. “It is not possible to diagnose NAFLD without understanding the pros and cons of various screening modalities, as well as the lack of sensitivity of some tests for detection of NAFLD We hope this information will increase success in screening for and early identification of NAFLD.”

Dr. Duell explained the rationale for issuing the statement. “Rates of NAFLD are increasing worldwide in association with rising rates of elevated body mass index and the metabolic syndrome, but the condition is commonly undiagnosed,” he said. “This allows patients to experience progression of disease, leading to hepatic and cardiovascular complications.” 

Avoiding NAFLD risk factors along with early diagnosis and treatment “may have the potential to mitigate long-term complications from NAFLD,” Dr. Duell said.

“This is one of first times where we really look at cardiovascular risks associated with NAFLD and pinpoint the risk factors, the imaging tools that can be used for diagnosing fatty liver disease, and ultimately what potential treatments we can consider,” Tiffany M. Powell-Wiley, MD, MPH, author of the AHA statement on obesity and CV risk, said in an interview.

“NAFLD has not been at the forefront of  cardiologists’ minds, but this statement highlights the importance of liver fat as a fat depot,” said Dr. Powell-Wiley, chief of the Social Determinants of Obesity and Cardiovascular Risk Laboratory at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute in Bethesda, Md.

“It does provide greater clarity for us as cardiologists, especially when thinking about what is required for diagnosis and ultimately how this relates to cardiovascular disease for people with fatty liver disease,” she said.

Dr. Duell and Dr. Powell-Wiley have no relevant relationships to disclose.


 

At least one in four adults worldwide is thought to have nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, a major risk factor for cardiovascular disease (CVD), which is the leading cause of death in NAFLD, but the condition is widely underdiagnosed, according to a new American Heart Association scientific statement on NAFLD and cardiovascular risks.

The statement, published in Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology, aims to increase awareness of NAFLD among cardiologists and other clinicians treating vulnerable patients. It pulls together the existing evidence for using imaging to diagnose NAFLD as well as the role of current and emerging treatments for managing the disease.

“NAFLD is common, but most patients are undiagnosed,” statement writing committee chair P. Barton Duell, MD, said in an interview. “The identification of normal liver enzyme levels does not exclude the diagnosis of NAFLD. Early diagnosis and treatment are necessary to improve the health of patients with established NAFLD, as well as preventing the development of NAFLD in patients who are at risk for the condition.”

Dr. Duell is a professor at the Knight Cardiovascular Institute and division of endocrinology, diabetes and clinical nutrition at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.

This is the AHA’s first scientific statement on NAFLD. In 2021, the association issued a statement on obesity and CVD). Also in 2021, a multiorganization group headed by the American Gastroenterological Association published a “Call to Action” on nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) , a form of NAFLD that’s characterized by inflammation and scarring of the liver, and typically requires a liver biopsy for diagnosis.

Key take-homes

The AHA statement on NAFLD is sweeping. Among its key take-home messages:

• Calling into question the effectiveness of AST and ALT testing for diagnosing NAFLD and NASH.
• Providing context to the role of insulin resistance – either with or without diabetes – as well as obesity (particularly visceral adiposity), metabolic syndrome, and dyslipidemia in NAFLD.
• Advocating for lifestyle interventions – diet, exercise, weight loss and alcohol avoidance – as the key therapeutic intervention for NAFLD.
• Asserting that glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonists may modestly improve NAFLD.

The statement also tackles the differences in terminology different organizations use to describe NAFLD. “The terminology section is important to ensure everyone is using the right terminology in assessing patients, as well as choosing appropriate treatment interventions,” Dr. Duell said.

The statement also explores genetic factors that can predispose people to NAFLD, Dr. Duell pointed out, and it goes into detail about strategies for screening NAFLD and NASH. “It is not possible to diagnose NAFLD without understanding the pros and cons of various screening modalities, as well as the lack of sensitivity of some tests for detection of NAFLD We hope this information will increase success in screening for and early identification of NAFLD.”

Dr. Duell explained the rationale for issuing the statement. “Rates of NAFLD are increasing worldwide in association with rising rates of elevated body mass index and the metabolic syndrome, but the condition is commonly undiagnosed,” he said. “This allows patients to experience progression of disease, leading to hepatic and cardiovascular complications.” 

Avoiding NAFLD risk factors along with early diagnosis and treatment “may have the potential to mitigate long-term complications from NAFLD,” Dr. Duell said.

“This is one of first times where we really look at cardiovascular risks associated with NAFLD and pinpoint the risk factors, the imaging tools that can be used for diagnosing fatty liver disease, and ultimately what potential treatments we can consider,” Tiffany M. Powell-Wiley, MD, MPH, author of the AHA statement on obesity and CV risk, said in an interview.

“NAFLD has not been at the forefront of  cardiologists’ minds, but this statement highlights the importance of liver fat as a fat depot,” said Dr. Powell-Wiley, chief of the Social Determinants of Obesity and Cardiovascular Risk Laboratory at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute in Bethesda, Md.

“It does provide greater clarity for us as cardiologists, especially when thinking about what is required for diagnosis and ultimately how this relates to cardiovascular disease for people with fatty liver disease,” she said.

Dr. Duell and Dr. Powell-Wiley have no relevant relationships to disclose.


 

New data from two different sources on cardiac complications linked to COVID-19 have shown that such issues are low overall but are higher after infection than after vaccination.

The new information comes from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network (PCORnet) and from a separate large international clinical study published online in Circulation.
 

CDC data

The CDC study analyzed electronic health record data from 40 U.S. health care systems from Jan. 1, 2021, to Jan. 31, 2022, on more than 15 million people aged 5 years or older.

It reports a rate of myocarditis or pericarditis after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination of 0-35.9 per 100,000 for males and 0-10.9 per 100,000 for females across different age groups and vaccine cohorts.

Rates of myocarditis or pericarditis after SARS-CoV-2 infection ranged from 12.6 to 114 per 100,000 for males and from 5.4 to 61.7 per 100,000 for females across different age groups.  

Even among males aged 12-17 years, the group with the highest incidence of cardiac complications after receipt of a second mRNA COVID-19 vaccine dose, the risk was 1.8-5.6 times higher after SARS-CoV-2 infection than after vaccination, the CDC report notes.

“These findings provide important context for balancing risks and benefits of mRNA COVID-19 vaccination among eligible persons greater than or equal to 5 years,” the report states. They also “support the continued use of recommended mRNA vaccines among all eligible persons aged greater than or equal to 5 years,” it concludes.
 

International study

The international study focused on prevalence, clinical characteristics, and outcomes of clinically manifest acute myocarditis in patients with COVID-19 infection.

The study showed a rate of acute myocarditis of 2.4 per 1,000 patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

“A small study previously indicated acute myocarditis is a rare occurrence in people infected with COVID-19. Our analysis of international data offers better insight to the occurrence of acute myocarditis during COVID-19 hospitalization, particularly before the COVID-19 vaccines were widely available,” coauthor Enrico Ammirati, MD, PhD, Niguarda Hospital, Milan, commented.

“This analysis indicates that, although rare, hospitalized patients with acute myocarditis associated with COVID-19 infection have a much greater need for intensive care unit admission, in up to 70.5% of the cases, despite the average age of the individuals in the study being much younger than expected, at 38 years old,” added coauthor Marco Metra, MD, University of Brescia, Italy. 

The researchers report that the use of corticosteroids in patients with acute myocarditis appeared safe, and, in most cases, a rapid increase in the left ventricular ejection fraction was observed. In addition, they say that discharged patients with acute myocarditis had “an excellent short-term prognosis without occurrence of cardiovascular events.”

The authors also point out that these data show much higher frequency and severity of acute myocarditis linked to COVID-19 infection, compared with myocarditis cases linked to the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.

The international study examined health data on 56,963 patients who were hospitalized with COVID-19 at 23 hospitals across the United States and Europe from February 2020 through April 2021. 

Among these patients, 97 with possible acute myocarditis were identified (4.1 per 1,000), of whom 54 (2.4 per 1,000) were classified as having “definite or probable” acute myocarditis supported by endomyocardial biopsy (31.5% of cases) or magnetic resonance imaging (92.6% of cases).

The median age of definite/probable acute myocarditis cases was 38 years, and 39% were female. On admission, chest pain and dyspnea were the most frequent symptoms (55.5% and 53.7%, respectively), and 31 cases (57.4%) occurred in the absence of COVID-19–associated pneumonia. A fulminant presentation requiring inotropic support or temporary mechanical circulatory support occurred in 21 cases (39%).

Overall, 38 patients (70.4%) were admitted to the intensive care unit for a median time of 6 days. Ten patients (18.5%) received temporary mechanical circulatory support for a median time of 5 days. Three patients died (5.5%) during the index hospitalization, all of whom also had pneumonia. At 120 days, estimated mortality was 6.6%. Patients with pneumonia were more likely to develop hemodynamic instability, require mechanical circulatory support, and die, compared with those without pneumonia.

The authors note that their reported prevalence of acute myocarditis associated with COVID-19 is lower, compared with studies that performed universal cardiac MRI screening during the convalescent COVID-19 period.

They say that underestimation of the prevalence of mild or subclinical acute myocarditis is likely in this study because of the retrospective nature of the registry, the lack of systematic cardiac MRI, and the possibility of missing some diagnoses, particularly during the first pandemic wave when cardiac MRI and endomyocardial biopsy were less frequently performed.

The authors also point out that data on myocarditis after COVID-19 vaccination suggest that vaccination-linked myocarditis is milder than that associated with the virus itself.

With regard to the prevalence of acute myocarditis after vaccination, they report that among 2.8 million doses of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine in the armed forces, 23 individuals had evidence of acute myocarditis, suggesting a prevalence of less than 1 case of acute myocarditis per 100,000 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine doses.

They note that the CDC has also reported 399 reports of myocarditis among 129 million fully vaccinated individuals with the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.

“These figures appear reassuring, compared with the prevalence of clinically manifest acute myocarditis observed in this study among hospitalized patients with COVID-19,” they conclude.

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

New data from two different sources on cardiac complications linked to COVID-19 have shown that such issues are low overall but are higher after infection than after vaccination.

The new information comes from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network (PCORnet) and from a separate large international clinical study published online in Circulation.
 

CDC data

The CDC study analyzed electronic health record data from 40 U.S. health care systems from Jan. 1, 2021, to Jan. 31, 2022, on more than 15 million people aged 5 years or older.

It reports a rate of myocarditis or pericarditis after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination of 0-35.9 per 100,000 for males and 0-10.9 per 100,000 for females across different age groups and vaccine cohorts.

Rates of myocarditis or pericarditis after SARS-CoV-2 infection ranged from 12.6 to 114 per 100,000 for males and from 5.4 to 61.7 per 100,000 for females across different age groups.  

Even among males aged 12-17 years, the group with the highest incidence of cardiac complications after receipt of a second mRNA COVID-19 vaccine dose, the risk was 1.8-5.6 times higher after SARS-CoV-2 infection than after vaccination, the CDC report notes.

“These findings provide important context for balancing risks and benefits of mRNA COVID-19 vaccination among eligible persons greater than or equal to 5 years,” the report states. They also “support the continued use of recommended mRNA vaccines among all eligible persons aged greater than or equal to 5 years,” it concludes.
 

International study

The international study focused on prevalence, clinical characteristics, and outcomes of clinically manifest acute myocarditis in patients with COVID-19 infection.

The study showed a rate of acute myocarditis of 2.4 per 1,000 patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

“A small study previously indicated acute myocarditis is a rare occurrence in people infected with COVID-19. Our analysis of international data offers better insight to the occurrence of acute myocarditis during COVID-19 hospitalization, particularly before the COVID-19 vaccines were widely available,” coauthor Enrico Ammirati, MD, PhD, Niguarda Hospital, Milan, commented.

“This analysis indicates that, although rare, hospitalized patients with acute myocarditis associated with COVID-19 infection have a much greater need for intensive care unit admission, in up to 70.5% of the cases, despite the average age of the individuals in the study being much younger than expected, at 38 years old,” added coauthor Marco Metra, MD, University of Brescia, Italy. 

The researchers report that the use of corticosteroids in patients with acute myocarditis appeared safe, and, in most cases, a rapid increase in the left ventricular ejection fraction was observed. In addition, they say that discharged patients with acute myocarditis had “an excellent short-term prognosis without occurrence of cardiovascular events.”

The authors also point out that these data show much higher frequency and severity of acute myocarditis linked to COVID-19 infection, compared with myocarditis cases linked to the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.

The international study examined health data on 56,963 patients who were hospitalized with COVID-19 at 23 hospitals across the United States and Europe from February 2020 through April 2021. 

Among these patients, 97 with possible acute myocarditis were identified (4.1 per 1,000), of whom 54 (2.4 per 1,000) were classified as having “definite or probable” acute myocarditis supported by endomyocardial biopsy (31.5% of cases) or magnetic resonance imaging (92.6% of cases).

The median age of definite/probable acute myocarditis cases was 38 years, and 39% were female. On admission, chest pain and dyspnea were the most frequent symptoms (55.5% and 53.7%, respectively), and 31 cases (57.4%) occurred in the absence of COVID-19–associated pneumonia. A fulminant presentation requiring inotropic support or temporary mechanical circulatory support occurred in 21 cases (39%).

Overall, 38 patients (70.4%) were admitted to the intensive care unit for a median time of 6 days. Ten patients (18.5%) received temporary mechanical circulatory support for a median time of 5 days. Three patients died (5.5%) during the index hospitalization, all of whom also had pneumonia. At 120 days, estimated mortality was 6.6%. Patients with pneumonia were more likely to develop hemodynamic instability, require mechanical circulatory support, and die, compared with those without pneumonia.

The authors note that their reported prevalence of acute myocarditis associated with COVID-19 is lower, compared with studies that performed universal cardiac MRI screening during the convalescent COVID-19 period.

They say that underestimation of the prevalence of mild or subclinical acute myocarditis is likely in this study because of the retrospective nature of the registry, the lack of systematic cardiac MRI, and the possibility of missing some diagnoses, particularly during the first pandemic wave when cardiac MRI and endomyocardial biopsy were less frequently performed.

The authors also point out that data on myocarditis after COVID-19 vaccination suggest that vaccination-linked myocarditis is milder than that associated with the virus itself.

With regard to the prevalence of acute myocarditis after vaccination, they report that among 2.8 million doses of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine in the armed forces, 23 individuals had evidence of acute myocarditis, suggesting a prevalence of less than 1 case of acute myocarditis per 100,000 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine doses.

They note that the CDC has also reported 399 reports of myocarditis among 129 million fully vaccinated individuals with the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.

“These figures appear reassuring, compared with the prevalence of clinically manifest acute myocarditis observed in this study among hospitalized patients with COVID-19,” they conclude.

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

New data from two different sources on cardiac complications linked to COVID-19 have shown that such issues are low overall but are higher after infection than after vaccination.

The new information comes from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network (PCORnet) and from a separate large international clinical study published online in Circulation.
 

CDC data

The CDC study analyzed electronic health record data from 40 U.S. health care systems from Jan. 1, 2021, to Jan. 31, 2022, on more than 15 million people aged 5 years or older.

It reports a rate of myocarditis or pericarditis after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination of 0-35.9 per 100,000 for males and 0-10.9 per 100,000 for females across different age groups and vaccine cohorts.

Rates of myocarditis or pericarditis after SARS-CoV-2 infection ranged from 12.6 to 114 per 100,000 for males and from 5.4 to 61.7 per 100,000 for females across different age groups.  

Even among males aged 12-17 years, the group with the highest incidence of cardiac complications after receipt of a second mRNA COVID-19 vaccine dose, the risk was 1.8-5.6 times higher after SARS-CoV-2 infection than after vaccination, the CDC report notes.

“These findings provide important context for balancing risks and benefits of mRNA COVID-19 vaccination among eligible persons greater than or equal to 5 years,” the report states. They also “support the continued use of recommended mRNA vaccines among all eligible persons aged greater than or equal to 5 years,” it concludes.
 

International study

The international study focused on prevalence, clinical characteristics, and outcomes of clinically manifest acute myocarditis in patients with COVID-19 infection.

The study showed a rate of acute myocarditis of 2.4 per 1,000 patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

“A small study previously indicated acute myocarditis is a rare occurrence in people infected with COVID-19. Our analysis of international data offers better insight to the occurrence of acute myocarditis during COVID-19 hospitalization, particularly before the COVID-19 vaccines were widely available,” coauthor Enrico Ammirati, MD, PhD, Niguarda Hospital, Milan, commented.

“This analysis indicates that, although rare, hospitalized patients with acute myocarditis associated with COVID-19 infection have a much greater need for intensive care unit admission, in up to 70.5% of the cases, despite the average age of the individuals in the study being much younger than expected, at 38 years old,” added coauthor Marco Metra, MD, University of Brescia, Italy. 

The researchers report that the use of corticosteroids in patients with acute myocarditis appeared safe, and, in most cases, a rapid increase in the left ventricular ejection fraction was observed. In addition, they say that discharged patients with acute myocarditis had “an excellent short-term prognosis without occurrence of cardiovascular events.”

The authors also point out that these data show much higher frequency and severity of acute myocarditis linked to COVID-19 infection, compared with myocarditis cases linked to the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.

The international study examined health data on 56,963 patients who were hospitalized with COVID-19 at 23 hospitals across the United States and Europe from February 2020 through April 2021. 

Among these patients, 97 with possible acute myocarditis were identified (4.1 per 1,000), of whom 54 (2.4 per 1,000) were classified as having “definite or probable” acute myocarditis supported by endomyocardial biopsy (31.5% of cases) or magnetic resonance imaging (92.6% of cases).

The median age of definite/probable acute myocarditis cases was 38 years, and 39% were female. On admission, chest pain and dyspnea were the most frequent symptoms (55.5% and 53.7%, respectively), and 31 cases (57.4%) occurred in the absence of COVID-19–associated pneumonia. A fulminant presentation requiring inotropic support or temporary mechanical circulatory support occurred in 21 cases (39%).

Overall, 38 patients (70.4%) were admitted to the intensive care unit for a median time of 6 days. Ten patients (18.5%) received temporary mechanical circulatory support for a median time of 5 days. Three patients died (5.5%) during the index hospitalization, all of whom also had pneumonia. At 120 days, estimated mortality was 6.6%. Patients with pneumonia were more likely to develop hemodynamic instability, require mechanical circulatory support, and die, compared with those without pneumonia.

The authors note that their reported prevalence of acute myocarditis associated with COVID-19 is lower, compared with studies that performed universal cardiac MRI screening during the convalescent COVID-19 period.

They say that underestimation of the prevalence of mild or subclinical acute myocarditis is likely in this study because of the retrospective nature of the registry, the lack of systematic cardiac MRI, and the possibility of missing some diagnoses, particularly during the first pandemic wave when cardiac MRI and endomyocardial biopsy were less frequently performed.

The authors also point out that data on myocarditis after COVID-19 vaccination suggest that vaccination-linked myocarditis is milder than that associated with the virus itself.

With regard to the prevalence of acute myocarditis after vaccination, they report that among 2.8 million doses of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine in the armed forces, 23 individuals had evidence of acute myocarditis, suggesting a prevalence of less than 1 case of acute myocarditis per 100,000 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine doses.

They note that the CDC has also reported 399 reports of myocarditis among 129 million fully vaccinated individuals with the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.

“These figures appear reassuring, compared with the prevalence of clinically manifest acute myocarditis observed in this study among hospitalized patients with COVID-19,” they conclude.

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