MDedge Emergency Medicine

A new subanalysis of the FAME 3 trial, which failed to show that percutaneous intervention (PCI) guided by fractional flow reserve (FFR) is noninferior to coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for treating three-vessel coronary artery disease, has associated PCI with early quality of life (QOL) advantages, according to findings presented at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.

Despite a modestly greater risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) at the end of 12 months’ follow-up among those treated with FFR-guided PCI, the greater QOL early after the procedure might be relevant to patients weighing these options, according to Frederik M. Zimmerman, MD, of Catharina Hospital in Eindhoven, the Netherlands.

“FFR-guided PCI results in a faster improvement in quality of life than CABG during the first year after revascularization, and it improved working status in patients younger than 65 years of age,” Dr. Zimmermann said.

The primary results of FAME 3 were presented at the 2021 Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics annual meeting by lead author William F. Fearon, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University and published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Rather than confirming the hypothesis that FFR-guided PCI is comparable with CABG for the primary composite MACE outcome death from any cause, myocardial infarction, stroke, or revascularization, the incidence of MACE at 12 months was 10.6% in those randomized to PCI and 6.9% in the group assigned to CABG.

This translated into a hazard ratio for MACE of 1.5, signifying a 50% increase in risk for FFR-guided PCI relative to CABG for the primary outcome, a difference that negated the study definition of noninferiority (P = .35).

In this new health-related subanalysis, which was published simultaneously with his ACC presentation, the groups were compared over 12 months for QOL as measured with European Quality of Life–5 dimensions (EQ-5D) scale, angina as measured with the Canadian Cardiovascular Classification (CCC) system, and employment.

Outcomes data available in >85% of patients

Of the 1,500 patients enrolled and randomized in FAME 3 (757 to FFR-guided PCI and 743 to CABG), this health outcomes subanalysis was performed with complete data at 12 months from 89% of those in the PCI group and 88% of those in the CABG group.

Ultimately, the study did not show differences in any of these measures at the end of 12 months, but there were significant differences in QOL and employment at earlier time points. In particular, the significantly different (P < .001) trajectory for QOL improvement at 1 and 6 months favored FFR-guided PCI whether evaluated with the EQ-5D instrument or an EQ visual analog scale.

Rates of angina defined by as CCC class of at least 2 were low after revascularization in both arms of the study, negating any opportunity for differences, but patients aged younger than 65 years were almost twice as likely to have returned to full- or part-time work 1 month after revascularization (60.2% vs. 33.1%), and they remained at higher odds for working at 12 months (68.1% vs. 57.4%).

In patients aged older than 65 years, return-to-work rates did not differ significantly at any time point.

These results suggest potentially clinically meaningful early advantages for FFR-guided PCI, but some experts questioned the rationale for reporting positive secondary findings from a negative trial.

“This subanalysis is curious,” said Allen Jeremias, MD, director of interventional cardiology research, Saint Francis Hospital, Roslyn, N.Y. He pointed out that reporting these data is an anomaly.
 

Subanalyses uncommon in negative trials

“CABG was found to be better, so why look at QOL,” said Dr. Jeremias, who was an ACC-invited expert to discuss the results. However, he went on to say, “this could be an exception to the rule.”

The reason, according to Dr. Jeremias, is that the absolute difference at 12 months between FFR-guided PCI and CABG for the MACE events of greatest concern – death, MI, or stroke – was only about 2% greater in the FFR-guided PCI group (7.3% vs. 5.2%). The biggest contributor to the difference in MACE in FAME 3 at 12 months was the higher rate of repeat revascularization (5.9% vs. 3.9%).

Moreover, patients randomized to FFR-guided PCI had lower rates of many adverse events. This included risk of bleeding (1.6% vs. 3.8%; P = .009 as defined by type ≥3 Bleeding Academic Research Consortium , acute kidney injury (0.1% vs. 0.9%; P = .04), atrial fibrillation (2.4% vs. 14.1%; P < .001) and rehospitalization within 30 days (5.5% vs. 10.2%; P < .001).

In the context of a modest increase in risk of MACE and the lower rate of several important treatment-related adverse events, the QOL advantages identified in this subanalysis “might be a reasonable topic for patient-shared decision-making,” Dr. Jeremias suggested.
 

New data might inform patient decision-making

He granted the possibility that well-informed patients might accept the modestly increased risk of MACE for one or more of the outcomes, such as a higher likelihood of an early return to work, that favored FFR-guided PCI.

This is the point of this subanalysis, agreed Dr. Zimmermann.

“It is all about shared decision-making,” he said. Also emphasizing that the negative trial endpoint of FAME 3 “was driven largely by an increased risk of revascularization,” he believes that these new data might be a basis for discussions with patients weighing relative risks and benefits.

There are more data to come, according to Dr. Zimmermann, who said that follow-up of up to 5 years is planned. The 3-year data will be made available in 2023.

Dr. Zimmermann reported no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Jeremias reported financial relationships with Abbott, ACIST, Boston Scientific, and Volcano. The investigator-initiated trial received research grants from Abbott Vascular and Medtronic.

A new subanalysis of the FAME 3 trial, which failed to show that percutaneous intervention (PCI) guided by fractional flow reserve (FFR) is noninferior to coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for treating three-vessel coronary artery disease, has associated PCI with early quality of life (QOL) advantages, according to findings presented at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.

Despite a modestly greater risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) at the end of 12 months’ follow-up among those treated with FFR-guided PCI, the greater QOL early after the procedure might be relevant to patients weighing these options, according to Frederik M. Zimmerman, MD, of Catharina Hospital in Eindhoven, the Netherlands.

“FFR-guided PCI results in a faster improvement in quality of life than CABG during the first year after revascularization, and it improved working status in patients younger than 65 years of age,” Dr. Zimmermann said.

The primary results of FAME 3 were presented at the 2021 Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics annual meeting by lead author William F. Fearon, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University and published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Rather than confirming the hypothesis that FFR-guided PCI is comparable with CABG for the primary composite MACE outcome death from any cause, myocardial infarction, stroke, or revascularization, the incidence of MACE at 12 months was 10.6% in those randomized to PCI and 6.9% in the group assigned to CABG.

This translated into a hazard ratio for MACE of 1.5, signifying a 50% increase in risk for FFR-guided PCI relative to CABG for the primary outcome, a difference that negated the study definition of noninferiority (P = .35).

In this new health-related subanalysis, which was published simultaneously with his ACC presentation, the groups were compared over 12 months for QOL as measured with European Quality of Life–5 dimensions (EQ-5D) scale, angina as measured with the Canadian Cardiovascular Classification (CCC) system, and employment.

Outcomes data available in >85% of patients

Of the 1,500 patients enrolled and randomized in FAME 3 (757 to FFR-guided PCI and 743 to CABG), this health outcomes subanalysis was performed with complete data at 12 months from 89% of those in the PCI group and 88% of those in the CABG group.

Ultimately, the study did not show differences in any of these measures at the end of 12 months, but there were significant differences in QOL and employment at earlier time points. In particular, the significantly different (P < .001) trajectory for QOL improvement at 1 and 6 months favored FFR-guided PCI whether evaluated with the EQ-5D instrument or an EQ visual analog scale.

Rates of angina defined by as CCC class of at least 2 were low after revascularization in both arms of the study, negating any opportunity for differences, but patients aged younger than 65 years were almost twice as likely to have returned to full- or part-time work 1 month after revascularization (60.2% vs. 33.1%), and they remained at higher odds for working at 12 months (68.1% vs. 57.4%).

In patients aged older than 65 years, return-to-work rates did not differ significantly at any time point.

These results suggest potentially clinically meaningful early advantages for FFR-guided PCI, but some experts questioned the rationale for reporting positive secondary findings from a negative trial.

“This subanalysis is curious,” said Allen Jeremias, MD, director of interventional cardiology research, Saint Francis Hospital, Roslyn, N.Y. He pointed out that reporting these data is an anomaly.
 

Subanalyses uncommon in negative trials

“CABG was found to be better, so why look at QOL,” said Dr. Jeremias, who was an ACC-invited expert to discuss the results. However, he went on to say, “this could be an exception to the rule.”

The reason, according to Dr. Jeremias, is that the absolute difference at 12 months between FFR-guided PCI and CABG for the MACE events of greatest concern – death, MI, or stroke – was only about 2% greater in the FFR-guided PCI group (7.3% vs. 5.2%). The biggest contributor to the difference in MACE in FAME 3 at 12 months was the higher rate of repeat revascularization (5.9% vs. 3.9%).

Moreover, patients randomized to FFR-guided PCI had lower rates of many adverse events. This included risk of bleeding (1.6% vs. 3.8%; P = .009 as defined by type ≥3 Bleeding Academic Research Consortium , acute kidney injury (0.1% vs. 0.9%; P = .04), atrial fibrillation (2.4% vs. 14.1%; P < .001) and rehospitalization within 30 days (5.5% vs. 10.2%; P < .001).

In the context of a modest increase in risk of MACE and the lower rate of several important treatment-related adverse events, the QOL advantages identified in this subanalysis “might be a reasonable topic for patient-shared decision-making,” Dr. Jeremias suggested.
 

New data might inform patient decision-making

He granted the possibility that well-informed patients might accept the modestly increased risk of MACE for one or more of the outcomes, such as a higher likelihood of an early return to work, that favored FFR-guided PCI.

This is the point of this subanalysis, agreed Dr. Zimmermann.

“It is all about shared decision-making,” he said. Also emphasizing that the negative trial endpoint of FAME 3 “was driven largely by an increased risk of revascularization,” he believes that these new data might be a basis for discussions with patients weighing relative risks and benefits.

There are more data to come, according to Dr. Zimmermann, who said that follow-up of up to 5 years is planned. The 3-year data will be made available in 2023.

Dr. Zimmermann reported no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Jeremias reported financial relationships with Abbott, ACIST, Boston Scientific, and Volcano. The investigator-initiated trial received research grants from Abbott Vascular and Medtronic.

A new subanalysis of the FAME 3 trial, which failed to show that percutaneous intervention (PCI) guided by fractional flow reserve (FFR) is noninferior to coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for treating three-vessel coronary artery disease, has associated PCI with early quality of life (QOL) advantages, according to findings presented at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.

Despite a modestly greater risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) at the end of 12 months’ follow-up among those treated with FFR-guided PCI, the greater QOL early after the procedure might be relevant to patients weighing these options, according to Frederik M. Zimmerman, MD, of Catharina Hospital in Eindhoven, the Netherlands.

“FFR-guided PCI results in a faster improvement in quality of life than CABG during the first year after revascularization, and it improved working status in patients younger than 65 years of age,” Dr. Zimmermann said.

The primary results of FAME 3 were presented at the 2021 Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics annual meeting by lead author William F. Fearon, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University and published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Rather than confirming the hypothesis that FFR-guided PCI is comparable with CABG for the primary composite MACE outcome death from any cause, myocardial infarction, stroke, or revascularization, the incidence of MACE at 12 months was 10.6% in those randomized to PCI and 6.9% in the group assigned to CABG.

This translated into a hazard ratio for MACE of 1.5, signifying a 50% increase in risk for FFR-guided PCI relative to CABG for the primary outcome, a difference that negated the study definition of noninferiority (P = .35).

In this new health-related subanalysis, which was published simultaneously with his ACC presentation, the groups were compared over 12 months for QOL as measured with European Quality of Life–5 dimensions (EQ-5D) scale, angina as measured with the Canadian Cardiovascular Classification (CCC) system, and employment.

Outcomes data available in >85% of patients

Of the 1,500 patients enrolled and randomized in FAME 3 (757 to FFR-guided PCI and 743 to CABG), this health outcomes subanalysis was performed with complete data at 12 months from 89% of those in the PCI group and 88% of those in the CABG group.

Ultimately, the study did not show differences in any of these measures at the end of 12 months, but there were significant differences in QOL and employment at earlier time points. In particular, the significantly different (P < .001) trajectory for QOL improvement at 1 and 6 months favored FFR-guided PCI whether evaluated with the EQ-5D instrument or an EQ visual analog scale.

Rates of angina defined by as CCC class of at least 2 were low after revascularization in both arms of the study, negating any opportunity for differences, but patients aged younger than 65 years were almost twice as likely to have returned to full- or part-time work 1 month after revascularization (60.2% vs. 33.1%), and they remained at higher odds for working at 12 months (68.1% vs. 57.4%).

In patients aged older than 65 years, return-to-work rates did not differ significantly at any time point.

These results suggest potentially clinically meaningful early advantages for FFR-guided PCI, but some experts questioned the rationale for reporting positive secondary findings from a negative trial.

“This subanalysis is curious,” said Allen Jeremias, MD, director of interventional cardiology research, Saint Francis Hospital, Roslyn, N.Y. He pointed out that reporting these data is an anomaly.
 

Subanalyses uncommon in negative trials

“CABG was found to be better, so why look at QOL,” said Dr. Jeremias, who was an ACC-invited expert to discuss the results. However, he went on to say, “this could be an exception to the rule.”

The reason, according to Dr. Jeremias, is that the absolute difference at 12 months between FFR-guided PCI and CABG for the MACE events of greatest concern – death, MI, or stroke – was only about 2% greater in the FFR-guided PCI group (7.3% vs. 5.2%). The biggest contributor to the difference in MACE in FAME 3 at 12 months was the higher rate of repeat revascularization (5.9% vs. 3.9%).

Moreover, patients randomized to FFR-guided PCI had lower rates of many adverse events. This included risk of bleeding (1.6% vs. 3.8%; P = .009 as defined by type ≥3 Bleeding Academic Research Consortium , acute kidney injury (0.1% vs. 0.9%; P = .04), atrial fibrillation (2.4% vs. 14.1%; P < .001) and rehospitalization within 30 days (5.5% vs. 10.2%; P < .001).

In the context of a modest increase in risk of MACE and the lower rate of several important treatment-related adverse events, the QOL advantages identified in this subanalysis “might be a reasonable topic for patient-shared decision-making,” Dr. Jeremias suggested.
 

New data might inform patient decision-making

He granted the possibility that well-informed patients might accept the modestly increased risk of MACE for one or more of the outcomes, such as a higher likelihood of an early return to work, that favored FFR-guided PCI.

This is the point of this subanalysis, agreed Dr. Zimmermann.

“It is all about shared decision-making,” he said. Also emphasizing that the negative trial endpoint of FAME 3 “was driven largely by an increased risk of revascularization,” he believes that these new data might be a basis for discussions with patients weighing relative risks and benefits.

There are more data to come, according to Dr. Zimmermann, who said that follow-up of up to 5 years is planned. The 3-year data will be made available in 2023.

Dr. Zimmermann reported no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Jeremias reported financial relationships with Abbott, ACIST, Boston Scientific, and Volcano. The investigator-initiated trial received research grants from Abbott Vascular and Medtronic.

The antifibrinolytic tranexamic acid (TXA) reduced serious bleeding without a significant effect on major vascular outcomes in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery at risk for these complications in the POISE-3 trial.

TXA cut the primary efficacy outcome of life-threatening, major, and critical organ bleeding at 30 days by 24% compared with placebo (9.1% vs. 11.7%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.76; P < .0001).

The primary safety outcome of myocardial injury after noncardiac surgery (MINS), nonhemorrhagic stroke, peripheral arterial thrombosis, and symptomatic proximal venous thromboembolism (VTE) at 30 days occurred in 14.2% vs.. 13.9% of patients, respectively (HR, 1.023). This failed, however, to meet the study›s threshold to prove TXA noninferior to placebo (one-sided P = .044).

There was no increased risk for death or stroke with TXA, according to results published April 2 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Principal investigator P.J. Devereaux, MD, PhD, Population Health Research Institute and McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, pointed out that there is only a 4.4% probability that the composite vascular outcome hazard ratio was above the noninferiority margin and that just 10 events separated the two groups (649 vs.. 639).

“Healthcare providers and patients will have to weigh a clear beneficial reduction in the composite bleeding outcome, which is an absolute difference of 2.7%, a result that was highly statistically significant, versus a low probability of a small increase in risk of the composite vascular endpoint, with an absolute difference of 0.3%,” a nonsignificant result, Dr. Devereaux said during the formal presentation of the results at the hybrid annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.

The findings, he said, should also be put in the context that 300 million adults have a major surgery each year worldwide and most don’t receive TXA. At the same time, there’s an annual global shortage of 30 million blood product units, and surgical bleeding accounts for up to 40% of all transfusions.

“POISE-3 identifies that use of TXA could avoid upwards of 8 million bleeding events resulting in transfusion on an annual basis, indicating potential for large public health and clinical benefit if TXA become standard practice in noncardiac surgery,” Dr. Devereaux said during the late-breaking trial session.

TXA is indicated for heavy menstrual bleeding and hemophilia and has been used in cardiac surgery, but it is increasingly being used in noncardiac surgeries. As previously reported, POISE showed that the beta-blocker metoprolol lowered the risk for myocardial infarction (MI) but increased the risk for severe stroke and overall death, whereas in POISE-2, perioperative low-dose aspirin lowered the risk for MI but was linked to more major bleeding.

The cumulative data have not shown an increased risk for thrombotic events in other settings, Dr. Devereaux told this news organization.

“I’m a cardiologist, and I think that we’ve been guilty at times of always only focusing on the thrombotic side of the equation and ignoring that bleeding is a very important aspect of the circulatory system,” he said. “And I think this shows for the first time clear unequivocal evidence that there’s a cheap, very encouraging, safe way to prevent this.”

“An important point is that if you can give tranexamic acid and prevent bleeding in your cardiac patients having noncardiac surgery, then you can prevent the delay of reinitiating their anticoagulants and their antiplatelets after surgery and getting them back on the medications that are important for them to prevent their cardiovascular event,” Dr. Devereaux added.

Discussant Michael J. Mack, MD, commented that TXA, widely used in cardiac surgery, is an old, inexpensive drug that “should be more widely used in noncardiac surgery.” Dr. Mack, from Baylor Scott & White Health, Dallas, added that he would limit it to major noncardiac surgery.

International trial

PeriOperative ISchemic Evaluation-3 (POISE-3) investigators at 114 hospitals in 22 countries (including countries in North and South America, Europe, and Africa; Russia; India; and Australia) randomly assigned 9,535 patients, aged 45 years or older, with or at risk for cardiovascular and bleeding complications to receive a TXA 1-g intravenous bolus or placebo at the start and end of inpatient noncardiac surgery.

Patients taking at least one long-term antihypertensive medication were also randomly assigned to a perioperative hypotension- or hypertension-avoidance strategy, which differ in the use of antihypertensives on the morning of surgery and the first 2 days after surgery, and in the target mean arterial pressure during surgery. Results from these cohorts will be presented in a separate session on April 4.

The study had planned to enroll 10,000 patients but was stopped early by the steering committee because of financial constraints resulting from slow enrollment during the pandemic. The decision was made without knowledge of the trial results but with knowledge that aggregate composite bleeding and vascular outcomes were higher than originally estimated, Dr. Devereaux noted.

Among all participants, the mean age was 70 years, 56% were male, almost a third had coronary artery disease, 15% had peripheral artery disease, and 8% had a prior stroke. About 80% were undergoing major surgery. Adherence to the study medications was 96.3% in both groups.

Secondary bleeding outcomes were lower in the TXA and placebo groups, including bleeding independently associated with mortality after surgery (8.7% vs. 11.3%), life-threatening bleeding (1.6% vs. 1.7%), major bleeding (7.6% vs. 10.4%), and critical organ bleeding (0.3% vs. 0.4%).

Importantly, the TXA group had significantly lower rates of International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis major bleeding (6.6% vs. 8.7%; P = .0001) and the need for transfusion of 1 or more units of packed red blood cells (9.4% vs. 12.0%; P <.0001), Dr. Devereaux noted.

In terms of secondary vascular outcomes, there were no significant differences between the TXA and placebo groups in rates of MINS (12.8% vs. 12.6%), MINS not fulfilling definition of MI (both 11.5%), MI (1.4% vs. 1.1%), and the net risk-benefit outcome (a composite of vascular death and nonfatal life-threatening, major, or critical organ bleeding, MINS, stroke, peripheral arterial thrombosis, and symptomatic proximal VTE; 20.7% vs. 21.9%).

The two groups had similar rates of all-cause (1.1% vs. 1.2%) and vascular (0.5% vs. 0.6%) mortality.

There also were no significant differences in other tertiary outcomes, such as acute kidney injury (14.1% vs. 13.7%), rehospitalization for vascular reasons (1.8% vs. 1.6%), or seizures (0.2% vs. <0.1%). The latter has been a concern, with the risk reported to increase with higher doses.

Subgroup analyses

Preplanned subgroup analyses showed a benefit for TXA over placebo for the primary efficacy outcome in orthopedic and nonorthopedic surgery and in patients with hemoglobin level below 120 g/L or 120 g/L or higher, with an estimated glomerular filtration rate less than 45 mL/min/1.73 m ²  or 45 mL/min/1.73 m ²  or higher, or with an N-terminal pro– B-type natriuretic peptide level below 200 ng/L or 200 ng/L or higher.

For the primary safety outcome, the benefit favored placebo but the interaction was not statistically significant for any of the four subgroups.

A post hoc subgroup analysis also showed similar results across the major categories of surgery, including general, vascular, urologic, and gynecologic, Dr. Devereaux told this news organization.

Although TXA is commonly used in orthopedic procedures, Dr. Devereaux noted, in other types of surgeries, “it’s not used at all.” But because TXA “is so cheap, and we can apply it to a broad population, even at an economic level it looks like it’s a winner to give to almost all patients having noncardiac surgery.”

The team also recently published a risk prediction tool that can help estimate a patient’s baseline risk for bleeding.

“So just using a model, which will bring together the patient’s type of surgery and their risk factors, you can look to see, okay, this is enough risk of bleeding, I’m just going to give tranexamic acid,” he said. “We will also be doing economic analyses because blood is also not cheap.”

The study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia), and the Research Grant Council (Hong Kong). Dr. Devereaux reports research/research grants from Abbott Diagnostics, Philips Healthcare, Roche Diagnostics, and Siemens. Dr. Mack reports receiving research grants from Abbott Vascular, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic.

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

The antifibrinolytic tranexamic acid (TXA) reduced serious bleeding without a significant effect on major vascular outcomes in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery at risk for these complications in the POISE-3 trial.

TXA cut the primary efficacy outcome of life-threatening, major, and critical organ bleeding at 30 days by 24% compared with placebo (9.1% vs. 11.7%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.76; P < .0001).

The primary safety outcome of myocardial injury after noncardiac surgery (MINS), nonhemorrhagic stroke, peripheral arterial thrombosis, and symptomatic proximal venous thromboembolism (VTE) at 30 days occurred in 14.2% vs.. 13.9% of patients, respectively (HR, 1.023). This failed, however, to meet the study›s threshold to prove TXA noninferior to placebo (one-sided P = .044).

There was no increased risk for death or stroke with TXA, according to results published April 2 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Principal investigator P.J. Devereaux, MD, PhD, Population Health Research Institute and McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, pointed out that there is only a 4.4% probability that the composite vascular outcome hazard ratio was above the noninferiority margin and that just 10 events separated the two groups (649 vs.. 639).

“Healthcare providers and patients will have to weigh a clear beneficial reduction in the composite bleeding outcome, which is an absolute difference of 2.7%, a result that was highly statistically significant, versus a low probability of a small increase in risk of the composite vascular endpoint, with an absolute difference of 0.3%,” a nonsignificant result, Dr. Devereaux said during the formal presentation of the results at the hybrid annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.

The findings, he said, should also be put in the context that 300 million adults have a major surgery each year worldwide and most don’t receive TXA. At the same time, there’s an annual global shortage of 30 million blood product units, and surgical bleeding accounts for up to 40% of all transfusions.

“POISE-3 identifies that use of TXA could avoid upwards of 8 million bleeding events resulting in transfusion on an annual basis, indicating potential for large public health and clinical benefit if TXA become standard practice in noncardiac surgery,” Dr. Devereaux said during the late-breaking trial session.

TXA is indicated for heavy menstrual bleeding and hemophilia and has been used in cardiac surgery, but it is increasingly being used in noncardiac surgeries. As previously reported, POISE showed that the beta-blocker metoprolol lowered the risk for myocardial infarction (MI) but increased the risk for severe stroke and overall death, whereas in POISE-2, perioperative low-dose aspirin lowered the risk for MI but was linked to more major bleeding.

The cumulative data have not shown an increased risk for thrombotic events in other settings, Dr. Devereaux told this news organization.

“I’m a cardiologist, and I think that we’ve been guilty at times of always only focusing on the thrombotic side of the equation and ignoring that bleeding is a very important aspect of the circulatory system,” he said. “And I think this shows for the first time clear unequivocal evidence that there’s a cheap, very encouraging, safe way to prevent this.”

“An important point is that if you can give tranexamic acid and prevent bleeding in your cardiac patients having noncardiac surgery, then you can prevent the delay of reinitiating their anticoagulants and their antiplatelets after surgery and getting them back on the medications that are important for them to prevent their cardiovascular event,” Dr. Devereaux added.

Discussant Michael J. Mack, MD, commented that TXA, widely used in cardiac surgery, is an old, inexpensive drug that “should be more widely used in noncardiac surgery.” Dr. Mack, from Baylor Scott & White Health, Dallas, added that he would limit it to major noncardiac surgery.

International trial

PeriOperative ISchemic Evaluation-3 (POISE-3) investigators at 114 hospitals in 22 countries (including countries in North and South America, Europe, and Africa; Russia; India; and Australia) randomly assigned 9,535 patients, aged 45 years or older, with or at risk for cardiovascular and bleeding complications to receive a TXA 1-g intravenous bolus or placebo at the start and end of inpatient noncardiac surgery.

Patients taking at least one long-term antihypertensive medication were also randomly assigned to a perioperative hypotension- or hypertension-avoidance strategy, which differ in the use of antihypertensives on the morning of surgery and the first 2 days after surgery, and in the target mean arterial pressure during surgery. Results from these cohorts will be presented in a separate session on April 4.

The study had planned to enroll 10,000 patients but was stopped early by the steering committee because of financial constraints resulting from slow enrollment during the pandemic. The decision was made without knowledge of the trial results but with knowledge that aggregate composite bleeding and vascular outcomes were higher than originally estimated, Dr. Devereaux noted.

Among all participants, the mean age was 70 years, 56% were male, almost a third had coronary artery disease, 15% had peripheral artery disease, and 8% had a prior stroke. About 80% were undergoing major surgery. Adherence to the study medications was 96.3% in both groups.

Secondary bleeding outcomes were lower in the TXA and placebo groups, including bleeding independently associated with mortality after surgery (8.7% vs. 11.3%), life-threatening bleeding (1.6% vs. 1.7%), major bleeding (7.6% vs. 10.4%), and critical organ bleeding (0.3% vs. 0.4%).

Importantly, the TXA group had significantly lower rates of International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis major bleeding (6.6% vs. 8.7%; P = .0001) and the need for transfusion of 1 or more units of packed red blood cells (9.4% vs. 12.0%; P <.0001), Dr. Devereaux noted.

In terms of secondary vascular outcomes, there were no significant differences between the TXA and placebo groups in rates of MINS (12.8% vs. 12.6%), MINS not fulfilling definition of MI (both 11.5%), MI (1.4% vs. 1.1%), and the net risk-benefit outcome (a composite of vascular death and nonfatal life-threatening, major, or critical organ bleeding, MINS, stroke, peripheral arterial thrombosis, and symptomatic proximal VTE; 20.7% vs. 21.9%).

The two groups had similar rates of all-cause (1.1% vs. 1.2%) and vascular (0.5% vs. 0.6%) mortality.

There also were no significant differences in other tertiary outcomes, such as acute kidney injury (14.1% vs. 13.7%), rehospitalization for vascular reasons (1.8% vs. 1.6%), or seizures (0.2% vs. <0.1%). The latter has been a concern, with the risk reported to increase with higher doses.

Subgroup analyses

Preplanned subgroup analyses showed a benefit for TXA over placebo for the primary efficacy outcome in orthopedic and nonorthopedic surgery and in patients with hemoglobin level below 120 g/L or 120 g/L or higher, with an estimated glomerular filtration rate less than 45 mL/min/1.73 m ²  or 45 mL/min/1.73 m ²  or higher, or with an N-terminal pro– B-type natriuretic peptide level below 200 ng/L or 200 ng/L or higher.

For the primary safety outcome, the benefit favored placebo but the interaction was not statistically significant for any of the four subgroups.

A post hoc subgroup analysis also showed similar results across the major categories of surgery, including general, vascular, urologic, and gynecologic, Dr. Devereaux told this news organization.

Although TXA is commonly used in orthopedic procedures, Dr. Devereaux noted, in other types of surgeries, “it’s not used at all.” But because TXA “is so cheap, and we can apply it to a broad population, even at an economic level it looks like it’s a winner to give to almost all patients having noncardiac surgery.”

The team also recently published a risk prediction tool that can help estimate a patient’s baseline risk for bleeding.

“So just using a model, which will bring together the patient’s type of surgery and their risk factors, you can look to see, okay, this is enough risk of bleeding, I’m just going to give tranexamic acid,” he said. “We will also be doing economic analyses because blood is also not cheap.”

The study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia), and the Research Grant Council (Hong Kong). Dr. Devereaux reports research/research grants from Abbott Diagnostics, Philips Healthcare, Roche Diagnostics, and Siemens. Dr. Mack reports receiving research grants from Abbott Vascular, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic.

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

The antifibrinolytic tranexamic acid (TXA) reduced serious bleeding without a significant effect on major vascular outcomes in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery at risk for these complications in the POISE-3 trial.

TXA cut the primary efficacy outcome of life-threatening, major, and critical organ bleeding at 30 days by 24% compared with placebo (9.1% vs. 11.7%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.76; P < .0001).

The primary safety outcome of myocardial injury after noncardiac surgery (MINS), nonhemorrhagic stroke, peripheral arterial thrombosis, and symptomatic proximal venous thromboembolism (VTE) at 30 days occurred in 14.2% vs.. 13.9% of patients, respectively (HR, 1.023). This failed, however, to meet the study›s threshold to prove TXA noninferior to placebo (one-sided P = .044).

There was no increased risk for death or stroke with TXA, according to results published April 2 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Principal investigator P.J. Devereaux, MD, PhD, Population Health Research Institute and McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, pointed out that there is only a 4.4% probability that the composite vascular outcome hazard ratio was above the noninferiority margin and that just 10 events separated the two groups (649 vs.. 639).

“Healthcare providers and patients will have to weigh a clear beneficial reduction in the composite bleeding outcome, which is an absolute difference of 2.7%, a result that was highly statistically significant, versus a low probability of a small increase in risk of the composite vascular endpoint, with an absolute difference of 0.3%,” a nonsignificant result, Dr. Devereaux said during the formal presentation of the results at the hybrid annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.

The findings, he said, should also be put in the context that 300 million adults have a major surgery each year worldwide and most don’t receive TXA. At the same time, there’s an annual global shortage of 30 million blood product units, and surgical bleeding accounts for up to 40% of all transfusions.

“POISE-3 identifies that use of TXA could avoid upwards of 8 million bleeding events resulting in transfusion on an annual basis, indicating potential for large public health and clinical benefit if TXA become standard practice in noncardiac surgery,” Dr. Devereaux said during the late-breaking trial session.

TXA is indicated for heavy menstrual bleeding and hemophilia and has been used in cardiac surgery, but it is increasingly being used in noncardiac surgeries. As previously reported, POISE showed that the beta-blocker metoprolol lowered the risk for myocardial infarction (MI) but increased the risk for severe stroke and overall death, whereas in POISE-2, perioperative low-dose aspirin lowered the risk for MI but was linked to more major bleeding.

The cumulative data have not shown an increased risk for thrombotic events in other settings, Dr. Devereaux told this news organization.

“I’m a cardiologist, and I think that we’ve been guilty at times of always only focusing on the thrombotic side of the equation and ignoring that bleeding is a very important aspect of the circulatory system,” he said. “And I think this shows for the first time clear unequivocal evidence that there’s a cheap, very encouraging, safe way to prevent this.”

“An important point is that if you can give tranexamic acid and prevent bleeding in your cardiac patients having noncardiac surgery, then you can prevent the delay of reinitiating their anticoagulants and their antiplatelets after surgery and getting them back on the medications that are important for them to prevent their cardiovascular event,” Dr. Devereaux added.

Discussant Michael J. Mack, MD, commented that TXA, widely used in cardiac surgery, is an old, inexpensive drug that “should be more widely used in noncardiac surgery.” Dr. Mack, from Baylor Scott & White Health, Dallas, added that he would limit it to major noncardiac surgery.

International trial

PeriOperative ISchemic Evaluation-3 (POISE-3) investigators at 114 hospitals in 22 countries (including countries in North and South America, Europe, and Africa; Russia; India; and Australia) randomly assigned 9,535 patients, aged 45 years or older, with or at risk for cardiovascular and bleeding complications to receive a TXA 1-g intravenous bolus or placebo at the start and end of inpatient noncardiac surgery.

Patients taking at least one long-term antihypertensive medication were also randomly assigned to a perioperative hypotension- or hypertension-avoidance strategy, which differ in the use of antihypertensives on the morning of surgery and the first 2 days after surgery, and in the target mean arterial pressure during surgery. Results from these cohorts will be presented in a separate session on April 4.

The study had planned to enroll 10,000 patients but was stopped early by the steering committee because of financial constraints resulting from slow enrollment during the pandemic. The decision was made without knowledge of the trial results but with knowledge that aggregate composite bleeding and vascular outcomes were higher than originally estimated, Dr. Devereaux noted.

Among all participants, the mean age was 70 years, 56% were male, almost a third had coronary artery disease, 15% had peripheral artery disease, and 8% had a prior stroke. About 80% were undergoing major surgery. Adherence to the study medications was 96.3% in both groups.

Secondary bleeding outcomes were lower in the TXA and placebo groups, including bleeding independently associated with mortality after surgery (8.7% vs. 11.3%), life-threatening bleeding (1.6% vs. 1.7%), major bleeding (7.6% vs. 10.4%), and critical organ bleeding (0.3% vs. 0.4%).

Importantly, the TXA group had significantly lower rates of International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis major bleeding (6.6% vs. 8.7%; P = .0001) and the need for transfusion of 1 or more units of packed red blood cells (9.4% vs. 12.0%; P <.0001), Dr. Devereaux noted.

In terms of secondary vascular outcomes, there were no significant differences between the TXA and placebo groups in rates of MINS (12.8% vs. 12.6%), MINS not fulfilling definition of MI (both 11.5%), MI (1.4% vs. 1.1%), and the net risk-benefit outcome (a composite of vascular death and nonfatal life-threatening, major, or critical organ bleeding, MINS, stroke, peripheral arterial thrombosis, and symptomatic proximal VTE; 20.7% vs. 21.9%).

The two groups had similar rates of all-cause (1.1% vs. 1.2%) and vascular (0.5% vs. 0.6%) mortality.

There also were no significant differences in other tertiary outcomes, such as acute kidney injury (14.1% vs. 13.7%), rehospitalization for vascular reasons (1.8% vs. 1.6%), or seizures (0.2% vs. <0.1%). The latter has been a concern, with the risk reported to increase with higher doses.

Subgroup analyses

Preplanned subgroup analyses showed a benefit for TXA over placebo for the primary efficacy outcome in orthopedic and nonorthopedic surgery and in patients with hemoglobin level below 120 g/L or 120 g/L or higher, with an estimated glomerular filtration rate less than 45 mL/min/1.73 m ²  or 45 mL/min/1.73 m ²  or higher, or with an N-terminal pro– B-type natriuretic peptide level below 200 ng/L or 200 ng/L or higher.

For the primary safety outcome, the benefit favored placebo but the interaction was not statistically significant for any of the four subgroups.

A post hoc subgroup analysis also showed similar results across the major categories of surgery, including general, vascular, urologic, and gynecologic, Dr. Devereaux told this news organization.

Although TXA is commonly used in orthopedic procedures, Dr. Devereaux noted, in other types of surgeries, “it’s not used at all.” But because TXA “is so cheap, and we can apply it to a broad population, even at an economic level it looks like it’s a winner to give to almost all patients having noncardiac surgery.”

The team also recently published a risk prediction tool that can help estimate a patient’s baseline risk for bleeding.

“So just using a model, which will bring together the patient’s type of surgery and their risk factors, you can look to see, okay, this is enough risk of bleeding, I’m just going to give tranexamic acid,” he said. “We will also be doing economic analyses because blood is also not cheap.”

The study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia), and the Research Grant Council (Hong Kong). Dr. Devereaux reports research/research grants from Abbott Diagnostics, Philips Healthcare, Roche Diagnostics, and Siemens. Dr. Mack reports receiving research grants from Abbott Vascular, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic.

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

A low-sodium diet was not associated with a reduction in future clinical events in a new study in ambulatory patients with heart failure. But there was a moderate benefit on quality of life and New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class.

“The guidelines used to strongly recommend a reduction in sodium intake in heart failure patients, but this advice has backed off in recent years because of the lack of data. Most heart failure guidelines now do not make any recommendations on dietary sodium,” he said.

SODIUM-HF was a pragmatic, multinational, open-label, randomized trial conducted in six countries (Australia, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, and New Zealand), which included 809 patients (median age, 67 years) with chronic heart failure (NYHA functional class II–III) who were receiving optimally tolerated guideline-directed medical treatment. They were randomly assigned to usual care according to local guidelines or a low-sodium diet of less than 100 mmol (<1,500 mg/day). Patients with a baseline sodium intake of less than 1,500 mg/day were excluded.

In the intervention group, patients were asked to follow low-sodium menus developed by dietitians localized to each region. They also received behavioral counseling by trained dietitians or physicians or nurses.

Dietary sodium intake was assessed by using a 3-day food record (including 1 weekend day) at baseline, 6 months, and 12 months in both groups and, for the intervention group, also at 3 and 9 months to monitor and support dietary adherence.

Dr. Ezekowitz explained that although the best method for measuring sodium levels would normally be a 24-hour urine sodium, this would be impractical in a large clinical trial. In addition, he pointed out that urinary sodium is not an accurate measure of actual sodium levels in patients taking diuretics, so it is not a good measure to use in a heart failure population.

“The food record method of assessing sodium levels has been well validated; I think we measured it as accurately as we could have done,” he added.

Results showed that between baseline and 12 months, the median sodium intake decreased from 2,286 mg/day to 1,658 mg/day in the low-sodium group and from 2,119 mg/day to 2,073 mg/day in the usual care group. The median difference between groups was 415 mg/day at 12 months.

By 12 months, events comprising the primary outcome (hospitalization or emergency department visits due to cardiovascular causes or all-cause death) had occurred in 15% of patients in the low-sodium diet group and 17% of those in the usual care group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.89 [95% CI, 0.63 - 1.26]; P = .53).

All-cause death occurred in 6% of patients in the low-sodium diet group and 4% of those in the usual care group (HR, 1.38; P = .32). Cardiovascular-related hospitalization occurred in 10% of the low-sodium group and 12% of the usual care group (HR, 0.82; P = .36), and cardiovascular-related emergency department visits occurred in 4% of both groups (HR, 1.21; P = .60).

The absence of treatment effect for the primary outcome was consistent across most prespecified subgroups, including those with higher vs lower baseline sodium intake. But there was a suggestion of a greater reduction in the primary outcome in individuals younger than age 65 years than in those age 65 years and older.

Quality-of-life measures on the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) suggested a benefit in the low-sodium group, with mean between-group differences in the change from baseline to 12 months of 3.38 points in the overall summary score, 3.29 points in the clinical summary score, and 3.77 points in the physical limitation score (all differences were statistically significant).

There was no significant difference in 6-minute-walk distance at 12 months between the low-sodium diet group and the usual care group.

NYHA functional class at 12 months differed significantly between groups; the low-sodium diet group had a greater likelihood of improving by one NYHA class than the usual care group (odds ratio, 0.59; P = .0061).

No safety events related to the study treatment were reported in either group.

Dr. Ezekowitz said that to investigate whether longer follow-up may show a difference in events, further analyses are planned at 2 years and 5 years.

Questions on food recall and blinding

Commenting on the findings at the late-breaking clinical trials session at the ACC meeting, Biykem Bozkurt, MD, professor of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, congratulated Dr. Ezekowitz on conducting this trial.

“We have been chasing the holy grail of sodium reduction in heart failure for a very long time, so I have to commend you and your team for taking on this challenge, especially during the pandemic,” she said.

But Dr. Bozkurt questioned whether the intervention group actually had a meaningful sodium reduction given that this was measured by food recall and this may have been accounted for by under-reporting of certain food intakes.

Dr. Ezekowitz responded that patients acted as their own controls in that calorie intake, fluid intake, and weight were also assessed and did not change. “So I think we did have a meaningful reduction in sodium,” he said.

Dr. Bozkurt also queried whether the improvements in quality of life and functional status were reliable given that this was an unblinded study.

To this point, Dr. Ezekowitz pointed out that the KCCQ quality-of-life measure was a highly validated instrument and that improvements were seen in these measures at 3, 6, and 12 months. “It is not like these were spurious findings, so I think we have to look at this as a real result,” he argued.

Commenting on the study at an ACC press conference, Mary Norine Walsh, MD, director of the heart failure and cardiac transplantation programs at St. Vincent Heart Center in Indianapolis, said the trial had answered two important questions: that sodium reduction in heart failure may not reduce heart failure hospitalization/death but that patients feel better.

“I think we can safely tell patients that if they slip up a bit they may not end up in hospital,” she added.

This study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the University Hospital Foundation (Edmonton, Alberta, Canada) and the Health Research Council of New Zealand. Dr. Ezekowitz reports research grants from American Regent, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer, eko.ai, US2.ai, Merck, Novartis, Otsuka, Sanofi, and Servier and consulting fees from American Regent, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer, Merck, Novartis, Otsuka, Sanofi, and Servier.

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

A low-sodium diet was not associated with a reduction in future clinical events in a new study in ambulatory patients with heart failure. But there was a moderate benefit on quality of life and New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class.

“The guidelines used to strongly recommend a reduction in sodium intake in heart failure patients, but this advice has backed off in recent years because of the lack of data. Most heart failure guidelines now do not make any recommendations on dietary sodium,” he said.

SODIUM-HF was a pragmatic, multinational, open-label, randomized trial conducted in six countries (Australia, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, and New Zealand), which included 809 patients (median age, 67 years) with chronic heart failure (NYHA functional class II–III) who were receiving optimally tolerated guideline-directed medical treatment. They were randomly assigned to usual care according to local guidelines or a low-sodium diet of less than 100 mmol (<1,500 mg/day). Patients with a baseline sodium intake of less than 1,500 mg/day were excluded.

In the intervention group, patients were asked to follow low-sodium menus developed by dietitians localized to each region. They also received behavioral counseling by trained dietitians or physicians or nurses.

Dietary sodium intake was assessed by using a 3-day food record (including 1 weekend day) at baseline, 6 months, and 12 months in both groups and, for the intervention group, also at 3 and 9 months to monitor and support dietary adherence.

Dr. Ezekowitz explained that although the best method for measuring sodium levels would normally be a 24-hour urine sodium, this would be impractical in a large clinical trial. In addition, he pointed out that urinary sodium is not an accurate measure of actual sodium levels in patients taking diuretics, so it is not a good measure to use in a heart failure population.

“The food record method of assessing sodium levels has been well validated; I think we measured it as accurately as we could have done,” he added.

Results showed that between baseline and 12 months, the median sodium intake decreased from 2,286 mg/day to 1,658 mg/day in the low-sodium group and from 2,119 mg/day to 2,073 mg/day in the usual care group. The median difference between groups was 415 mg/day at 12 months.

By 12 months, events comprising the primary outcome (hospitalization or emergency department visits due to cardiovascular causes or all-cause death) had occurred in 15% of patients in the low-sodium diet group and 17% of those in the usual care group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.89 [95% CI, 0.63 - 1.26]; P = .53).

All-cause death occurred in 6% of patients in the low-sodium diet group and 4% of those in the usual care group (HR, 1.38; P = .32). Cardiovascular-related hospitalization occurred in 10% of the low-sodium group and 12% of the usual care group (HR, 0.82; P = .36), and cardiovascular-related emergency department visits occurred in 4% of both groups (HR, 1.21; P = .60).

The absence of treatment effect for the primary outcome was consistent across most prespecified subgroups, including those with higher vs lower baseline sodium intake. But there was a suggestion of a greater reduction in the primary outcome in individuals younger than age 65 years than in those age 65 years and older.

Quality-of-life measures on the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) suggested a benefit in the low-sodium group, with mean between-group differences in the change from baseline to 12 months of 3.38 points in the overall summary score, 3.29 points in the clinical summary score, and 3.77 points in the physical limitation score (all differences were statistically significant).

There was no significant difference in 6-minute-walk distance at 12 months between the low-sodium diet group and the usual care group.

NYHA functional class at 12 months differed significantly between groups; the low-sodium diet group had a greater likelihood of improving by one NYHA class than the usual care group (odds ratio, 0.59; P = .0061).

No safety events related to the study treatment were reported in either group.

Dr. Ezekowitz said that to investigate whether longer follow-up may show a difference in events, further analyses are planned at 2 years and 5 years.

Questions on food recall and blinding

Commenting on the findings at the late-breaking clinical trials session at the ACC meeting, Biykem Bozkurt, MD, professor of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, congratulated Dr. Ezekowitz on conducting this trial.

“We have been chasing the holy grail of sodium reduction in heart failure for a very long time, so I have to commend you and your team for taking on this challenge, especially during the pandemic,” she said.

But Dr. Bozkurt questioned whether the intervention group actually had a meaningful sodium reduction given that this was measured by food recall and this may have been accounted for by under-reporting of certain food intakes.

Dr. Ezekowitz responded that patients acted as their own controls in that calorie intake, fluid intake, and weight were also assessed and did not change. “So I think we did have a meaningful reduction in sodium,” he said.

Dr. Bozkurt also queried whether the improvements in quality of life and functional status were reliable given that this was an unblinded study.

To this point, Dr. Ezekowitz pointed out that the KCCQ quality-of-life measure was a highly validated instrument and that improvements were seen in these measures at 3, 6, and 12 months. “It is not like these were spurious findings, so I think we have to look at this as a real result,” he argued.

Commenting on the study at an ACC press conference, Mary Norine Walsh, MD, director of the heart failure and cardiac transplantation programs at St. Vincent Heart Center in Indianapolis, said the trial had answered two important questions: that sodium reduction in heart failure may not reduce heart failure hospitalization/death but that patients feel better.

“I think we can safely tell patients that if they slip up a bit they may not end up in hospital,” she added.

This study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the University Hospital Foundation (Edmonton, Alberta, Canada) and the Health Research Council of New Zealand. Dr. Ezekowitz reports research grants from American Regent, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer, eko.ai, US2.ai, Merck, Novartis, Otsuka, Sanofi, and Servier and consulting fees from American Regent, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer, Merck, Novartis, Otsuka, Sanofi, and Servier.

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

A low-sodium diet was not associated with a reduction in future clinical events in a new study in ambulatory patients with heart failure. But there was a moderate benefit on quality of life and New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class.

“The guidelines used to strongly recommend a reduction in sodium intake in heart failure patients, but this advice has backed off in recent years because of the lack of data. Most heart failure guidelines now do not make any recommendations on dietary sodium,” he said.

SODIUM-HF was a pragmatic, multinational, open-label, randomized trial conducted in six countries (Australia, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, and New Zealand), which included 809 patients (median age, 67 years) with chronic heart failure (NYHA functional class II–III) who were receiving optimally tolerated guideline-directed medical treatment. They were randomly assigned to usual care according to local guidelines or a low-sodium diet of less than 100 mmol (<1,500 mg/day). Patients with a baseline sodium intake of less than 1,500 mg/day were excluded.

In the intervention group, patients were asked to follow low-sodium menus developed by dietitians localized to each region. They also received behavioral counseling by trained dietitians or physicians or nurses.

Dietary sodium intake was assessed by using a 3-day food record (including 1 weekend day) at baseline, 6 months, and 12 months in both groups and, for the intervention group, also at 3 and 9 months to monitor and support dietary adherence.

Dr. Ezekowitz explained that although the best method for measuring sodium levels would normally be a 24-hour urine sodium, this would be impractical in a large clinical trial. In addition, he pointed out that urinary sodium is not an accurate measure of actual sodium levels in patients taking diuretics, so it is not a good measure to use in a heart failure population.

“The food record method of assessing sodium levels has been well validated; I think we measured it as accurately as we could have done,” he added.

Results showed that between baseline and 12 months, the median sodium intake decreased from 2,286 mg/day to 1,658 mg/day in the low-sodium group and from 2,119 mg/day to 2,073 mg/day in the usual care group. The median difference between groups was 415 mg/day at 12 months.

By 12 months, events comprising the primary outcome (hospitalization or emergency department visits due to cardiovascular causes or all-cause death) had occurred in 15% of patients in the low-sodium diet group and 17% of those in the usual care group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.89 [95% CI, 0.63 - 1.26]; P = .53).

All-cause death occurred in 6% of patients in the low-sodium diet group and 4% of those in the usual care group (HR, 1.38; P = .32). Cardiovascular-related hospitalization occurred in 10% of the low-sodium group and 12% of the usual care group (HR, 0.82; P = .36), and cardiovascular-related emergency department visits occurred in 4% of both groups (HR, 1.21; P = .60).

The absence of treatment effect for the primary outcome was consistent across most prespecified subgroups, including those with higher vs lower baseline sodium intake. But there was a suggestion of a greater reduction in the primary outcome in individuals younger than age 65 years than in those age 65 years and older.

Quality-of-life measures on the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) suggested a benefit in the low-sodium group, with mean between-group differences in the change from baseline to 12 months of 3.38 points in the overall summary score, 3.29 points in the clinical summary score, and 3.77 points in the physical limitation score (all differences were statistically significant).

There was no significant difference in 6-minute-walk distance at 12 months between the low-sodium diet group and the usual care group.

NYHA functional class at 12 months differed significantly between groups; the low-sodium diet group had a greater likelihood of improving by one NYHA class than the usual care group (odds ratio, 0.59; P = .0061).

No safety events related to the study treatment were reported in either group.

Dr. Ezekowitz said that to investigate whether longer follow-up may show a difference in events, further analyses are planned at 2 years and 5 years.

Questions on food recall and blinding

Commenting on the findings at the late-breaking clinical trials session at the ACC meeting, Biykem Bozkurt, MD, professor of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, congratulated Dr. Ezekowitz on conducting this trial.

“We have been chasing the holy grail of sodium reduction in heart failure for a very long time, so I have to commend you and your team for taking on this challenge, especially during the pandemic,” she said.

But Dr. Bozkurt questioned whether the intervention group actually had a meaningful sodium reduction given that this was measured by food recall and this may have been accounted for by under-reporting of certain food intakes.

Dr. Ezekowitz responded that patients acted as their own controls in that calorie intake, fluid intake, and weight were also assessed and did not change. “So I think we did have a meaningful reduction in sodium,” he said.

Dr. Bozkurt also queried whether the improvements in quality of life and functional status were reliable given that this was an unblinded study.

To this point, Dr. Ezekowitz pointed out that the KCCQ quality-of-life measure was a highly validated instrument and that improvements were seen in these measures at 3, 6, and 12 months. “It is not like these were spurious findings, so I think we have to look at this as a real result,” he argued.

Commenting on the study at an ACC press conference, Mary Norine Walsh, MD, director of the heart failure and cardiac transplantation programs at St. Vincent Heart Center in Indianapolis, said the trial had answered two important questions: that sodium reduction in heart failure may not reduce heart failure hospitalization/death but that patients feel better.

“I think we can safely tell patients that if they slip up a bit they may not end up in hospital,” she added.

This study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the University Hospital Foundation (Edmonton, Alberta, Canada) and the Health Research Council of New Zealand. Dr. Ezekowitz reports research grants from American Regent, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer, eko.ai, US2.ai, Merck, Novartis, Otsuka, Sanofi, and Servier and consulting fees from American Regent, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer, Merck, Novartis, Otsuka, Sanofi, and Servier.

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

Ivermectin, an antiparasitic drug that became popular as an alternative treatment for COVID-19, showed no signs of quelling the disease or reducing patients’ risk of hospitalization, according to results from a large clinical trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The findings pretty much rule out the drug as a treatment for COVID-19, the study authors wrote.

“There’s really no sign of any benefit,” David Boulware, MD, one of the coauthors and an infectious disease specialist at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, told the New York Times.

The researchers shared a summary of the results in August 2021 during an online presentation hosted by the National Institutes of Health. The full data hadn’t been published until now.

“Now that people can dive into the details and the data, hopefully that will steer the majority of doctors away from ivermectin toward other therapies,” Dr. Boulware said.

In the trial, the research team compared more than 1,350 people infected with the coronavirus in Brazil who received either ivermectin or a placebo as treatment.

Between March and August 2021, 679 patients received a daily dose of ivermectin over the course of 3 days. The researchers found that ivermectin didn’t reduce the risk that people with COVID-19 would be hospitalized or go to an ED within 28 days after treatment.

In addition, the researchers looked at particular groups to understand if some patients benefited for some reason, such as taking ivermectin sooner after testing positive for COVID-19. But those who took the drug during the first 3 days after a positive coronavirus test ended up doing worse than those in the placebo group. The drug also didn’t help patients recover sooner.

The researchers found “no important effects” of treatment with ivermectin on the number of days people spent in the hospital, the number of days hospitalized people needed mechanical ventilation, or the risk of death.

Ivermectin has become a controversial focal point during the pandemic.

For decades, the drug has been widely used to treat parasitic infections. At the beginning of the pandemic, researchers checked thousands of existing drugs against the coronavirus to determine if a potential treatment already existed. Laboratory experiments on cells suggested that ivermectin might work, the New York Times reported.

But some researchers noted that the experiments worked because a high concentration of ivermectin was used, a much higher dose than would be safe for people. Despite the concerns, some doctors began prescribing ivermectin to patients. After receiving reports of people who needed medical attention, particularly after using formulations intended for livestock, the Food and Drug Administration issued a warning that the drug wasn’t approved to be used for COVID-19.

Researchers around the world have done small clinical trials to understand whether ivermectin treats COVID-19, the newspaper reported. At the end of 2020, Andrew Hill, MD, a virologist at the University of Liverpool in England, reviewed the results from 23 trials and concluded that the drug could lower the risk of death from COVID-19. He published the results in July 2021, but later reports found that many of the studies were flawed, and at least one was fraudulent.

Dr. Hill retracted his original study and began another analysis, which was published in January 2022. In this review, he and his colleagues focused on studies that were least likely to be biased. They found that ivermectin was not helpful.

Recently, Dr. Hill and associates ran another analysis using the new data from the Brazil trial, and once again they saw no benefit.

Several clinical trials are still testing ivermectin as a treatment, the New York Times reported, with results expected in upcoming months. After reviewing the data from the Brazil trial, which tested ivermectin and a variety of other drugs against COVID-19, some infectious disease experts say they’ll likely see more of the same – that ivermectin doesn’t help people with COVID-19.

“I welcome the results of the other clinical trials and will view them with an open mind,” Paul Sax, MD, an infectious disease expert at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, who has been watching the data on the drug throughout the pandemic, told the New York Times.

“But at some point, it will become a waste of resources to continue studying an unpromising approach,” he said.

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

Ivermectin, an antiparasitic drug that became popular as an alternative treatment for COVID-19, showed no signs of quelling the disease or reducing patients’ risk of hospitalization, according to results from a large clinical trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The findings pretty much rule out the drug as a treatment for COVID-19, the study authors wrote.

“There’s really no sign of any benefit,” David Boulware, MD, one of the coauthors and an infectious disease specialist at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, told the New York Times.

The researchers shared a summary of the results in August 2021 during an online presentation hosted by the National Institutes of Health. The full data hadn’t been published until now.

“Now that people can dive into the details and the data, hopefully that will steer the majority of doctors away from ivermectin toward other therapies,” Dr. Boulware said.

In the trial, the research team compared more than 1,350 people infected with the coronavirus in Brazil who received either ivermectin or a placebo as treatment.

Between March and August 2021, 679 patients received a daily dose of ivermectin over the course of 3 days. The researchers found that ivermectin didn’t reduce the risk that people with COVID-19 would be hospitalized or go to an ED within 28 days after treatment.

In addition, the researchers looked at particular groups to understand if some patients benefited for some reason, such as taking ivermectin sooner after testing positive for COVID-19. But those who took the drug during the first 3 days after a positive coronavirus test ended up doing worse than those in the placebo group. The drug also didn’t help patients recover sooner.

The researchers found “no important effects” of treatment with ivermectin on the number of days people spent in the hospital, the number of days hospitalized people needed mechanical ventilation, or the risk of death.

Ivermectin has become a controversial focal point during the pandemic.

For decades, the drug has been widely used to treat parasitic infections. At the beginning of the pandemic, researchers checked thousands of existing drugs against the coronavirus to determine if a potential treatment already existed. Laboratory experiments on cells suggested that ivermectin might work, the New York Times reported.

But some researchers noted that the experiments worked because a high concentration of ivermectin was used, a much higher dose than would be safe for people. Despite the concerns, some doctors began prescribing ivermectin to patients. After receiving reports of people who needed medical attention, particularly after using formulations intended for livestock, the Food and Drug Administration issued a warning that the drug wasn’t approved to be used for COVID-19.

Researchers around the world have done small clinical trials to understand whether ivermectin treats COVID-19, the newspaper reported. At the end of 2020, Andrew Hill, MD, a virologist at the University of Liverpool in England, reviewed the results from 23 trials and concluded that the drug could lower the risk of death from COVID-19. He published the results in July 2021, but later reports found that many of the studies were flawed, and at least one was fraudulent.

Dr. Hill retracted his original study and began another analysis, which was published in January 2022. In this review, he and his colleagues focused on studies that were least likely to be biased. They found that ivermectin was not helpful.

Recently, Dr. Hill and associates ran another analysis using the new data from the Brazil trial, and once again they saw no benefit.

Several clinical trials are still testing ivermectin as a treatment, the New York Times reported, with results expected in upcoming months. After reviewing the data from the Brazil trial, which tested ivermectin and a variety of other drugs against COVID-19, some infectious disease experts say they’ll likely see more of the same – that ivermectin doesn’t help people with COVID-19.

“I welcome the results of the other clinical trials and will view them with an open mind,” Paul Sax, MD, an infectious disease expert at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, who has been watching the data on the drug throughout the pandemic, told the New York Times.

“But at some point, it will become a waste of resources to continue studying an unpromising approach,” he said.

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

Ivermectin, an antiparasitic drug that became popular as an alternative treatment for COVID-19, showed no signs of quelling the disease or reducing patients’ risk of hospitalization, according to results from a large clinical trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The findings pretty much rule out the drug as a treatment for COVID-19, the study authors wrote.

“There’s really no sign of any benefit,” David Boulware, MD, one of the coauthors and an infectious disease specialist at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, told the New York Times.

The researchers shared a summary of the results in August 2021 during an online presentation hosted by the National Institutes of Health. The full data hadn’t been published until now.

“Now that people can dive into the details and the data, hopefully that will steer the majority of doctors away from ivermectin toward other therapies,” Dr. Boulware said.

In the trial, the research team compared more than 1,350 people infected with the coronavirus in Brazil who received either ivermectin or a placebo as treatment.

Between March and August 2021, 679 patients received a daily dose of ivermectin over the course of 3 days. The researchers found that ivermectin didn’t reduce the risk that people with COVID-19 would be hospitalized or go to an ED within 28 days after treatment.

In addition, the researchers looked at particular groups to understand if some patients benefited for some reason, such as taking ivermectin sooner after testing positive for COVID-19. But those who took the drug during the first 3 days after a positive coronavirus test ended up doing worse than those in the placebo group. The drug also didn’t help patients recover sooner.

The researchers found “no important effects” of treatment with ivermectin on the number of days people spent in the hospital, the number of days hospitalized people needed mechanical ventilation, or the risk of death.

Ivermectin has become a controversial focal point during the pandemic.

For decades, the drug has been widely used to treat parasitic infections. At the beginning of the pandemic, researchers checked thousands of existing drugs against the coronavirus to determine if a potential treatment already existed. Laboratory experiments on cells suggested that ivermectin might work, the New York Times reported.

But some researchers noted that the experiments worked because a high concentration of ivermectin was used, a much higher dose than would be safe for people. Despite the concerns, some doctors began prescribing ivermectin to patients. After receiving reports of people who needed medical attention, particularly after using formulations intended for livestock, the Food and Drug Administration issued a warning that the drug wasn’t approved to be used for COVID-19.

Researchers around the world have done small clinical trials to understand whether ivermectin treats COVID-19, the newspaper reported. At the end of 2020, Andrew Hill, MD, a virologist at the University of Liverpool in England, reviewed the results from 23 trials and concluded that the drug could lower the risk of death from COVID-19. He published the results in July 2021, but later reports found that many of the studies were flawed, and at least one was fraudulent.

Dr. Hill retracted his original study and began another analysis, which was published in January 2022. In this review, he and his colleagues focused on studies that were least likely to be biased. They found that ivermectin was not helpful.

Recently, Dr. Hill and associates ran another analysis using the new data from the Brazil trial, and once again they saw no benefit.

Several clinical trials are still testing ivermectin as a treatment, the New York Times reported, with results expected in upcoming months. After reviewing the data from the Brazil trial, which tested ivermectin and a variety of other drugs against COVID-19, some infectious disease experts say they’ll likely see more of the same – that ivermectin doesn’t help people with COVID-19.

“I welcome the results of the other clinical trials and will view them with an open mind,” Paul Sax, MD, an infectious disease expert at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, who has been watching the data on the drug throughout the pandemic, told the New York Times.

“But at some point, it will become a waste of resources to continue studying an unpromising approach,” he said.

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

Pointing a finger at COVID-19

The battle against COVID-19 is seemingly never ending. It’s been 2 years and still we struggle against the virus. But now, a new hero rises against the eternal menace, a powerful weapon against this scourge of humanity. And that weapon? Finger length.

Before you break out the sad trombone, hear us out. One of the big questions around COVID-19 is the role testosterone plays in its severity: Does low testosterone increase or decrease the odds of contracting severe COVID-19? To help answer that question, English researchers have published a study analyzing finger length ratios in both COVID-19 patients and a healthy control group. That seems random, but high testosterone in the womb leads to longer ring fingers in adulthood, while high estrogen leads to longer index fingers.

PxHere

According to the researchers, those who had significant left hand–right hand differences in the ratio between the second and fourth digits, as well as the third and fifth digits, were significantly more likely to have severe COVID-19 compared with those with more even ratios. Those with “feminized” short little fingers were also at risk. Those large ratio differences indicate low testosterone and high estrogen, which may explain why elderly men are at such high risk for severe COVID-19. Testosterone naturally falls off as men get older.

The results add credence to clinical trials looking to use testosterone-boosting drugs against COVID-19, the researchers said. It also gives credence to LOTME’s brand-new 12-step finger strength fitness routine and our branded finger weights. Now just $19.95! It’s the bargain of the century! Boost your testosterone naturally and protect yourself from COVID-19! We promise it’s not a scam.
 

Some emergencies need a superhero

Last week, we learned about the most boring person in the world. This week just happens to be opposite week, so we’re looking at a candidate for the most interesting person. Someone who can swoop down from the sky to save the injured and helpless. Someone who can go where helicopters fear to tread. Someone with jet engines for arms. Superhero-type stuff.

Richard Browning/Gravity Industries

The Great North Air Ambulance Service (GNAAS), a charitable organization located in the United Kingdom, recently announced that one of its members has completed training on the Gravity Industries Jet Suit. The suit “has two engines on each arm and a larger engine on the back [that] provide up to 317 pounds of thrust,” Interesting Engineering explained.

GNAAS is putting the suit into operation in England’s Lake District National Park, which includes mountainous terrain that is not very hospitable to helicopter landings. A paramedic using the suit can reach hikers stranded on mountainsides much faster than rescuers who have to run or hike from the nearest helicopter landing site.

“Everyone looks at the wow factor and the fact we are the world’s first jet suit paramedics, but for us, it’s about delivering patient care,” GNAAS’ Andy Mawson told Interesting Engineering. Sounds like superhero-speak to us.

So if you’re in the Lake District and have taken a bit of a tumble, you can call a superhero on your cell phone or you can use this to summon one.
 

Why we’re rejecting food as medicine

Humans have been using food to treat ailments much longer than we’ve had the advances of modern medicine. So why have we rejected its worth in our treatment processes? And what can be done to change that? The Center for Food as Medicine and the Hunter College NYC Food Policy Center just released a 335-page report that answers those questions.

phototake/ThinkStock

First, the why: Meals in health care settings are not medically designed to help with the specific needs of the patient. Produce-prescription and nutrition-incentive programs don’t have the government funds to fully support them. And a lot of medical schools don’t even require students to take a basic nutrition course. So there’s a lack of knowledge and a disconnect between health care providers and food as a resource.

Then there’s a lack of trust in the food industry and their validity. Social media uses food as a means of promoting “pseudoscientific alternative medicine” or spreading false info, pushing away legitimate providers. The food industry has had its fingers in food science studies and an almost mafia-esque chokehold on American dietary guidelines. No wonder food for medicine is getting the boot!

To change the situation, the report offers 10 key recommendations on how to advance the idea of incorporating food into medicine for treatment and prevention. They include boosting the funding for research, making hospitals more food-as-medicine focused, expanding federal programs, and improving public awareness on the role nutrition can play in medical treatment or prevention.

So maybe instead of rejecting food outright, we should be looking a little deeper at how we can use it to our advantage. Just a thought: Ice cream as an antidepressant.
 

Being rude is a good thing, apparently

If you’ve ever been called argumentative, stubborn, or unpleasant, then this LOTME is for you. Researchers at the University of Geneva have found that people who are more stubborn and hate to conform have brains that are more protected against Alzheimer’s disease. That type of personality seems to preserve the part of the brain that usually deteriorates as we grow older.

Piqsels

The original hypothesis that personality may have a protective effect against brain degeneration led the investigators to conduct cognitive and personality assessments of 65 elderly participants over a 5-year period. Researchers have been attempting to create vaccines to protect against Alzheimer’s disease, but these new findings offer a nonbiological way to help.

“For a long time, the brain is able to compensate by activating alternative networks; when the first clinical signs appear, however, it is unfortunately often too late. The identification of early biomarkers is therefore essential for … effective disease management,” lead author Panteleimon Giannakopoulos, MD, said in a Study Finds report.

You may be wondering how people with more agreeable and less confrontational personalities can seek help. Well, researchers are working on that, too. It’s a complex situation, but as always, we’re rooting for you, science!

At least now you can take solace in the fact that your elderly next-door neighbor who yells at you for stepping on his lawn is probably more protected against Alzheimer’s disease.

Pointing a finger at COVID-19

The battle against COVID-19 is seemingly never ending. It’s been 2 years and still we struggle against the virus. But now, a new hero rises against the eternal menace, a powerful weapon against this scourge of humanity. And that weapon? Finger length.

Before you break out the sad trombone, hear us out. One of the big questions around COVID-19 is the role testosterone plays in its severity: Does low testosterone increase or decrease the odds of contracting severe COVID-19? To help answer that question, English researchers have published a study analyzing finger length ratios in both COVID-19 patients and a healthy control group. That seems random, but high testosterone in the womb leads to longer ring fingers in adulthood, while high estrogen leads to longer index fingers.

PxHere

According to the researchers, those who had significant left hand–right hand differences in the ratio between the second and fourth digits, as well as the third and fifth digits, were significantly more likely to have severe COVID-19 compared with those with more even ratios. Those with “feminized” short little fingers were also at risk. Those large ratio differences indicate low testosterone and high estrogen, which may explain why elderly men are at such high risk for severe COVID-19. Testosterone naturally falls off as men get older.

The results add credence to clinical trials looking to use testosterone-boosting drugs against COVID-19, the researchers said. It also gives credence to LOTME’s brand-new 12-step finger strength fitness routine and our branded finger weights. Now just $19.95! It’s the bargain of the century! Boost your testosterone naturally and protect yourself from COVID-19! We promise it’s not a scam.
 

Some emergencies need a superhero

Last week, we learned about the most boring person in the world. This week just happens to be opposite week, so we’re looking at a candidate for the most interesting person. Someone who can swoop down from the sky to save the injured and helpless. Someone who can go where helicopters fear to tread. Someone with jet engines for arms. Superhero-type stuff.

Richard Browning/Gravity Industries

The Great North Air Ambulance Service (GNAAS), a charitable organization located in the United Kingdom, recently announced that one of its members has completed training on the Gravity Industries Jet Suit. The suit “has two engines on each arm and a larger engine on the back [that] provide up to 317 pounds of thrust,” Interesting Engineering explained.

GNAAS is putting the suit into operation in England’s Lake District National Park, which includes mountainous terrain that is not very hospitable to helicopter landings. A paramedic using the suit can reach hikers stranded on mountainsides much faster than rescuers who have to run or hike from the nearest helicopter landing site.

“Everyone looks at the wow factor and the fact we are the world’s first jet suit paramedics, but for us, it’s about delivering patient care,” GNAAS’ Andy Mawson told Interesting Engineering. Sounds like superhero-speak to us.

So if you’re in the Lake District and have taken a bit of a tumble, you can call a superhero on your cell phone or you can use this to summon one.
 

Why we’re rejecting food as medicine

Humans have been using food to treat ailments much longer than we’ve had the advances of modern medicine. So why have we rejected its worth in our treatment processes? And what can be done to change that? The Center for Food as Medicine and the Hunter College NYC Food Policy Center just released a 335-page report that answers those questions.

phototake/ThinkStock

First, the why: Meals in health care settings are not medically designed to help with the specific needs of the patient. Produce-prescription and nutrition-incentive programs don’t have the government funds to fully support them. And a lot of medical schools don’t even require students to take a basic nutrition course. So there’s a lack of knowledge and a disconnect between health care providers and food as a resource.

Then there’s a lack of trust in the food industry and their validity. Social media uses food as a means of promoting “pseudoscientific alternative medicine” or spreading false info, pushing away legitimate providers. The food industry has had its fingers in food science studies and an almost mafia-esque chokehold on American dietary guidelines. No wonder food for medicine is getting the boot!

To change the situation, the report offers 10 key recommendations on how to advance the idea of incorporating food into medicine for treatment and prevention. They include boosting the funding for research, making hospitals more food-as-medicine focused, expanding federal programs, and improving public awareness on the role nutrition can play in medical treatment or prevention.

So maybe instead of rejecting food outright, we should be looking a little deeper at how we can use it to our advantage. Just a thought: Ice cream as an antidepressant.
 

Being rude is a good thing, apparently

If you’ve ever been called argumentative, stubborn, or unpleasant, then this LOTME is for you. Researchers at the University of Geneva have found that people who are more stubborn and hate to conform have brains that are more protected against Alzheimer’s disease. That type of personality seems to preserve the part of the brain that usually deteriorates as we grow older.

Piqsels

The original hypothesis that personality may have a protective effect against brain degeneration led the investigators to conduct cognitive and personality assessments of 65 elderly participants over a 5-year period. Researchers have been attempting to create vaccines to protect against Alzheimer’s disease, but these new findings offer a nonbiological way to help.

“For a long time, the brain is able to compensate by activating alternative networks; when the first clinical signs appear, however, it is unfortunately often too late. The identification of early biomarkers is therefore essential for … effective disease management,” lead author Panteleimon Giannakopoulos, MD, said in a Study Finds report.

You may be wondering how people with more agreeable and less confrontational personalities can seek help. Well, researchers are working on that, too. It’s a complex situation, but as always, we’re rooting for you, science!

At least now you can take solace in the fact that your elderly next-door neighbor who yells at you for stepping on his lawn is probably more protected against Alzheimer’s disease.

Pointing a finger at COVID-19

The battle against COVID-19 is seemingly never ending. It’s been 2 years and still we struggle against the virus. But now, a new hero rises against the eternal menace, a powerful weapon against this scourge of humanity. And that weapon? Finger length.

Before you break out the sad trombone, hear us out. One of the big questions around COVID-19 is the role testosterone plays in its severity: Does low testosterone increase or decrease the odds of contracting severe COVID-19? To help answer that question, English researchers have published a study analyzing finger length ratios in both COVID-19 patients and a healthy control group. That seems random, but high testosterone in the womb leads to longer ring fingers in adulthood, while high estrogen leads to longer index fingers.

PxHere

According to the researchers, those who had significant left hand–right hand differences in the ratio between the second and fourth digits, as well as the third and fifth digits, were significantly more likely to have severe COVID-19 compared with those with more even ratios. Those with “feminized” short little fingers were also at risk. Those large ratio differences indicate low testosterone and high estrogen, which may explain why elderly men are at such high risk for severe COVID-19. Testosterone naturally falls off as men get older.

The results add credence to clinical trials looking to use testosterone-boosting drugs against COVID-19, the researchers said. It also gives credence to LOTME’s brand-new 12-step finger strength fitness routine and our branded finger weights. Now just $19.95! It’s the bargain of the century! Boost your testosterone naturally and protect yourself from COVID-19! We promise it’s not a scam.
 

Some emergencies need a superhero

Last week, we learned about the most boring person in the world. This week just happens to be opposite week, so we’re looking at a candidate for the most interesting person. Someone who can swoop down from the sky to save the injured and helpless. Someone who can go where helicopters fear to tread. Someone with jet engines for arms. Superhero-type stuff.

Richard Browning/Gravity Industries

The Great North Air Ambulance Service (GNAAS), a charitable organization located in the United Kingdom, recently announced that one of its members has completed training on the Gravity Industries Jet Suit. The suit “has two engines on each arm and a larger engine on the back [that] provide up to 317 pounds of thrust,” Interesting Engineering explained.

GNAAS is putting the suit into operation in England’s Lake District National Park, which includes mountainous terrain that is not very hospitable to helicopter landings. A paramedic using the suit can reach hikers stranded on mountainsides much faster than rescuers who have to run or hike from the nearest helicopter landing site.

“Everyone looks at the wow factor and the fact we are the world’s first jet suit paramedics, but for us, it’s about delivering patient care,” GNAAS’ Andy Mawson told Interesting Engineering. Sounds like superhero-speak to us.

So if you’re in the Lake District and have taken a bit of a tumble, you can call a superhero on your cell phone or you can use this to summon one.
 

Why we’re rejecting food as medicine

Humans have been using food to treat ailments much longer than we’ve had the advances of modern medicine. So why have we rejected its worth in our treatment processes? And what can be done to change that? The Center for Food as Medicine and the Hunter College NYC Food Policy Center just released a 335-page report that answers those questions.

phototake/ThinkStock

First, the why: Meals in health care settings are not medically designed to help with the specific needs of the patient. Produce-prescription and nutrition-incentive programs don’t have the government funds to fully support them. And a lot of medical schools don’t even require students to take a basic nutrition course. So there’s a lack of knowledge and a disconnect between health care providers and food as a resource.

Then there’s a lack of trust in the food industry and their validity. Social media uses food as a means of promoting “pseudoscientific alternative medicine” or spreading false info, pushing away legitimate providers. The food industry has had its fingers in food science studies and an almost mafia-esque chokehold on American dietary guidelines. No wonder food for medicine is getting the boot!

To change the situation, the report offers 10 key recommendations on how to advance the idea of incorporating food into medicine for treatment and prevention. They include boosting the funding for research, making hospitals more food-as-medicine focused, expanding federal programs, and improving public awareness on the role nutrition can play in medical treatment or prevention.

So maybe instead of rejecting food outright, we should be looking a little deeper at how we can use it to our advantage. Just a thought: Ice cream as an antidepressant.
 

Being rude is a good thing, apparently

If you’ve ever been called argumentative, stubborn, or unpleasant, then this LOTME is for you. Researchers at the University of Geneva have found that people who are more stubborn and hate to conform have brains that are more protected against Alzheimer’s disease. That type of personality seems to preserve the part of the brain that usually deteriorates as we grow older.

Piqsels

The original hypothesis that personality may have a protective effect against brain degeneration led the investigators to conduct cognitive and personality assessments of 65 elderly participants over a 5-year period. Researchers have been attempting to create vaccines to protect against Alzheimer’s disease, but these new findings offer a nonbiological way to help.

“For a long time, the brain is able to compensate by activating alternative networks; when the first clinical signs appear, however, it is unfortunately often too late. The identification of early biomarkers is therefore essential for … effective disease management,” lead author Panteleimon Giannakopoulos, MD, said in a Study Finds report.

You may be wondering how people with more agreeable and less confrontational personalities can seek help. Well, researchers are working on that, too. It’s a complex situation, but as always, we’re rooting for you, science!

At least now you can take solace in the fact that your elderly next-door neighbor who yells at you for stepping on his lawn is probably more protected against Alzheimer’s disease.

The risk for sudden cardiac death (SCD) climbs steadily in tandem with coronary artery calcium (CAC) burden, independent of more conventional risk factors, in primary-prevention patients considered low- to intermediate-risk, researchers say.

The findings, based on a large cohort study, strengthen the case for initial CAC imaging as a gatekeeper to further testing in such patients who have mostly subclinical atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), they conclude.

The CAC scan is “evolving into a primary-prevention screening test, not only for initiating statin therapy, but now as a screening modality for risk stratifying someone for sudden cardiac arrest,” Alexander C. Razavi, MD, MPH, PhD, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, told this news organization.

“Our data reinforce this and give some quantitative measures of when we should start to consider that.”

A CAC score of 100 to 399 in this “primarily asymptomatic,” predominantly White and male cohort elevated the risk for SCD over an average of 10.6 years by a factor of 2.8, compared with a score of 0. The risk went up four times with CAC scores of 400-999, and almost five times with scores above 1,000.

The risk association was independent of age and sex but also diabetes, smoking, hypertension, dyslipidemia, and family history of heart disease.

That and other findings, Dr. Razavi said, suggest CAC scores in low- to intermediate-risk patients like those studied may sharpen SCD risk-stratification beyond what is possible using traditional risk factors.

Dr. Razavi is lead author on the study’s March 21 publication in JACC Cardiovascular Imaging, and is slated to present the results April 2 during the American College of Cardiology (ACC) 2022 Scientific Session, to be held virtually and in-person in Washington, D.C.

The study’s 66,636 primary-prevention patients, part of the Coronary Artery Calcium Consortium observational cohort, were without known coronary disease at enrollment, from 1991-2010, at four major American centers. They had been referred to CAC imaging because of the presence of at least one ASCVD risk factor, such as dyslipidemia, family history of premature heart disease, hypertension, or diabetes, the researchers note.

They observed 211 SCD events, for a rate of about 0.3%, over a median of 10.6 years. The adjusted stepwise higher risk (SHR) for an SCD event went up continuously with CAC scores (P for trend < .001). The SHR values, compared with a CAC score of 0, were:

• 1.3 (95% CI, 0.7-2.4) for a CAC score score of 1 to 99
• 2.8 (95% CI, 1.6-5.0) for a CAC score of 100 to 399
• 4.0 (95% CI, 2.2-7.3) for a CAC score of 400 to 999
• 4.9 (95% CI, 2.6-9.9) for a CAC score above 1,000

The magnitude of the CAC score’s association with SCD risk in the study was “surprising,” Dr. Razavi said. The CAC score, starting at about 100, seems “more strongly associated with a sudden cardiac arrest” than more familiar SCD risk predictors, such as prolonged heart-rate-corrected QT interval or QRS duration.

Dr. Razavi reported no conflicts. Disclosures for the other authors are in the report.

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

The risk for sudden cardiac death (SCD) climbs steadily in tandem with coronary artery calcium (CAC) burden, independent of more conventional risk factors, in primary-prevention patients considered low- to intermediate-risk, researchers say.

The findings, based on a large cohort study, strengthen the case for initial CAC imaging as a gatekeeper to further testing in such patients who have mostly subclinical atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), they conclude.

The CAC scan is “evolving into a primary-prevention screening test, not only for initiating statin therapy, but now as a screening modality for risk stratifying someone for sudden cardiac arrest,” Alexander C. Razavi, MD, MPH, PhD, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, told this news organization.

“Our data reinforce this and give some quantitative measures of when we should start to consider that.”

A CAC score of 100 to 399 in this “primarily asymptomatic,” predominantly White and male cohort elevated the risk for SCD over an average of 10.6 years by a factor of 2.8, compared with a score of 0. The risk went up four times with CAC scores of 400-999, and almost five times with scores above 1,000.

The risk association was independent of age and sex but also diabetes, smoking, hypertension, dyslipidemia, and family history of heart disease.

That and other findings, Dr. Razavi said, suggest CAC scores in low- to intermediate-risk patients like those studied may sharpen SCD risk-stratification beyond what is possible using traditional risk factors.

Dr. Razavi is lead author on the study’s March 21 publication in JACC Cardiovascular Imaging, and is slated to present the results April 2 during the American College of Cardiology (ACC) 2022 Scientific Session, to be held virtually and in-person in Washington, D.C.

The study’s 66,636 primary-prevention patients, part of the Coronary Artery Calcium Consortium observational cohort, were without known coronary disease at enrollment, from 1991-2010, at four major American centers. They had been referred to CAC imaging because of the presence of at least one ASCVD risk factor, such as dyslipidemia, family history of premature heart disease, hypertension, or diabetes, the researchers note.

They observed 211 SCD events, for a rate of about 0.3%, over a median of 10.6 years. The adjusted stepwise higher risk (SHR) for an SCD event went up continuously with CAC scores (P for trend < .001). The SHR values, compared with a CAC score of 0, were:

• 1.3 (95% CI, 0.7-2.4) for a CAC score score of 1 to 99
• 2.8 (95% CI, 1.6-5.0) for a CAC score of 100 to 399
• 4.0 (95% CI, 2.2-7.3) for a CAC score of 400 to 999
• 4.9 (95% CI, 2.6-9.9) for a CAC score above 1,000

The magnitude of the CAC score’s association with SCD risk in the study was “surprising,” Dr. Razavi said. The CAC score, starting at about 100, seems “more strongly associated with a sudden cardiac arrest” than more familiar SCD risk predictors, such as prolonged heart-rate-corrected QT interval or QRS duration.

Dr. Razavi reported no conflicts. Disclosures for the other authors are in the report.

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

The risk for sudden cardiac death (SCD) climbs steadily in tandem with coronary artery calcium (CAC) burden, independent of more conventional risk factors, in primary-prevention patients considered low- to intermediate-risk, researchers say.

The findings, based on a large cohort study, strengthen the case for initial CAC imaging as a gatekeeper to further testing in such patients who have mostly subclinical atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), they conclude.

The CAC scan is “evolving into a primary-prevention screening test, not only for initiating statin therapy, but now as a screening modality for risk stratifying someone for sudden cardiac arrest,” Alexander C. Razavi, MD, MPH, PhD, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, told this news organization.

“Our data reinforce this and give some quantitative measures of when we should start to consider that.”

A CAC score of 100 to 399 in this “primarily asymptomatic,” predominantly White and male cohort elevated the risk for SCD over an average of 10.6 years by a factor of 2.8, compared with a score of 0. The risk went up four times with CAC scores of 400-999, and almost five times with scores above 1,000.

The risk association was independent of age and sex but also diabetes, smoking, hypertension, dyslipidemia, and family history of heart disease.

That and other findings, Dr. Razavi said, suggest CAC scores in low- to intermediate-risk patients like those studied may sharpen SCD risk-stratification beyond what is possible using traditional risk factors.

Dr. Razavi is lead author on the study’s March 21 publication in JACC Cardiovascular Imaging, and is slated to present the results April 2 during the American College of Cardiology (ACC) 2022 Scientific Session, to be held virtually and in-person in Washington, D.C.

The study’s 66,636 primary-prevention patients, part of the Coronary Artery Calcium Consortium observational cohort, were without known coronary disease at enrollment, from 1991-2010, at four major American centers. They had been referred to CAC imaging because of the presence of at least one ASCVD risk factor, such as dyslipidemia, family history of premature heart disease, hypertension, or diabetes, the researchers note.

They observed 211 SCD events, for a rate of about 0.3%, over a median of 10.6 years. The adjusted stepwise higher risk (SHR) for an SCD event went up continuously with CAC scores (P for trend < .001). The SHR values, compared with a CAC score of 0, were:

• 1.3 (95% CI, 0.7-2.4) for a CAC score score of 1 to 99
• 2.8 (95% CI, 1.6-5.0) for a CAC score of 100 to 399
• 4.0 (95% CI, 2.2-7.3) for a CAC score of 400 to 999
• 4.9 (95% CI, 2.6-9.9) for a CAC score above 1,000

The magnitude of the CAC score’s association with SCD risk in the study was “surprising,” Dr. Razavi said. The CAC score, starting at about 100, seems “more strongly associated with a sudden cardiac arrest” than more familiar SCD risk predictors, such as prolonged heart-rate-corrected QT interval or QRS duration.

Dr. Razavi reported no conflicts. Disclosures for the other authors are in the report.

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

Even very light alcohol intake is associated with an increased risk for cardiovascular disease, compared with not drinking at all, and the risk increases exponentially as alcohol intake rises, even at moderate levels, a new study shows.

“Our findings suggest that the observed benefit in individuals with light to moderate alcohol intake, which is consistently shown in epidemiological studies, is likely due to other positive lifestyle factors that are common in these individuals who drink lightly,” senior author Krishna Aragam, MD, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, told this news organization.

“Our results also showed that while all levels of alcohol were linked to increased risk of cardiovascular disease, the association was not linear. Rather, light alcohol intake was associated with rather modest risk increases, but there were exponential increases in cardiovascular risk with increasing amounts of alcohol consumption,” he said.

As the risk gradient appeared to increase quite sharply even between 1 and 2 drinks per day, Dr. Aragam suggested that what might be regarded as safe levels of drinking may trend downward in the future.

Kirby Hamilton/iStockphoto

They also conducted genetic analyses to examine the effect of alcohol and cardiovascular disease.   

Dr. Aragam explained that previous work has shown good evidence, in individuals who choose to drink, that several relevant genetic variants predict levels of alcohol consumption quite accurately.

“Mendelian randomization using these gene variants allows for stronger inferences about potential causality than do observational studies, as they are less affected by confounding factors,” he noted.

Newer techniques in Mendelian randomization in which data on several gene variants linked to alcohol consumption are combined into a score allow for a greater understanding of the risk linked to different amount of alcohol intake, he added.

In these Mendelian randomization analyses, a 1-standard deviation increase in genetically predicted alcohol consumption was associated with 1.3-fold higher risk of hypertension (P < .001) and 1.4-fold higher risk of coronary artery disease (P = .006).

Further analyses suggested nonlinear associations between alcohol consumption and both hypertension and coronary artery disease; light alcohol intake was associated with minimal increases in cardiovascular risk, whereas heavier consumption was associated with exponential increases in risk of both clinical and subclinical cardiovascular disease.

These results were replicated in a second database of 30,716 individuals from the Mass General Brigham Biobank.

“The findings of this study suggest that the observed cardioprotective effects of light to moderate alcohol intake may be largely mediated by confounding lifestyle factors,” the researchers conclude. “Genetic analyses suggest causal associations between alcohol intake and cardiovascular disease but with unequal and exponential increases in risk at greater levels of intake, which should be accounted for in health recommendations around the habitual consumption of alcohol.”

What is an acceptable level? 

“Specifically, our results suggest that consuming as many as 7 drinks per week is associated with relatively modest increases in cardiovascular risk,” they write.

But they point out that there are unequal increases in cardiovascular risk when progressing from 0 to 7 versus 7 to 14 drinks per week in both men and women.

“Although risk thresholds are inherently somewhat subjective, these findings again bring into question whether an average consumption of 2 drinks per day (14 drinks per week) should be designated a low-risk behavior,” they say.

“Furthermore, as several-fold increases in risk were observed for those consuming 21 or more drinks per week, our results emphasize the importance of aggressive efforts to reduce alcohol intake among heavy drinkers,” they add.

Dr. Aragam elaborated: “Our data suggest that reducing alcohol intake will reduce cardiovascular risk in all individuals, but the extent of the relative risk reduction is quite different depending on the current levels of consumption. For the same absolute reduction in alcohol intake, the gains in terms of reduction in cardiovascular risk will be more pronounced in those who drink heavily and will be more modest in those who drink at a light level.”

The results also suggest that while all levels of alcohol intake increase cardiovascular risk, there are low levels of alcohol consumption that do not carry major elevations in risk, but these are probably lower than those currently recommended, Dr. Aragam pointed out. 

“This doesn’t mean that everyone has to give up drinking alcohol completely, just that you shouldn’t consume with the goal of improving cardiovascular health. In fact, our analyses suggest that in an otherwise healthy person, up to 1 drink per day may not pose outsized risks,” he said. “And, even in a less healthy person who might be smoking, eating poorly, and drinking up to 1 drink per day, it may be a higher priority to focus on smoking cessation and diet than cutting back further on alcohol.”

“Beyond that amount, though, the jury is still out. Our models suggested marked increases in risk even between 1 and 2 drinks per day, and of course even greater risk increases beyond that. So, it’s probably worth revisiting what one might consider a ‘safe’ amount within the moderate drinking categories. The conservative move for now might be to advise a limit of 1 drink per day,” he said.   

Dr. Aragam is supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health and the American Heart Association. He reports receiving speaking fees from the Novartis Institute for Biomedical Research.

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

Even very light alcohol intake is associated with an increased risk for cardiovascular disease, compared with not drinking at all, and the risk increases exponentially as alcohol intake rises, even at moderate levels, a new study shows.

“Our findings suggest that the observed benefit in individuals with light to moderate alcohol intake, which is consistently shown in epidemiological studies, is likely due to other positive lifestyle factors that are common in these individuals who drink lightly,” senior author Krishna Aragam, MD, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, told this news organization.

“Our results also showed that while all levels of alcohol were linked to increased risk of cardiovascular disease, the association was not linear. Rather, light alcohol intake was associated with rather modest risk increases, but there were exponential increases in cardiovascular risk with increasing amounts of alcohol consumption,” he said.

As the risk gradient appeared to increase quite sharply even between 1 and 2 drinks per day, Dr. Aragam suggested that what might be regarded as safe levels of drinking may trend downward in the future.

Kirby Hamilton/iStockphoto

They also conducted genetic analyses to examine the effect of alcohol and cardiovascular disease.   

Dr. Aragam explained that previous work has shown good evidence, in individuals who choose to drink, that several relevant genetic variants predict levels of alcohol consumption quite accurately.

“Mendelian randomization using these gene variants allows for stronger inferences about potential causality than do observational studies, as they are less affected by confounding factors,” he noted.

Newer techniques in Mendelian randomization in which data on several gene variants linked to alcohol consumption are combined into a score allow for a greater understanding of the risk linked to different amount of alcohol intake, he added.

In these Mendelian randomization analyses, a 1-standard deviation increase in genetically predicted alcohol consumption was associated with 1.3-fold higher risk of hypertension (P < .001) and 1.4-fold higher risk of coronary artery disease (P = .006).

Further analyses suggested nonlinear associations between alcohol consumption and both hypertension and coronary artery disease; light alcohol intake was associated with minimal increases in cardiovascular risk, whereas heavier consumption was associated with exponential increases in risk of both clinical and subclinical cardiovascular disease.

These results were replicated in a second database of 30,716 individuals from the Mass General Brigham Biobank.

“The findings of this study suggest that the observed cardioprotective effects of light to moderate alcohol intake may be largely mediated by confounding lifestyle factors,” the researchers conclude. “Genetic analyses suggest causal associations between alcohol intake and cardiovascular disease but with unequal and exponential increases in risk at greater levels of intake, which should be accounted for in health recommendations around the habitual consumption of alcohol.”

What is an acceptable level? 

“Specifically, our results suggest that consuming as many as 7 drinks per week is associated with relatively modest increases in cardiovascular risk,” they write.

But they point out that there are unequal increases in cardiovascular risk when progressing from 0 to 7 versus 7 to 14 drinks per week in both men and women.

“Although risk thresholds are inherently somewhat subjective, these findings again bring into question whether an average consumption of 2 drinks per day (14 drinks per week) should be designated a low-risk behavior,” they say.

“Furthermore, as several-fold increases in risk were observed for those consuming 21 or more drinks per week, our results emphasize the importance of aggressive efforts to reduce alcohol intake among heavy drinkers,” they add.

Dr. Aragam elaborated: “Our data suggest that reducing alcohol intake will reduce cardiovascular risk in all individuals, but the extent of the relative risk reduction is quite different depending on the current levels of consumption. For the same absolute reduction in alcohol intake, the gains in terms of reduction in cardiovascular risk will be more pronounced in those who drink heavily and will be more modest in those who drink at a light level.”

The results also suggest that while all levels of alcohol intake increase cardiovascular risk, there are low levels of alcohol consumption that do not carry major elevations in risk, but these are probably lower than those currently recommended, Dr. Aragam pointed out. 

“This doesn’t mean that everyone has to give up drinking alcohol completely, just that you shouldn’t consume with the goal of improving cardiovascular health. In fact, our analyses suggest that in an otherwise healthy person, up to 1 drink per day may not pose outsized risks,” he said. “And, even in a less healthy person who might be smoking, eating poorly, and drinking up to 1 drink per day, it may be a higher priority to focus on smoking cessation and diet than cutting back further on alcohol.”

“Beyond that amount, though, the jury is still out. Our models suggested marked increases in risk even between 1 and 2 drinks per day, and of course even greater risk increases beyond that. So, it’s probably worth revisiting what one might consider a ‘safe’ amount within the moderate drinking categories. The conservative move for now might be to advise a limit of 1 drink per day,” he said.   

Dr. Aragam is supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health and the American Heart Association. He reports receiving speaking fees from the Novartis Institute for Biomedical Research.

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

Even very light alcohol intake is associated with an increased risk for cardiovascular disease, compared with not drinking at all, and the risk increases exponentially as alcohol intake rises, even at moderate levels, a new study shows.

“Our findings suggest that the observed benefit in individuals with light to moderate alcohol intake, which is consistently shown in epidemiological studies, is likely due to other positive lifestyle factors that are common in these individuals who drink lightly,” senior author Krishna Aragam, MD, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, told this news organization.

“Our results also showed that while all levels of alcohol were linked to increased risk of cardiovascular disease, the association was not linear. Rather, light alcohol intake was associated with rather modest risk increases, but there were exponential increases in cardiovascular risk with increasing amounts of alcohol consumption,” he said.

As the risk gradient appeared to increase quite sharply even between 1 and 2 drinks per day, Dr. Aragam suggested that what might be regarded as safe levels of drinking may trend downward in the future.

Kirby Hamilton/iStockphoto

They also conducted genetic analyses to examine the effect of alcohol and cardiovascular disease.   

Dr. Aragam explained that previous work has shown good evidence, in individuals who choose to drink, that several relevant genetic variants predict levels of alcohol consumption quite accurately.

“Mendelian randomization using these gene variants allows for stronger inferences about potential causality than do observational studies, as they are less affected by confounding factors,” he noted.

Newer techniques in Mendelian randomization in which data on several gene variants linked to alcohol consumption are combined into a score allow for a greater understanding of the risk linked to different amount of alcohol intake, he added.

In these Mendelian randomization analyses, a 1-standard deviation increase in genetically predicted alcohol consumption was associated with 1.3-fold higher risk of hypertension (P < .001) and 1.4-fold higher risk of coronary artery disease (P = .006).

Further analyses suggested nonlinear associations between alcohol consumption and both hypertension and coronary artery disease; light alcohol intake was associated with minimal increases in cardiovascular risk, whereas heavier consumption was associated with exponential increases in risk of both clinical and subclinical cardiovascular disease.

These results were replicated in a second database of 30,716 individuals from the Mass General Brigham Biobank.

“The findings of this study suggest that the observed cardioprotective effects of light to moderate alcohol intake may be largely mediated by confounding lifestyle factors,” the researchers conclude. “Genetic analyses suggest causal associations between alcohol intake and cardiovascular disease but with unequal and exponential increases in risk at greater levels of intake, which should be accounted for in health recommendations around the habitual consumption of alcohol.”

What is an acceptable level? 

“Specifically, our results suggest that consuming as many as 7 drinks per week is associated with relatively modest increases in cardiovascular risk,” they write.

But they point out that there are unequal increases in cardiovascular risk when progressing from 0 to 7 versus 7 to 14 drinks per week in both men and women.

“Although risk thresholds are inherently somewhat subjective, these findings again bring into question whether an average consumption of 2 drinks per day (14 drinks per week) should be designated a low-risk behavior,” they say.

“Furthermore, as several-fold increases in risk were observed for those consuming 21 or more drinks per week, our results emphasize the importance of aggressive efforts to reduce alcohol intake among heavy drinkers,” they add.

Dr. Aragam elaborated: “Our data suggest that reducing alcohol intake will reduce cardiovascular risk in all individuals, but the extent of the relative risk reduction is quite different depending on the current levels of consumption. For the same absolute reduction in alcohol intake, the gains in terms of reduction in cardiovascular risk will be more pronounced in those who drink heavily and will be more modest in those who drink at a light level.”

The results also suggest that while all levels of alcohol intake increase cardiovascular risk, there are low levels of alcohol consumption that do not carry major elevations in risk, but these are probably lower than those currently recommended, Dr. Aragam pointed out. 

“This doesn’t mean that everyone has to give up drinking alcohol completely, just that you shouldn’t consume with the goal of improving cardiovascular health. In fact, our analyses suggest that in an otherwise healthy person, up to 1 drink per day may not pose outsized risks,” he said. “And, even in a less healthy person who might be smoking, eating poorly, and drinking up to 1 drink per day, it may be a higher priority to focus on smoking cessation and diet than cutting back further on alcohol.”

“Beyond that amount, though, the jury is still out. Our models suggested marked increases in risk even between 1 and 2 drinks per day, and of course even greater risk increases beyond that. So, it’s probably worth revisiting what one might consider a ‘safe’ amount within the moderate drinking categories. The conservative move for now might be to advise a limit of 1 drink per day,” he said.   

Dr. Aragam is supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health and the American Heart Association. He reports receiving speaking fees from the Novartis Institute for Biomedical Research.

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

Older adults taking psychotropic medication before contracting COVID-19 are at increased risk of dementia in the year following the illness, new research suggests.

Results from a large study of more than 1,700 patients who had been hospitalized with COVID showed a greater than twofold increased risk for post-COVID dementia in those taking antipsychotics and mood stabilizers/anticonvulsants – medications often used to treat schizophrenia, psychosis, bipolar disorder, and seizures.

“We know that pre-existing psychiatric illness is associated with poor COVID-19 outcomes, but our study is the first to show an association with certain psychiatric medications and dementia,” co-investigator Liron Sinvani, MD, the Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research, Manhasset, New York, said in an interview.

Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research

‘Striking’ dementia rate

Using electronic health records, the researchers evaluated pre-COVID psychotropic medication use and post-COVID dementia onset in 1,755 adults aged 65 and older. All were hospitalized with COVID-19 at Northwell Health between March 1 and April 20, 2020.

A “striking” 13% of the participants (n = 223) developed dementia within 1-year of follow-up, the investigators report.

Among the 438 patients (25%) exposed to at least one psychotropic medication before COVID-19, 105 (24%) developed dementia in the year following COVID versus 118 of 1,317 (9%) patients with no pre-COVID exposure to psychotropic medication (odds ratio, 3.2; 95% confidence interval, 2.37-4.32).

Both pre-COVID psychotropic medication use (OR, 2.7; 95% CI, 1.8-4.0, P < .001) and delirium (OR, 3.0; 95% CI, 1.9-4.6, P < .001) were significantly associated with post-COVID dementia at 1 year.

In a sensitivity analysis in the subset of 423 patients with at least one documented neurologic or psychiatric diagnosis at the time of COVID admission, and after adjusting for confounding factors, pre-COVID psychotropic medication use remained significantly linked to post-COVID dementia onset (OR, 3.09; 95% CI, 1.5-6.6, P = .002).

Drug classes most strongly associated with 1-year post-COVID dementia onset were antipsychotics (OR, 2.8, 95% CI, 1.7-4.4, P < .001) and mood stabilizers/anticonvulsants (OR, 2.4, 95% CI, 1.39-4.02, P = .001).

In a further exploratory analysis, the psychotropics valproic acid (multiple brands) and haloperidol (Haldol) had the largest association with post-COVID dementia.

Antidepressants as a class were not associated with post-COVID dementia, but the potential effects of two commonly prescribed antidepressants in older adults, mirtazapine (Remeron) and escitalopram (Lexapro), “warrant further investigation,” the researchers note.
 

Predictive risk marker?

“This research shows that psychotropic medications can be considered a predictive risk marker for post-COVID dementia. In patients taking psychotropic medications, COVID-19 could have accelerated progression of dementia after hospitalization,” lead author Yun Freudenberg-Hua, MD, the Feinstein Institutes, said in a news release.

It is unclear why psychotropic medications may raise the risk for dementia onset after COVID, the investigators note.

“It is intuitive that psychotropic medications indicate pre-existing neuropsychiatric conditions in which COVID-19 occurs. It is possible that psychotropic medications may potentiate the neurostructural changes that have been found in the brain of those who have recovered from COVID-19,” they write.

The sensitivity analysis in patients with documented neurologic and psychiatric diagnoses supports this interpretation. 

COVID-19 may also accelerate the underlying brain disorders for which psychotropic medications were prescribed, leading to the greater incidence of post-COVID dementia, the researchers write.

“It is important to note that this study is in no way recommending people should stop taking antipsychotics but simply that clinicians need to factor in a patient’s medication history while considering post-COVID aftereffects,” Dr. Freudenberg-Hua said.

“Given that the number of patients with dementia is projected to triple in the next 30 years, these findings have significant public health implications,” Dr. Sinvani added.

She noted that “care partners and health care professionals” should look for early signs of dementia, such as forgetfulness and depressive symptoms, in their patients.

“Future studies must continue to evaluate these associations, which are key for potential future interventions to prevent dementia,” Dr. Sinvani said.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Freudenberg-Hua co-owns stock and stock options from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Sinvani has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Older adults taking psychotropic medication before contracting COVID-19 are at increased risk of dementia in the year following the illness, new research suggests.

Results from a large study of more than 1,700 patients who had been hospitalized with COVID showed a greater than twofold increased risk for post-COVID dementia in those taking antipsychotics and mood stabilizers/anticonvulsants – medications often used to treat schizophrenia, psychosis, bipolar disorder, and seizures.

“We know that pre-existing psychiatric illness is associated with poor COVID-19 outcomes, but our study is the first to show an association with certain psychiatric medications and dementia,” co-investigator Liron Sinvani, MD, the Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research, Manhasset, New York, said in an interview.

Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research

‘Striking’ dementia rate

Using electronic health records, the researchers evaluated pre-COVID psychotropic medication use and post-COVID dementia onset in 1,755 adults aged 65 and older. All were hospitalized with COVID-19 at Northwell Health between March 1 and April 20, 2020.

A “striking” 13% of the participants (n = 223) developed dementia within 1-year of follow-up, the investigators report.

Among the 438 patients (25%) exposed to at least one psychotropic medication before COVID-19, 105 (24%) developed dementia in the year following COVID versus 118 of 1,317 (9%) patients with no pre-COVID exposure to psychotropic medication (odds ratio, 3.2; 95% confidence interval, 2.37-4.32).

Both pre-COVID psychotropic medication use (OR, 2.7; 95% CI, 1.8-4.0, P < .001) and delirium (OR, 3.0; 95% CI, 1.9-4.6, P < .001) were significantly associated with post-COVID dementia at 1 year.

In a sensitivity analysis in the subset of 423 patients with at least one documented neurologic or psychiatric diagnosis at the time of COVID admission, and after adjusting for confounding factors, pre-COVID psychotropic medication use remained significantly linked to post-COVID dementia onset (OR, 3.09; 95% CI, 1.5-6.6, P = .002).

Drug classes most strongly associated with 1-year post-COVID dementia onset were antipsychotics (OR, 2.8, 95% CI, 1.7-4.4, P < .001) and mood stabilizers/anticonvulsants (OR, 2.4, 95% CI, 1.39-4.02, P = .001).

In a further exploratory analysis, the psychotropics valproic acid (multiple brands) and haloperidol (Haldol) had the largest association with post-COVID dementia.

Antidepressants as a class were not associated with post-COVID dementia, but the potential effects of two commonly prescribed antidepressants in older adults, mirtazapine (Remeron) and escitalopram (Lexapro), “warrant further investigation,” the researchers note.
 

Predictive risk marker?

“This research shows that psychotropic medications can be considered a predictive risk marker for post-COVID dementia. In patients taking psychotropic medications, COVID-19 could have accelerated progression of dementia after hospitalization,” lead author Yun Freudenberg-Hua, MD, the Feinstein Institutes, said in a news release.

It is unclear why psychotropic medications may raise the risk for dementia onset after COVID, the investigators note.

“It is intuitive that psychotropic medications indicate pre-existing neuropsychiatric conditions in which COVID-19 occurs. It is possible that psychotropic medications may potentiate the neurostructural changes that have been found in the brain of those who have recovered from COVID-19,” they write.

The sensitivity analysis in patients with documented neurologic and psychiatric diagnoses supports this interpretation. 

COVID-19 may also accelerate the underlying brain disorders for which psychotropic medications were prescribed, leading to the greater incidence of post-COVID dementia, the researchers write.

“It is important to note that this study is in no way recommending people should stop taking antipsychotics but simply that clinicians need to factor in a patient’s medication history while considering post-COVID aftereffects,” Dr. Freudenberg-Hua said.

“Given that the number of patients with dementia is projected to triple in the next 30 years, these findings have significant public health implications,” Dr. Sinvani added.

She noted that “care partners and health care professionals” should look for early signs of dementia, such as forgetfulness and depressive symptoms, in their patients.

“Future studies must continue to evaluate these associations, which are key for potential future interventions to prevent dementia,” Dr. Sinvani said.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Freudenberg-Hua co-owns stock and stock options from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Sinvani has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Older adults taking psychotropic medication before contracting COVID-19 are at increased risk of dementia in the year following the illness, new research suggests.

Results from a large study of more than 1,700 patients who had been hospitalized with COVID showed a greater than twofold increased risk for post-COVID dementia in those taking antipsychotics and mood stabilizers/anticonvulsants – medications often used to treat schizophrenia, psychosis, bipolar disorder, and seizures.

“We know that pre-existing psychiatric illness is associated with poor COVID-19 outcomes, but our study is the first to show an association with certain psychiatric medications and dementia,” co-investigator Liron Sinvani, MD, the Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research, Manhasset, New York, said in an interview.

Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research

‘Striking’ dementia rate

Using electronic health records, the researchers evaluated pre-COVID psychotropic medication use and post-COVID dementia onset in 1,755 adults aged 65 and older. All were hospitalized with COVID-19 at Northwell Health between March 1 and April 20, 2020.

A “striking” 13% of the participants (n = 223) developed dementia within 1-year of follow-up, the investigators report.

Among the 438 patients (25%) exposed to at least one psychotropic medication before COVID-19, 105 (24%) developed dementia in the year following COVID versus 118 of 1,317 (9%) patients with no pre-COVID exposure to psychotropic medication (odds ratio, 3.2; 95% confidence interval, 2.37-4.32).

Both pre-COVID psychotropic medication use (OR, 2.7; 95% CI, 1.8-4.0, P < .001) and delirium (OR, 3.0; 95% CI, 1.9-4.6, P < .001) were significantly associated with post-COVID dementia at 1 year.

In a sensitivity analysis in the subset of 423 patients with at least one documented neurologic or psychiatric diagnosis at the time of COVID admission, and after adjusting for confounding factors, pre-COVID psychotropic medication use remained significantly linked to post-COVID dementia onset (OR, 3.09; 95% CI, 1.5-6.6, P = .002).

Drug classes most strongly associated with 1-year post-COVID dementia onset were antipsychotics (OR, 2.8, 95% CI, 1.7-4.4, P < .001) and mood stabilizers/anticonvulsants (OR, 2.4, 95% CI, 1.39-4.02, P = .001).

In a further exploratory analysis, the psychotropics valproic acid (multiple brands) and haloperidol (Haldol) had the largest association with post-COVID dementia.

Antidepressants as a class were not associated with post-COVID dementia, but the potential effects of two commonly prescribed antidepressants in older adults, mirtazapine (Remeron) and escitalopram (Lexapro), “warrant further investigation,” the researchers note.
 

Predictive risk marker?

“This research shows that psychotropic medications can be considered a predictive risk marker for post-COVID dementia. In patients taking psychotropic medications, COVID-19 could have accelerated progression of dementia after hospitalization,” lead author Yun Freudenberg-Hua, MD, the Feinstein Institutes, said in a news release.

It is unclear why psychotropic medications may raise the risk for dementia onset after COVID, the investigators note.

“It is intuitive that psychotropic medications indicate pre-existing neuropsychiatric conditions in which COVID-19 occurs. It is possible that psychotropic medications may potentiate the neurostructural changes that have been found in the brain of those who have recovered from COVID-19,” they write.

The sensitivity analysis in patients with documented neurologic and psychiatric diagnoses supports this interpretation. 

COVID-19 may also accelerate the underlying brain disorders for which psychotropic medications were prescribed, leading to the greater incidence of post-COVID dementia, the researchers write.

“It is important to note that this study is in no way recommending people should stop taking antipsychotics but simply that clinicians need to factor in a patient’s medication history while considering post-COVID aftereffects,” Dr. Freudenberg-Hua said.

“Given that the number of patients with dementia is projected to triple in the next 30 years, these findings have significant public health implications,” Dr. Sinvani added.

She noted that “care partners and health care professionals” should look for early signs of dementia, such as forgetfulness and depressive symptoms, in their patients.

“Future studies must continue to evaluate these associations, which are key for potential future interventions to prevent dementia,” Dr. Sinvani said.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Freudenberg-Hua co-owns stock and stock options from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Sinvani has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

BOSTON – The cost of care for the more than 14 million cases of cellulitis that occur each year in the United States is in the billions of dollars, but there are multiple opportunities, many involving dermatologists, to dramatically reduce these costs, according to an outline of strategies presented at the American Academy of Dermatology 2022 annual meeting in Boston.

“Cellulitis is misdiagnosed about one-third of the time, and that cost is very high,” reported Jennifer L. Adams, MD, assistant professor of dermatology, University of Nebraska, Omaha. She sees opportunities for dermatological consults to help weed through the many cellulitis mimickers, such as venous insufficiency or psoriasiform drug reactions, to prevent unnecessary admissions and ineffective therapy.

“There is a huge need for diagnostic accuracy as a means to deliver more cost-effective care,” Dr. Adams said.

Solving misdiagnosis is only part of the story. Costs of care are also ramped up by unnecessary hospitalizations. According to Dr. Adams, published criteria to triage emergency room patients with cellulitis to outpatient care are not always followed. In one review, 14% of admitted patients had met the criteria for outpatient treatment.

Cellulitis is a common skin infection that causes redness, swelling, and pain in the infected area, most often on the legs and feet.

Unnecessary hospitalizations for misdiagnosed cellulitis, which is associated with an average 4-day hospital stay, “range from $200 million to $500 million in avoidable direct healthcare costs,” Dr. Adams said.

Even for justifiable hospitalizations, there are still opportunities for cost savings. In one study, blood cultures were ordered in 73% of patients even though only 2% produced a finding relevant to care. According to Dr. Adams, most cellulitis cases are caused by the “usual suspects” – group A beta-hemolytic streptococcus, Streptococcus pneumoniae, and Staphylococcus aureus. The exceptions stand out by clinical criteria, such as known neutropenia, history of an animal bite, signs of Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS), or a purulent appearance.

“Blood cultures are not cost-effective in uncomplicated cellulitis,” Dr. Adams said. She said there are numerous published algorithms to guide clinicians on decision-making in the management of soft tissue infections, including cellulitis, including a much-cited algorithm first published more than 15 years ago and updated in 2014.

Similarly, labs and imaging are commonly ordered with no strong likelihood that they will change management, she said. These types of decisions are also covered in published algorithms.

Strategies to prevent rehospitalization are another area where there is a large opportunity to reduce health care resources consumed by cellulitis. The rehospitalization rate at 30 days is approximately 10%, but many patients have recurrent episodes over years, according to Dr. Adams. The risk factors and the preventative measures have been well described.

“Scrupulous clinical care can reduce recurrence, and it is cost-effective,” said Dr. Adams, referring to control of edema, control of underlying conditions associated with increased risk, such as diabetes, and managing dry skin and erosions with topical agents or even moisturizers. Compression socks are a simple but effective tool, she added.

For patients with repeat episodes of cellulitis over years, Dr. Adams referred to a double-blind trial that associated a twice-daily dose of 250 mg penicillin with a 45% reduction in the risk of cellulitis recurrence over 1 year. At approximately $10 a month for this treatment, she said it is very cost-effective, although she acknowledged that recurrence rates of cellulitis climb back up when the penicillin is stopped.

“I think of this as a bridge while you work on addressing the venous insufficiency or other risk factors for cellulitis,” Dr. Adams said.

For reducing the costs of cellulitis, there is evidence that dermatologists can play a role. Dr. Adams cited a study that evaluated the impact of a dermatologist consultation for suspected cellulitis in the emergency room or within 24 hours of admission. Of 34 patients already prescribed antibiotics for presumed cellulitis, discontinuation was recommended in 82%. Of 39 admissions, pseudocellulitis was identified in 51%.

Extrapolating these data to national rates of cellulitis, there was an estimated savings of up to $200 million annually without any apparent increased risk of adverse outcomes, according to Dr. Adams.

When contacted about his experience, the senior investigator of that study, Arash Mostaghimi, MD, director of the Inpatient Dermatology Consult Service, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, largely agreed with the premise of Adam’s analysis. In particular, he said, avoiding misdiagnosis of cellulitis offers a major opportunity to lower costs while possibly improving care.

True of national practice and at the local level, “misdiagnosis of noninfectious inflammatory reactions such as cellulitis has substantial cost impacts,” Dr. Mostaghimi said in an interview. Based on evidence, the savings are derived directly from “unnecessary antibiotic exposure as well as inappropriate hospitalization.”

Following publication of his study, he became involved in addressing this issue at his institution.

“At Brigham and Women’s, we collaborated with colleagues in infectious disease and in the emergency department to create cellulitis protocols that identify patients at risk for misdiagnosis and facilitate early dermatology consultation for diagnostic confirmation,” he said.

Although there are algorithms to achieve this goal, he indicated that the expertise of dermatologists can quickly and efficiently differentiate inflammatory skin reactions and expedite appropriate care.

Dr. Adams and Dr. Mostaghimi have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

BOSTON – The cost of care for the more than 14 million cases of cellulitis that occur each year in the United States is in the billions of dollars, but there are multiple opportunities, many involving dermatologists, to dramatically reduce these costs, according to an outline of strategies presented at the American Academy of Dermatology 2022 annual meeting in Boston.

“Cellulitis is misdiagnosed about one-third of the time, and that cost is very high,” reported Jennifer L. Adams, MD, assistant professor of dermatology, University of Nebraska, Omaha. She sees opportunities for dermatological consults to help weed through the many cellulitis mimickers, such as venous insufficiency or psoriasiform drug reactions, to prevent unnecessary admissions and ineffective therapy.

“There is a huge need for diagnostic accuracy as a means to deliver more cost-effective care,” Dr. Adams said.

Solving misdiagnosis is only part of the story. Costs of care are also ramped up by unnecessary hospitalizations. According to Dr. Adams, published criteria to triage emergency room patients with cellulitis to outpatient care are not always followed. In one review, 14% of admitted patients had met the criteria for outpatient treatment.

Cellulitis is a common skin infection that causes redness, swelling, and pain in the infected area, most often on the legs and feet.

Unnecessary hospitalizations for misdiagnosed cellulitis, which is associated with an average 4-day hospital stay, “range from $200 million to $500 million in avoidable direct healthcare costs,” Dr. Adams said.

Even for justifiable hospitalizations, there are still opportunities for cost savings. In one study, blood cultures were ordered in 73% of patients even though only 2% produced a finding relevant to care. According to Dr. Adams, most cellulitis cases are caused by the “usual suspects” – group A beta-hemolytic streptococcus, Streptococcus pneumoniae, and Staphylococcus aureus. The exceptions stand out by clinical criteria, such as known neutropenia, history of an animal bite, signs of Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS), or a purulent appearance.

“Blood cultures are not cost-effective in uncomplicated cellulitis,” Dr. Adams said. She said there are numerous published algorithms to guide clinicians on decision-making in the management of soft tissue infections, including cellulitis, including a much-cited algorithm first published more than 15 years ago and updated in 2014.

Similarly, labs and imaging are commonly ordered with no strong likelihood that they will change management, she said. These types of decisions are also covered in published algorithms.

Strategies to prevent rehospitalization are another area where there is a large opportunity to reduce health care resources consumed by cellulitis. The rehospitalization rate at 30 days is approximately 10%, but many patients have recurrent episodes over years, according to Dr. Adams. The risk factors and the preventative measures have been well described.

“Scrupulous clinical care can reduce recurrence, and it is cost-effective,” said Dr. Adams, referring to control of edema, control of underlying conditions associated with increased risk, such as diabetes, and managing dry skin and erosions with topical agents or even moisturizers. Compression socks are a simple but effective tool, she added.

For patients with repeat episodes of cellulitis over years, Dr. Adams referred to a double-blind trial that associated a twice-daily dose of 250 mg penicillin with a 45% reduction in the risk of cellulitis recurrence over 1 year. At approximately $10 a month for this treatment, she said it is very cost-effective, although she acknowledged that recurrence rates of cellulitis climb back up when the penicillin is stopped.

“I think of this as a bridge while you work on addressing the venous insufficiency or other risk factors for cellulitis,” Dr. Adams said.

For reducing the costs of cellulitis, there is evidence that dermatologists can play a role. Dr. Adams cited a study that evaluated the impact of a dermatologist consultation for suspected cellulitis in the emergency room or within 24 hours of admission. Of 34 patients already prescribed antibiotics for presumed cellulitis, discontinuation was recommended in 82%. Of 39 admissions, pseudocellulitis was identified in 51%.

Extrapolating these data to national rates of cellulitis, there was an estimated savings of up to $200 million annually without any apparent increased risk of adverse outcomes, according to Dr. Adams.

When contacted about his experience, the senior investigator of that study, Arash Mostaghimi, MD, director of the Inpatient Dermatology Consult Service, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, largely agreed with the premise of Adam’s analysis. In particular, he said, avoiding misdiagnosis of cellulitis offers a major opportunity to lower costs while possibly improving care.

True of national practice and at the local level, “misdiagnosis of noninfectious inflammatory reactions such as cellulitis has substantial cost impacts,” Dr. Mostaghimi said in an interview. Based on evidence, the savings are derived directly from “unnecessary antibiotic exposure as well as inappropriate hospitalization.”

Following publication of his study, he became involved in addressing this issue at his institution.

“At Brigham and Women’s, we collaborated with colleagues in infectious disease and in the emergency department to create cellulitis protocols that identify patients at risk for misdiagnosis and facilitate early dermatology consultation for diagnostic confirmation,” he said.

Although there are algorithms to achieve this goal, he indicated that the expertise of dermatologists can quickly and efficiently differentiate inflammatory skin reactions and expedite appropriate care.

Dr. Adams and Dr. Mostaghimi have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

BOSTON – The cost of care for the more than 14 million cases of cellulitis that occur each year in the United States is in the billions of dollars, but there are multiple opportunities, many involving dermatologists, to dramatically reduce these costs, according to an outline of strategies presented at the American Academy of Dermatology 2022 annual meeting in Boston.

“Cellulitis is misdiagnosed about one-third of the time, and that cost is very high,” reported Jennifer L. Adams, MD, assistant professor of dermatology, University of Nebraska, Omaha. She sees opportunities for dermatological consults to help weed through the many cellulitis mimickers, such as venous insufficiency or psoriasiform drug reactions, to prevent unnecessary admissions and ineffective therapy.

“There is a huge need for diagnostic accuracy as a means to deliver more cost-effective care,” Dr. Adams said.

Solving misdiagnosis is only part of the story. Costs of care are also ramped up by unnecessary hospitalizations. According to Dr. Adams, published criteria to triage emergency room patients with cellulitis to outpatient care are not always followed. In one review, 14% of admitted patients had met the criteria for outpatient treatment.

Cellulitis is a common skin infection that causes redness, swelling, and pain in the infected area, most often on the legs and feet.

Unnecessary hospitalizations for misdiagnosed cellulitis, which is associated with an average 4-day hospital stay, “range from $200 million to $500 million in avoidable direct healthcare costs,” Dr. Adams said.

Even for justifiable hospitalizations, there are still opportunities for cost savings. In one study, blood cultures were ordered in 73% of patients even though only 2% produced a finding relevant to care. According to Dr. Adams, most cellulitis cases are caused by the “usual suspects” – group A beta-hemolytic streptococcus, Streptococcus pneumoniae, and Staphylococcus aureus. The exceptions stand out by clinical criteria, such as known neutropenia, history of an animal bite, signs of Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS), or a purulent appearance.

“Blood cultures are not cost-effective in uncomplicated cellulitis,” Dr. Adams said. She said there are numerous published algorithms to guide clinicians on decision-making in the management of soft tissue infections, including cellulitis, including a much-cited algorithm first published more than 15 years ago and updated in 2014.

Similarly, labs and imaging are commonly ordered with no strong likelihood that they will change management, she said. These types of decisions are also covered in published algorithms.

Strategies to prevent rehospitalization are another area where there is a large opportunity to reduce health care resources consumed by cellulitis. The rehospitalization rate at 30 days is approximately 10%, but many patients have recurrent episodes over years, according to Dr. Adams. The risk factors and the preventative measures have been well described.

“Scrupulous clinical care can reduce recurrence, and it is cost-effective,” said Dr. Adams, referring to control of edema, control of underlying conditions associated with increased risk, such as diabetes, and managing dry skin and erosions with topical agents or even moisturizers. Compression socks are a simple but effective tool, she added.

For patients with repeat episodes of cellulitis over years, Dr. Adams referred to a double-blind trial that associated a twice-daily dose of 250 mg penicillin with a 45% reduction in the risk of cellulitis recurrence over 1 year. At approximately $10 a month for this treatment, she said it is very cost-effective, although she acknowledged that recurrence rates of cellulitis climb back up when the penicillin is stopped.

“I think of this as a bridge while you work on addressing the venous insufficiency or other risk factors for cellulitis,” Dr. Adams said.

For reducing the costs of cellulitis, there is evidence that dermatologists can play a role. Dr. Adams cited a study that evaluated the impact of a dermatologist consultation for suspected cellulitis in the emergency room or within 24 hours of admission. Of 34 patients already prescribed antibiotics for presumed cellulitis, discontinuation was recommended in 82%. Of 39 admissions, pseudocellulitis was identified in 51%.

Extrapolating these data to national rates of cellulitis, there was an estimated savings of up to $200 million annually without any apparent increased risk of adverse outcomes, according to Dr. Adams.

When contacted about his experience, the senior investigator of that study, Arash Mostaghimi, MD, director of the Inpatient Dermatology Consult Service, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, largely agreed with the premise of Adam’s analysis. In particular, he said, avoiding misdiagnosis of cellulitis offers a major opportunity to lower costs while possibly improving care.

True of national practice and at the local level, “misdiagnosis of noninfectious inflammatory reactions such as cellulitis has substantial cost impacts,” Dr. Mostaghimi said in an interview. Based on evidence, the savings are derived directly from “unnecessary antibiotic exposure as well as inappropriate hospitalization.”

Following publication of his study, he became involved in addressing this issue at his institution.

“At Brigham and Women’s, we collaborated with colleagues in infectious disease and in the emergency department to create cellulitis protocols that identify patients at risk for misdiagnosis and facilitate early dermatology consultation for diagnostic confirmation,” he said.

Although there are algorithms to achieve this goal, he indicated that the expertise of dermatologists can quickly and efficiently differentiate inflammatory skin reactions and expedite appropriate care.

Dr. Adams and Dr. Mostaghimi have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

COVID-19 continues to be a diminishing issue for U.S. children, as the number of new cases declined for the ninth consecutive week, based on data from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

New cases were down to 29,000 for the week of March 18-24, a drop of 9.3% from the previous week and a full 97.4% lower than the peak reached during the Omicron surge in January, the AAP and CHA said in their weekly COVID report. The most recently infected children brought the total number of COVID-19 cases to just over 12.8 million since the pandemic began.

Other measures of COVID occurrence in children, such as hospital admissions and emergency department visits, also followed recent downward trends, although the sizes of the declines are beginning to decrease. Admissions dropped by 13.3% during the week ending March 26, but that followed declines of 25%, 20%, 26.5% and 24.4% for the 4 previous weeks, data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show.

The slowdown in ED visits started a couple of weeks earlier, but the decline is still ongoing. As of March 25, ED visits with a confirmed COVID diagnosis represented just 0.4% of all visits for children aged 0-11 years, down from 1.1% on Feb. 25 and a peak of 14.3% on Jan. 15. For children aged 12-15, the latest figure is just 0.2%, compared with 0.5% on Feb. 25 and a peak of 14.3% on Jan. 9, the CDC reported on its COVID Data Tracker.

Although he was speaking of the nation as a whole and not specifically of children, Anthony Fauci, MD, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, recently told the Washington Post that, “unless something changes dramatically,” another major surge isn’t on the horizon.

That sentiment, however, was not entirely shared by Moderna’s chief medical officer, Paul Burton, MD, PhD. In an interview with WebMD, he said that another COVID wave is inevitable and that it’s too soon to dismantle the vaccine infrastructure: “We’ve come so far. We’ve put so much into this to now take our foot off the gas. I think it would be a mistake for public health worldwide.”

Disparities during the Omicron surge

As the country puts Omicron in its rear view mirror, a quick look back at the CDC data shows some differences in how children were affected. At the surge’s peak in early to mid-January, Hispanic children were the most likely to get COVID-19, with incidence highest in the older groups. (See graph.)

At their peak week of Jan. 2-8, Hispanic children aged 16-17 years had a COVID rate of 1,568 cases per 100,000 population, versus 790 per 100,000 for White children, whose peak occurred a week later, from Jan. 9 to 15. Hispanic children aged 5-11 (1,098 per 100,000) and 12-15 (1,269 per 100,000) also had the highest recorded rates of the largest racial/ethnic groups, while Black children had the highest one-week rate, 625 per 100,000, among the 0- to 4-year-olds, according to the CDC.

COVID-19 continues to be a diminishing issue for U.S. children, as the number of new cases declined for the ninth consecutive week, based on data from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

New cases were down to 29,000 for the week of March 18-24, a drop of 9.3% from the previous week and a full 97.4% lower than the peak reached during the Omicron surge in January, the AAP and CHA said in their weekly COVID report. The most recently infected children brought the total number of COVID-19 cases to just over 12.8 million since the pandemic began.

Other measures of COVID occurrence in children, such as hospital admissions and emergency department visits, also followed recent downward trends, although the sizes of the declines are beginning to decrease. Admissions dropped by 13.3% during the week ending March 26, but that followed declines of 25%, 20%, 26.5% and 24.4% for the 4 previous weeks, data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show.

The slowdown in ED visits started a couple of weeks earlier, but the decline is still ongoing. As of March 25, ED visits with a confirmed COVID diagnosis represented just 0.4% of all visits for children aged 0-11 years, down from 1.1% on Feb. 25 and a peak of 14.3% on Jan. 15. For children aged 12-15, the latest figure is just 0.2%, compared with 0.5% on Feb. 25 and a peak of 14.3% on Jan. 9, the CDC reported on its COVID Data Tracker.

Although he was speaking of the nation as a whole and not specifically of children, Anthony Fauci, MD, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, recently told the Washington Post that, “unless something changes dramatically,” another major surge isn’t on the horizon.

That sentiment, however, was not entirely shared by Moderna’s chief medical officer, Paul Burton, MD, PhD. In an interview with WebMD, he said that another COVID wave is inevitable and that it’s too soon to dismantle the vaccine infrastructure: “We’ve come so far. We’ve put so much into this to now take our foot off the gas. I think it would be a mistake for public health worldwide.”

Disparities during the Omicron surge

As the country puts Omicron in its rear view mirror, a quick look back at the CDC data shows some differences in how children were affected. At the surge’s peak in early to mid-January, Hispanic children were the most likely to get COVID-19, with incidence highest in the older groups. (See graph.)

At their peak week of Jan. 2-8, Hispanic children aged 16-17 years had a COVID rate of 1,568 cases per 100,000 population, versus 790 per 100,000 for White children, whose peak occurred a week later, from Jan. 9 to 15. Hispanic children aged 5-11 (1,098 per 100,000) and 12-15 (1,269 per 100,000) also had the highest recorded rates of the largest racial/ethnic groups, while Black children had the highest one-week rate, 625 per 100,000, among the 0- to 4-year-olds, according to the CDC.

COVID-19 continues to be a diminishing issue for U.S. children, as the number of new cases declined for the ninth consecutive week, based on data from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

New cases were down to 29,000 for the week of March 18-24, a drop of 9.3% from the previous week and a full 97.4% lower than the peak reached during the Omicron surge in January, the AAP and CHA said in their weekly COVID report. The most recently infected children brought the total number of COVID-19 cases to just over 12.8 million since the pandemic began.

Other measures of COVID occurrence in children, such as hospital admissions and emergency department visits, also followed recent downward trends, although the sizes of the declines are beginning to decrease. Admissions dropped by 13.3% during the week ending March 26, but that followed declines of 25%, 20%, 26.5% and 24.4% for the 4 previous weeks, data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show.

The slowdown in ED visits started a couple of weeks earlier, but the decline is still ongoing. As of March 25, ED visits with a confirmed COVID diagnosis represented just 0.4% of all visits for children aged 0-11 years, down from 1.1% on Feb. 25 and a peak of 14.3% on Jan. 15. For children aged 12-15, the latest figure is just 0.2%, compared with 0.5% on Feb. 25 and a peak of 14.3% on Jan. 9, the CDC reported on its COVID Data Tracker.

Although he was speaking of the nation as a whole and not specifically of children, Anthony Fauci, MD, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, recently told the Washington Post that, “unless something changes dramatically,” another major surge isn’t on the horizon.

That sentiment, however, was not entirely shared by Moderna’s chief medical officer, Paul Burton, MD, PhD. In an interview with WebMD, he said that another COVID wave is inevitable and that it’s too soon to dismantle the vaccine infrastructure: “We’ve come so far. We’ve put so much into this to now take our foot off the gas. I think it would be a mistake for public health worldwide.”

Disparities during the Omicron surge

As the country puts Omicron in its rear view mirror, a quick look back at the CDC data shows some differences in how children were affected. At the surge’s peak in early to mid-January, Hispanic children were the most likely to get COVID-19, with incidence highest in the older groups. (See graph.)

At their peak week of Jan. 2-8, Hispanic children aged 16-17 years had a COVID rate of 1,568 cases per 100,000 population, versus 790 per 100,000 for White children, whose peak occurred a week later, from Jan. 9 to 15. Hispanic children aged 5-11 (1,098 per 100,000) and 12-15 (1,269 per 100,000) also had the highest recorded rates of the largest racial/ethnic groups, while Black children had the highest one-week rate, 625 per 100,000, among the 0- to 4-year-olds, according to the CDC.