MDedge Emergency Medicine

Statin therapy likely didn’t lead to dementia or even mild cognitive impairment (MCI) in older patients taking the drugs for cardiovascular (CV) primary prevention in a post hoc analysis of a trial that required normal cognitive ability for entry.

Nor did statins, whether lipophilic or hydrophilic, appear to influence changes in cognition or affect separate domains of mental performance, such as memory, language ability, or executive function, over the trial’s follow-up, which averaged almost 5 years.

Although such findings aren’t novel – they are consistent with observations from a number of earlier studies – the new analysis included a possible signal for a statin association with new-onset dementia in a subgroup of more than 18,000 patients. Researchers attribute the retrospective finding, from a trial not designed to explore the issue, to confounding or chance.

Still, the adjusted risk for dementia seemed to go up by a third among statin users who at baseline placed in the lowest quartile for cognitive function, based on a composite test score, in the ASPREE trial, a test of primary-prevention low-dose aspirin in patients 65 or older. The better the baseline cognitive score by quartile, the lower the risk for dementia ( interaction P < .001).

The bottom-quartile association of statins with dementia was driven by new diagnoses of Alzheimer’s disease, as opposed to the study’s other “mixed presentation” dementia subtype, wrote the authors of analysis, published June 21, 2021, in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology), led by Zhen Zhou, PhD, Menzies Institute for Medical Research, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia.

“I wouldn’t overinterpret that,” said senior author Mark R. Nelson, MBBS, PhD, of the same institution. Indeed, it should be “reassuring” for physicians prescribing statins to older patients that there was no overall statin effect on cognition or new-onset dementia, he said in an interview.

“This is a post hoc analysis within a dataset, although a very-high-quality dataset, it must be said.” The patients were prospectively followed for a range of cognition domains, and the results were adjudicated, Dr. Nelson observed. Although the question of statins and dementia risk is thought to be largely settled, the analysis “was just too tempting not to do.”

On the basis of the current analysis and the bulk of preceding evidence, “lipid lowering in the short term does not appear to result in improvement or deterioration of cognition irrespective of baseline LDL cholesterol levels and medication used,” Christie M. Ballantyne, MD, and Vijay Nambi, MD, PhD, both from Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

The current study “provides additional information that the lipo- or hydrophilicity of the statin does not affect changes in cognition. However, the potential increased risk for Alzheimer’s disease, especially among patients with baseline cognitive impairment, requires further investigation.”

The current analysis is reassuring that the likelihood of such statin effects on cognition “is vanishingly small,” Neil J. Stone MD, Northwestern University, Chicago, said in an interview. In fact, its primary finding of no such association “best summarizes what we know in 2021 about statin therapy” after exploration of the issue in a number of prospective trials and systematic reviews, said Dr. Stone, who was not a coauthor on the report.

The observed interaction between statin use and baseline neurocognitive ability “is hypothesis raising at best. It should be explored in randomized, controlled trials that can look at this question in an unbiased manner,” he agreed.

If patients believe or suspect that a statin is causing symptoms that suggest cognitive dysfunction, “what they really need to do is to stop it for 3 weeks and check out other causes. And in rechallenging, the guidelines say, if they think that it’s causing a memory problem that occurs anecdotally, then they can be given another statin, usually, which doesn’t cause it.”

ASPREE compared daily low-dose aspirin with placebo in a community-based older population numbering about 19,000 in Australia and the United States. Patients were initially without known CV disease, dementia, or physical disabilities. It did not randomize patients by statin therapy.

Of note, entry to the trial required a score of at least 78 on the Modified Mini-Mental State Examination (3MS), corresponding to normal cognition.

Aspirin showed no significant benefit for disability-free survival, an endpoint that included death and dementia, or CV events over a median of 4.7 years. It was associated with slightly more cases of major hemorrhage, as previously reported.

A subsequent ASPREE analysis suggested that the aspirin had no effect on risks of mild cognitive impairment, cognitive decline, or dementia.

Of the 18,846 patients in the current post hoc analysis, the average age of the patients was 74 years, and 56.4% were women; 31.3% were taking statins at baseline. The incidence of dementia per 1,000 person-years for those taking statins in comparison with those not taking statins was 6.91 and 6.48, respectively. Any cognitive changes were tracked by the 3MS and three other validated tests in different domains of cognition, with results contributing to the composite score.

The corresponding incidence of dementia considered probable Alzheimer’s disease was 2.97 and 2.65 for those receiving versus not receiving statins, respectively. The incidence of dementia with mixed presentation was 3.94 and 3.84, respectively.

There were no significant differences in risk for dementia overall or for either dementia subtype in multivariate analyses. Adjustments included demographics, CV lifestyle risk factors, family medical history, including dementia, ASPREE randomization group, and individual scores on the four tests of cognition.

Results for development of MCI mirrored those for dementia, as did results stratified for baseline lipids and for use of lipophilic statins, such as atorvastatin or simvastatin versus hydrophilic statins, including pravastatin and rosuvastatin.

Significant interactions were observed between composite cognitive scores and statin therapy at baseline; as scores increased, indicating better cognitive performance, the risks for dementia and its subtypes went down. Statins were associated with incident dementia at the lowest cognitive performance quartile.

That association is probably a function of the cohort’s advanced age, Dr. Nelson said. “If you get into old age, and you’ve got high cognitive scores, you’ve probably got protective factors. That’s how I would interpret that.”

Dr. Ballantyne and Dr. Nambi also emphasized the difficulties of controlling for potential biases even with extensive covariate adjustments. The statin dosages at which patients were treated were not part of the analysis, “and achieved LDL [cholesterol levels over the study period were not known,” they wrote.

“Furthermore, patients who were treated with statins were more likely to have diabetes, hypertension, chronic kidney disease, and obesity, all of which are known to increase risk for cognitive decline, and, as might have been predicted, statin users therefore had significantly lower scores for global cognition and episodic memory.”

Dr. Nelson pointed to an ongoing prospective atorvastatin trial that includes dementia in its primary endpoint and should be “the definitive study.” STAREE (Statin Therapy for Reducing Events in the Elderly) is running throughout Australia with a projected enrollment of 18,000 and primary completion by the end of 2022. “We’ve already enrolled 8,000 patients.”

Less far along is the PREVENTABLE (Pragmatic Evaluation of Events and Benefits of Lipid-Lowering in Older Adults) trial, based in the United States and also randomizing to atorvastatin or placebo, that will have an estimated 20,000 older patients and completion in 5 years. The primary endpoint is new dementia or persistent disability.

Both trials “are powered to enable firm conclusions concerning any statin effects,” said Dr. Ballantyne and Dr. Nambi. “In the meantime, practicing clinicians can have confidence and share with their patients that short-term lipid-lowering therapy in older patients, including with statins, is unlikely to have a major impact on cognition.”

ASPREE was supported by grants from the U.S. National Institute on Aging and the National Cancer Institute and the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, by Monash University, and by the Victorian Cancer Agency. Dr. Nelson reported receiving honoraria from Sanofi and Amgen; support from Bayer for ASPREE; and grant support for STAREE. Disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Ballantyne disclosed grant and research support from Abbott Diagnostic, Akcea, Amgen, Esperion, Ionis, Novartis, Regeneron, and Roche Diagnostics; and consulting for Abbott Diagnostics, Althera, Amarin, Amgen, Arrowhead, AstraZeneca, Corvidia, Denka Seiken, Esperion, Genentech, Gilead, Matinas BioPharma, New Amsterdam, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche Diagnostics, and Sanofi-Synthelabo. Dr. Nambi is a coinvestigator on a provisional patent along with Baylor College of Medicine and Roche on the use of biomarkers to predict heart failure, and a site principal investigator for studies sponsored by Amgen and Merck. Dr. Stone had no disclosures.

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

Statin therapy likely didn’t lead to dementia or even mild cognitive impairment (MCI) in older patients taking the drugs for cardiovascular (CV) primary prevention in a post hoc analysis of a trial that required normal cognitive ability for entry.

Nor did statins, whether lipophilic or hydrophilic, appear to influence changes in cognition or affect separate domains of mental performance, such as memory, language ability, or executive function, over the trial’s follow-up, which averaged almost 5 years.

Although such findings aren’t novel – they are consistent with observations from a number of earlier studies – the new analysis included a possible signal for a statin association with new-onset dementia in a subgroup of more than 18,000 patients. Researchers attribute the retrospective finding, from a trial not designed to explore the issue, to confounding or chance.

Still, the adjusted risk for dementia seemed to go up by a third among statin users who at baseline placed in the lowest quartile for cognitive function, based on a composite test score, in the ASPREE trial, a test of primary-prevention low-dose aspirin in patients 65 or older. The better the baseline cognitive score by quartile, the lower the risk for dementia ( interaction P < .001).

The bottom-quartile association of statins with dementia was driven by new diagnoses of Alzheimer’s disease, as opposed to the study’s other “mixed presentation” dementia subtype, wrote the authors of analysis, published June 21, 2021, in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology), led by Zhen Zhou, PhD, Menzies Institute for Medical Research, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia.

“I wouldn’t overinterpret that,” said senior author Mark R. Nelson, MBBS, PhD, of the same institution. Indeed, it should be “reassuring” for physicians prescribing statins to older patients that there was no overall statin effect on cognition or new-onset dementia, he said in an interview.

“This is a post hoc analysis within a dataset, although a very-high-quality dataset, it must be said.” The patients were prospectively followed for a range of cognition domains, and the results were adjudicated, Dr. Nelson observed. Although the question of statins and dementia risk is thought to be largely settled, the analysis “was just too tempting not to do.”

On the basis of the current analysis and the bulk of preceding evidence, “lipid lowering in the short term does not appear to result in improvement or deterioration of cognition irrespective of baseline LDL cholesterol levels and medication used,” Christie M. Ballantyne, MD, and Vijay Nambi, MD, PhD, both from Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

The current study “provides additional information that the lipo- or hydrophilicity of the statin does not affect changes in cognition. However, the potential increased risk for Alzheimer’s disease, especially among patients with baseline cognitive impairment, requires further investigation.”

The current analysis is reassuring that the likelihood of such statin effects on cognition “is vanishingly small,” Neil J. Stone MD, Northwestern University, Chicago, said in an interview. In fact, its primary finding of no such association “best summarizes what we know in 2021 about statin therapy” after exploration of the issue in a number of prospective trials and systematic reviews, said Dr. Stone, who was not a coauthor on the report.

The observed interaction between statin use and baseline neurocognitive ability “is hypothesis raising at best. It should be explored in randomized, controlled trials that can look at this question in an unbiased manner,” he agreed.

If patients believe or suspect that a statin is causing symptoms that suggest cognitive dysfunction, “what they really need to do is to stop it for 3 weeks and check out other causes. And in rechallenging, the guidelines say, if they think that it’s causing a memory problem that occurs anecdotally, then they can be given another statin, usually, which doesn’t cause it.”

ASPREE compared daily low-dose aspirin with placebo in a community-based older population numbering about 19,000 in Australia and the United States. Patients were initially without known CV disease, dementia, or physical disabilities. It did not randomize patients by statin therapy.

Of note, entry to the trial required a score of at least 78 on the Modified Mini-Mental State Examination (3MS), corresponding to normal cognition.

Aspirin showed no significant benefit for disability-free survival, an endpoint that included death and dementia, or CV events over a median of 4.7 years. It was associated with slightly more cases of major hemorrhage, as previously reported.

A subsequent ASPREE analysis suggested that the aspirin had no effect on risks of mild cognitive impairment, cognitive decline, or dementia.

Of the 18,846 patients in the current post hoc analysis, the average age of the patients was 74 years, and 56.4% were women; 31.3% were taking statins at baseline. The incidence of dementia per 1,000 person-years for those taking statins in comparison with those not taking statins was 6.91 and 6.48, respectively. Any cognitive changes were tracked by the 3MS and three other validated tests in different domains of cognition, with results contributing to the composite score.

The corresponding incidence of dementia considered probable Alzheimer’s disease was 2.97 and 2.65 for those receiving versus not receiving statins, respectively. The incidence of dementia with mixed presentation was 3.94 and 3.84, respectively.

There were no significant differences in risk for dementia overall or for either dementia subtype in multivariate analyses. Adjustments included demographics, CV lifestyle risk factors, family medical history, including dementia, ASPREE randomization group, and individual scores on the four tests of cognition.

Results for development of MCI mirrored those for dementia, as did results stratified for baseline lipids and for use of lipophilic statins, such as atorvastatin or simvastatin versus hydrophilic statins, including pravastatin and rosuvastatin.

Significant interactions were observed between composite cognitive scores and statin therapy at baseline; as scores increased, indicating better cognitive performance, the risks for dementia and its subtypes went down. Statins were associated with incident dementia at the lowest cognitive performance quartile.

That association is probably a function of the cohort’s advanced age, Dr. Nelson said. “If you get into old age, and you’ve got high cognitive scores, you’ve probably got protective factors. That’s how I would interpret that.”

Dr. Ballantyne and Dr. Nambi also emphasized the difficulties of controlling for potential biases even with extensive covariate adjustments. The statin dosages at which patients were treated were not part of the analysis, “and achieved LDL [cholesterol levels over the study period were not known,” they wrote.

“Furthermore, patients who were treated with statins were more likely to have diabetes, hypertension, chronic kidney disease, and obesity, all of which are known to increase risk for cognitive decline, and, as might have been predicted, statin users therefore had significantly lower scores for global cognition and episodic memory.”

Dr. Nelson pointed to an ongoing prospective atorvastatin trial that includes dementia in its primary endpoint and should be “the definitive study.” STAREE (Statin Therapy for Reducing Events in the Elderly) is running throughout Australia with a projected enrollment of 18,000 and primary completion by the end of 2022. “We’ve already enrolled 8,000 patients.”

Less far along is the PREVENTABLE (Pragmatic Evaluation of Events and Benefits of Lipid-Lowering in Older Adults) trial, based in the United States and also randomizing to atorvastatin or placebo, that will have an estimated 20,000 older patients and completion in 5 years. The primary endpoint is new dementia or persistent disability.

Both trials “are powered to enable firm conclusions concerning any statin effects,” said Dr. Ballantyne and Dr. Nambi. “In the meantime, practicing clinicians can have confidence and share with their patients that short-term lipid-lowering therapy in older patients, including with statins, is unlikely to have a major impact on cognition.”

ASPREE was supported by grants from the U.S. National Institute on Aging and the National Cancer Institute and the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, by Monash University, and by the Victorian Cancer Agency. Dr. Nelson reported receiving honoraria from Sanofi and Amgen; support from Bayer for ASPREE; and grant support for STAREE. Disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Ballantyne disclosed grant and research support from Abbott Diagnostic, Akcea, Amgen, Esperion, Ionis, Novartis, Regeneron, and Roche Diagnostics; and consulting for Abbott Diagnostics, Althera, Amarin, Amgen, Arrowhead, AstraZeneca, Corvidia, Denka Seiken, Esperion, Genentech, Gilead, Matinas BioPharma, New Amsterdam, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche Diagnostics, and Sanofi-Synthelabo. Dr. Nambi is a coinvestigator on a provisional patent along with Baylor College of Medicine and Roche on the use of biomarkers to predict heart failure, and a site principal investigator for studies sponsored by Amgen and Merck. Dr. Stone had no disclosures.

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

Statin therapy likely didn’t lead to dementia or even mild cognitive impairment (MCI) in older patients taking the drugs for cardiovascular (CV) primary prevention in a post hoc analysis of a trial that required normal cognitive ability for entry.

Nor did statins, whether lipophilic or hydrophilic, appear to influence changes in cognition or affect separate domains of mental performance, such as memory, language ability, or executive function, over the trial’s follow-up, which averaged almost 5 years.

Although such findings aren’t novel – they are consistent with observations from a number of earlier studies – the new analysis included a possible signal for a statin association with new-onset dementia in a subgroup of more than 18,000 patients. Researchers attribute the retrospective finding, from a trial not designed to explore the issue, to confounding or chance.

Still, the adjusted risk for dementia seemed to go up by a third among statin users who at baseline placed in the lowest quartile for cognitive function, based on a composite test score, in the ASPREE trial, a test of primary-prevention low-dose aspirin in patients 65 or older. The better the baseline cognitive score by quartile, the lower the risk for dementia ( interaction P < .001).

The bottom-quartile association of statins with dementia was driven by new diagnoses of Alzheimer’s disease, as opposed to the study’s other “mixed presentation” dementia subtype, wrote the authors of analysis, published June 21, 2021, in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology), led by Zhen Zhou, PhD, Menzies Institute for Medical Research, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia.

“I wouldn’t overinterpret that,” said senior author Mark R. Nelson, MBBS, PhD, of the same institution. Indeed, it should be “reassuring” for physicians prescribing statins to older patients that there was no overall statin effect on cognition or new-onset dementia, he said in an interview.

“This is a post hoc analysis within a dataset, although a very-high-quality dataset, it must be said.” The patients were prospectively followed for a range of cognition domains, and the results were adjudicated, Dr. Nelson observed. Although the question of statins and dementia risk is thought to be largely settled, the analysis “was just too tempting not to do.”

On the basis of the current analysis and the bulk of preceding evidence, “lipid lowering in the short term does not appear to result in improvement or deterioration of cognition irrespective of baseline LDL cholesterol levels and medication used,” Christie M. Ballantyne, MD, and Vijay Nambi, MD, PhD, both from Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

The current study “provides additional information that the lipo- or hydrophilicity of the statin does not affect changes in cognition. However, the potential increased risk for Alzheimer’s disease, especially among patients with baseline cognitive impairment, requires further investigation.”

The current analysis is reassuring that the likelihood of such statin effects on cognition “is vanishingly small,” Neil J. Stone MD, Northwestern University, Chicago, said in an interview. In fact, its primary finding of no such association “best summarizes what we know in 2021 about statin therapy” after exploration of the issue in a number of prospective trials and systematic reviews, said Dr. Stone, who was not a coauthor on the report.

The observed interaction between statin use and baseline neurocognitive ability “is hypothesis raising at best. It should be explored in randomized, controlled trials that can look at this question in an unbiased manner,” he agreed.

If patients believe or suspect that a statin is causing symptoms that suggest cognitive dysfunction, “what they really need to do is to stop it for 3 weeks and check out other causes. And in rechallenging, the guidelines say, if they think that it’s causing a memory problem that occurs anecdotally, then they can be given another statin, usually, which doesn’t cause it.”

ASPREE compared daily low-dose aspirin with placebo in a community-based older population numbering about 19,000 in Australia and the United States. Patients were initially without known CV disease, dementia, or physical disabilities. It did not randomize patients by statin therapy.

Of note, entry to the trial required a score of at least 78 on the Modified Mini-Mental State Examination (3MS), corresponding to normal cognition.

Aspirin showed no significant benefit for disability-free survival, an endpoint that included death and dementia, or CV events over a median of 4.7 years. It was associated with slightly more cases of major hemorrhage, as previously reported.

A subsequent ASPREE analysis suggested that the aspirin had no effect on risks of mild cognitive impairment, cognitive decline, or dementia.

Of the 18,846 patients in the current post hoc analysis, the average age of the patients was 74 years, and 56.4% were women; 31.3% were taking statins at baseline. The incidence of dementia per 1,000 person-years for those taking statins in comparison with those not taking statins was 6.91 and 6.48, respectively. Any cognitive changes were tracked by the 3MS and three other validated tests in different domains of cognition, with results contributing to the composite score.

The corresponding incidence of dementia considered probable Alzheimer’s disease was 2.97 and 2.65 for those receiving versus not receiving statins, respectively. The incidence of dementia with mixed presentation was 3.94 and 3.84, respectively.

There were no significant differences in risk for dementia overall or for either dementia subtype in multivariate analyses. Adjustments included demographics, CV lifestyle risk factors, family medical history, including dementia, ASPREE randomization group, and individual scores on the four tests of cognition.

Results for development of MCI mirrored those for dementia, as did results stratified for baseline lipids and for use of lipophilic statins, such as atorvastatin or simvastatin versus hydrophilic statins, including pravastatin and rosuvastatin.

Significant interactions were observed between composite cognitive scores and statin therapy at baseline; as scores increased, indicating better cognitive performance, the risks for dementia and its subtypes went down. Statins were associated with incident dementia at the lowest cognitive performance quartile.

That association is probably a function of the cohort’s advanced age, Dr. Nelson said. “If you get into old age, and you’ve got high cognitive scores, you’ve probably got protective factors. That’s how I would interpret that.”

Dr. Ballantyne and Dr. Nambi also emphasized the difficulties of controlling for potential biases even with extensive covariate adjustments. The statin dosages at which patients were treated were not part of the analysis, “and achieved LDL [cholesterol levels over the study period were not known,” they wrote.

“Furthermore, patients who were treated with statins were more likely to have diabetes, hypertension, chronic kidney disease, and obesity, all of which are known to increase risk for cognitive decline, and, as might have been predicted, statin users therefore had significantly lower scores for global cognition and episodic memory.”

Dr. Nelson pointed to an ongoing prospective atorvastatin trial that includes dementia in its primary endpoint and should be “the definitive study.” STAREE (Statin Therapy for Reducing Events in the Elderly) is running throughout Australia with a projected enrollment of 18,000 and primary completion by the end of 2022. “We’ve already enrolled 8,000 patients.”

Less far along is the PREVENTABLE (Pragmatic Evaluation of Events and Benefits of Lipid-Lowering in Older Adults) trial, based in the United States and also randomizing to atorvastatin or placebo, that will have an estimated 20,000 older patients and completion in 5 years. The primary endpoint is new dementia or persistent disability.

Both trials “are powered to enable firm conclusions concerning any statin effects,” said Dr. Ballantyne and Dr. Nambi. “In the meantime, practicing clinicians can have confidence and share with their patients that short-term lipid-lowering therapy in older patients, including with statins, is unlikely to have a major impact on cognition.”

ASPREE was supported by grants from the U.S. National Institute on Aging and the National Cancer Institute and the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, by Monash University, and by the Victorian Cancer Agency. Dr. Nelson reported receiving honoraria from Sanofi and Amgen; support from Bayer for ASPREE; and grant support for STAREE. Disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Ballantyne disclosed grant and research support from Abbott Diagnostic, Akcea, Amgen, Esperion, Ionis, Novartis, Regeneron, and Roche Diagnostics; and consulting for Abbott Diagnostics, Althera, Amarin, Amgen, Arrowhead, AstraZeneca, Corvidia, Denka Seiken, Esperion, Genentech, Gilead, Matinas BioPharma, New Amsterdam, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche Diagnostics, and Sanofi-Synthelabo. Dr. Nambi is a coinvestigator on a provisional patent along with Baylor College of Medicine and Roche on the use of biomarkers to predict heart failure, and a site principal investigator for studies sponsored by Amgen and Merck. Dr. Stone had no disclosures.

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

Work-related posttraumatic stress disorder is three times higher in interns than the general population, new research shows.

mediaphotos/Getty Images

Investigators assessed PTSD in more than 1,100 physicians at the end of their internship year and found that a little over half reported work-related trauma exposure, and of these, 20% screened positive for PTSD.

Overall, 10% of participants screened positive for PTSD by the end of the internship year, compared with a 12-month PTSD prevalence of 3.6% in the general population.

“Work-related trauma exposure and PTSD are common and underdiscussed phenomena among intern physicians,” lead author Mary Vance, MD, assistant professor of psychiatry, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Md., said in an interview.

“I urge medical educators and policy makers to include this topic in their discussions about physician well-being and to implement effective interventions to mitigate the impact of work-related trauma and PTSD among physician trainees,” she said.

The study was published online June 8 in JAMA Network Open.
 

Burnout, depression, suicide

“Burnout, depression, and suicide are increasingly recognized as occupational mental health hazards among health care professionals, including physicians,” Dr. Vance said.

“However, in my professional experience as a physician and educator, I have not come across many discussions about work-related trauma exposure and its psychological consequences among physicians, despite observing anecdotal evidence among my peers and trainees that this is also an issue,” she added.

This gap prompted her “to investigate rates of work-related trauma exposure and PTSD among physicians.”

The researchers sent emails to 4,350 individuals during academic year 2018-2019, 2 months prior to starting internships. Of these, 2,129 agreed to participate and 1,134 (58.6% female, 61.6% non-Hispanic White; mean age, 27.52) completed the study.

Prior to beginning internship, participants completed a baseline survey that assessed demographic characteristics as well as medical education and psychological and psychosocial factors.

Participants completed follow-up surveys sent by email at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months of the internship year. The surveys assessed stressful life events, concern over perceived medical errors in the past 3 months, and number of hours worked over the past week.

At month 12, current PTSD and symptoms of depression and anxiety were also assessed using the Primary Care PTSD Screen for DSM-5, the 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire, and the Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-item scale, respectively.

Participants were asked to self-report whether they ever had an episode of depression and to complete the Risky Families Questionnaire to assess if they had experienced childhood abuse, neglect, and family conflict. Additionally, they completed an 11-item scale developed specifically for the study regarding recent stressful events.
 

‘Crucible’ year

A total of 56.4% of respondents reported work-related trauma exposure, and among these, 19.0% screened positive for PTSD. One-tenth (10.8%) of the entire sample screened positive for PTSD by the end of internship year, which is three times higher than the 12-month prevalence of PTSD in the general population (3.6%), the authors noted.

Trauma exposure differed by specialty, ranging from 43.1% in anesthesiology to 72.4% in emergency medicine. Of the respondents in internal medicine, surgery, and medicine/pediatrics, 56.6%, 63.3%, and 71%, respectively, reported work-related trauma exposure.

Work-related PTSD also differed by specialty, ranging from 7.5% in ob.gyn. to 30.0% in pediatrics. Of respondents in internal medicine and family practice, 23.9% and 25.9%, respectively, reported work-related PTSD.

Dr. Vance called the intern year “a crucible, during which newly minted doctors receive intensive on-the-job training at the front lines of patient care [and] work long hours in rapidly shifting environments, often caring for critically ill patients.”

Work-related trauma exposure “is more likely to occur during this high-stress internship year than during the same year in the general population,” she said.

She noted that the “issue of workplace trauma and PTSD among health care workers became even more salient during the height of COVID,” adding that she expects it “to remain a pressure issue for healthcare workers in the post-COVID era.”


 

Call to action

Commenting on the study David A. Marcus, MD, chair, GME Physician Well-Being Committee, Northwell Health, New Hyde Park, N.Y., noted the study’s “relatively low response rate” is a “significant limitation” of the study.

An additional limitation is the lack of a baseline PTSD assessment, said Dr. Marcus, an assistant professor at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y., who was not involved in the research.

Nevertheless, the “overall prevalence [of work-related PTSD] should serve as a call to action for physician leaders and for leaders in academic medicine,” he said.

Additionally, the study “reminds us that trauma-informed care should be an essential part of mental health support services provided to trainees and to physicians in general,” Dr. Marcus stated.

Also commenting on the study, Lotte N. Dyrbye, MD, professor of medicine and medical education, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., agreed.

“Organizational strategies should include system-level interventions to reduce the risk of frightening, horrible, or traumatic events from occurring in the workplace in the first place, as well as faculty development efforts to upskill teaching faculty in their ability to support trainees when such events do occur,” she said.

These approaches “should coincide with organizational efforts to support individual trainees by providing adequate time off after traumatic events, ensuring trainees can access affordable mental healthcare, and reducing other barriers to appropriate help-seeking, such as stigma, and efforts to build a culture of well-being,” suggested Dr. Dyrbye, who is codirector of the Mayo Clinic Program on Physician Wellbeing and was not involved in the study.

The study was supported by grants from the Blue Cross Blue Shield Foundation of Michigan and National Institutes of Health. Dr. Vance and coauthors, Dr. Marcus, and Dr. Dyrbye reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Work-related posttraumatic stress disorder is three times higher in interns than the general population, new research shows.

mediaphotos/Getty Images

Investigators assessed PTSD in more than 1,100 physicians at the end of their internship year and found that a little over half reported work-related trauma exposure, and of these, 20% screened positive for PTSD.

Overall, 10% of participants screened positive for PTSD by the end of the internship year, compared with a 12-month PTSD prevalence of 3.6% in the general population.

“Work-related trauma exposure and PTSD are common and underdiscussed phenomena among intern physicians,” lead author Mary Vance, MD, assistant professor of psychiatry, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Md., said in an interview.

“I urge medical educators and policy makers to include this topic in their discussions about physician well-being and to implement effective interventions to mitigate the impact of work-related trauma and PTSD among physician trainees,” she said.

The study was published online June 8 in JAMA Network Open.
 

Burnout, depression, suicide

“Burnout, depression, and suicide are increasingly recognized as occupational mental health hazards among health care professionals, including physicians,” Dr. Vance said.

“However, in my professional experience as a physician and educator, I have not come across many discussions about work-related trauma exposure and its psychological consequences among physicians, despite observing anecdotal evidence among my peers and trainees that this is also an issue,” she added.

This gap prompted her “to investigate rates of work-related trauma exposure and PTSD among physicians.”

The researchers sent emails to 4,350 individuals during academic year 2018-2019, 2 months prior to starting internships. Of these, 2,129 agreed to participate and 1,134 (58.6% female, 61.6% non-Hispanic White; mean age, 27.52) completed the study.

Prior to beginning internship, participants completed a baseline survey that assessed demographic characteristics as well as medical education and psychological and psychosocial factors.

Participants completed follow-up surveys sent by email at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months of the internship year. The surveys assessed stressful life events, concern over perceived medical errors in the past 3 months, and number of hours worked over the past week.

At month 12, current PTSD and symptoms of depression and anxiety were also assessed using the Primary Care PTSD Screen for DSM-5, the 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire, and the Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-item scale, respectively.

Participants were asked to self-report whether they ever had an episode of depression and to complete the Risky Families Questionnaire to assess if they had experienced childhood abuse, neglect, and family conflict. Additionally, they completed an 11-item scale developed specifically for the study regarding recent stressful events.
 

‘Crucible’ year

A total of 56.4% of respondents reported work-related trauma exposure, and among these, 19.0% screened positive for PTSD. One-tenth (10.8%) of the entire sample screened positive for PTSD by the end of internship year, which is three times higher than the 12-month prevalence of PTSD in the general population (3.6%), the authors noted.

Trauma exposure differed by specialty, ranging from 43.1% in anesthesiology to 72.4% in emergency medicine. Of the respondents in internal medicine, surgery, and medicine/pediatrics, 56.6%, 63.3%, and 71%, respectively, reported work-related trauma exposure.

Work-related PTSD also differed by specialty, ranging from 7.5% in ob.gyn. to 30.0% in pediatrics. Of respondents in internal medicine and family practice, 23.9% and 25.9%, respectively, reported work-related PTSD.

Dr. Vance called the intern year “a crucible, during which newly minted doctors receive intensive on-the-job training at the front lines of patient care [and] work long hours in rapidly shifting environments, often caring for critically ill patients.”

Work-related trauma exposure “is more likely to occur during this high-stress internship year than during the same year in the general population,” she said.

She noted that the “issue of workplace trauma and PTSD among health care workers became even more salient during the height of COVID,” adding that she expects it “to remain a pressure issue for healthcare workers in the post-COVID era.”


 

Call to action

Commenting on the study David A. Marcus, MD, chair, GME Physician Well-Being Committee, Northwell Health, New Hyde Park, N.Y., noted the study’s “relatively low response rate” is a “significant limitation” of the study.

An additional limitation is the lack of a baseline PTSD assessment, said Dr. Marcus, an assistant professor at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y., who was not involved in the research.

Nevertheless, the “overall prevalence [of work-related PTSD] should serve as a call to action for physician leaders and for leaders in academic medicine,” he said.

Additionally, the study “reminds us that trauma-informed care should be an essential part of mental health support services provided to trainees and to physicians in general,” Dr. Marcus stated.

Also commenting on the study, Lotte N. Dyrbye, MD, professor of medicine and medical education, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., agreed.

“Organizational strategies should include system-level interventions to reduce the risk of frightening, horrible, or traumatic events from occurring in the workplace in the first place, as well as faculty development efforts to upskill teaching faculty in their ability to support trainees when such events do occur,” she said.

These approaches “should coincide with organizational efforts to support individual trainees by providing adequate time off after traumatic events, ensuring trainees can access affordable mental healthcare, and reducing other barriers to appropriate help-seeking, such as stigma, and efforts to build a culture of well-being,” suggested Dr. Dyrbye, who is codirector of the Mayo Clinic Program on Physician Wellbeing and was not involved in the study.

The study was supported by grants from the Blue Cross Blue Shield Foundation of Michigan and National Institutes of Health. Dr. Vance and coauthors, Dr. Marcus, and Dr. Dyrbye reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Work-related posttraumatic stress disorder is three times higher in interns than the general population, new research shows.

mediaphotos/Getty Images

Investigators assessed PTSD in more than 1,100 physicians at the end of their internship year and found that a little over half reported work-related trauma exposure, and of these, 20% screened positive for PTSD.

Overall, 10% of participants screened positive for PTSD by the end of the internship year, compared with a 12-month PTSD prevalence of 3.6% in the general population.

“Work-related trauma exposure and PTSD are common and underdiscussed phenomena among intern physicians,” lead author Mary Vance, MD, assistant professor of psychiatry, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Md., said in an interview.

“I urge medical educators and policy makers to include this topic in their discussions about physician well-being and to implement effective interventions to mitigate the impact of work-related trauma and PTSD among physician trainees,” she said.

The study was published online June 8 in JAMA Network Open.
 

Burnout, depression, suicide

“Burnout, depression, and suicide are increasingly recognized as occupational mental health hazards among health care professionals, including physicians,” Dr. Vance said.

“However, in my professional experience as a physician and educator, I have not come across many discussions about work-related trauma exposure and its psychological consequences among physicians, despite observing anecdotal evidence among my peers and trainees that this is also an issue,” she added.

This gap prompted her “to investigate rates of work-related trauma exposure and PTSD among physicians.”

The researchers sent emails to 4,350 individuals during academic year 2018-2019, 2 months prior to starting internships. Of these, 2,129 agreed to participate and 1,134 (58.6% female, 61.6% non-Hispanic White; mean age, 27.52) completed the study.

Prior to beginning internship, participants completed a baseline survey that assessed demographic characteristics as well as medical education and psychological and psychosocial factors.

Participants completed follow-up surveys sent by email at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months of the internship year. The surveys assessed stressful life events, concern over perceived medical errors in the past 3 months, and number of hours worked over the past week.

At month 12, current PTSD and symptoms of depression and anxiety were also assessed using the Primary Care PTSD Screen for DSM-5, the 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire, and the Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-item scale, respectively.

Participants were asked to self-report whether they ever had an episode of depression and to complete the Risky Families Questionnaire to assess if they had experienced childhood abuse, neglect, and family conflict. Additionally, they completed an 11-item scale developed specifically for the study regarding recent stressful events.
 

‘Crucible’ year

A total of 56.4% of respondents reported work-related trauma exposure, and among these, 19.0% screened positive for PTSD. One-tenth (10.8%) of the entire sample screened positive for PTSD by the end of internship year, which is three times higher than the 12-month prevalence of PTSD in the general population (3.6%), the authors noted.

Trauma exposure differed by specialty, ranging from 43.1% in anesthesiology to 72.4% in emergency medicine. Of the respondents in internal medicine, surgery, and medicine/pediatrics, 56.6%, 63.3%, and 71%, respectively, reported work-related trauma exposure.

Work-related PTSD also differed by specialty, ranging from 7.5% in ob.gyn. to 30.0% in pediatrics. Of respondents in internal medicine and family practice, 23.9% and 25.9%, respectively, reported work-related PTSD.

Dr. Vance called the intern year “a crucible, during which newly minted doctors receive intensive on-the-job training at the front lines of patient care [and] work long hours in rapidly shifting environments, often caring for critically ill patients.”

Work-related trauma exposure “is more likely to occur during this high-stress internship year than during the same year in the general population,” she said.

She noted that the “issue of workplace trauma and PTSD among health care workers became even more salient during the height of COVID,” adding that she expects it “to remain a pressure issue for healthcare workers in the post-COVID era.”


 

Call to action

Commenting on the study David A. Marcus, MD, chair, GME Physician Well-Being Committee, Northwell Health, New Hyde Park, N.Y., noted the study’s “relatively low response rate” is a “significant limitation” of the study.

An additional limitation is the lack of a baseline PTSD assessment, said Dr. Marcus, an assistant professor at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y., who was not involved in the research.

Nevertheless, the “overall prevalence [of work-related PTSD] should serve as a call to action for physician leaders and for leaders in academic medicine,” he said.

Additionally, the study “reminds us that trauma-informed care should be an essential part of mental health support services provided to trainees and to physicians in general,” Dr. Marcus stated.

Also commenting on the study, Lotte N. Dyrbye, MD, professor of medicine and medical education, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., agreed.

“Organizational strategies should include system-level interventions to reduce the risk of frightening, horrible, or traumatic events from occurring in the workplace in the first place, as well as faculty development efforts to upskill teaching faculty in their ability to support trainees when such events do occur,” she said.

These approaches “should coincide with organizational efforts to support individual trainees by providing adequate time off after traumatic events, ensuring trainees can access affordable mental healthcare, and reducing other barriers to appropriate help-seeking, such as stigma, and efforts to build a culture of well-being,” suggested Dr. Dyrbye, who is codirector of the Mayo Clinic Program on Physician Wellbeing and was not involved in the study.

The study was supported by grants from the Blue Cross Blue Shield Foundation of Michigan and National Institutes of Health. Dr. Vance and coauthors, Dr. Marcus, and Dr. Dyrbye reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients with obesity who underwent bariatric surgery had 46% lower odds of stroke 1 year later, similar odds of stroke 3 years later, and 22% lower odds of stroke 5 years later, compared with matched control patients, in new research.

purestock/Thinkstock

Michael D. Williams, MD, presented the study findings (abstract A002) at the annual meeting of the American Society for Metabolic & Bariatric Surgery.

The findings are “very good news,” even though the protection against stroke declined further out from the surgery, John D. Scott, MD, scientific program chair of the ASMBS meeting, told this news organization.

The investigators matched more than 56,000 patients with obesity who had bariatric surgery with an equal number of similar patients who did not have this surgery, from a large national insurance database, in what they believe is the largest study of this to date.

“Any intervention that decreases your risk of [cardiovascular] events is good news,” said Dr. Scott, a clinical professor of surgery at the University of South Carolina, Greenville, and metabolic and bariatric surgery director at Prisma Health in Greenville, S.C. “And having a 22%-45% chance of reduction in stroke risk is a very worthwhile intervention.”

Asked how this would change the way clinicians inform patients of what to expect from bariatric surgery, he said: “I would advise patients that studies like this show that surgery would not increase your risk of having a stroke.

“This is consistent with many studies that show that the risks of all macrovascular events decrease after the comorbidity reductions seen after surgery.”

According to Dr. Scott, “the next steps might include a prospective randomized trial of medical treatment versus surgery alone for [cardiovascular]/stroke outcomes, but this is unlikely.”

Similarly, Dr. Williams told this news organization that “I would tell [patients] that surgery is an effective and durable method for weight loss. It also can improve comorbid conditions, particularly diabetes and hypertension.”

Even with this study, “I’m not sure it’s appropriate to say that bariatric surgery will reduce the risk of stroke,” he cautioned.

“However, as we continue to investigate the effects of bariatric surgery, this study contributes to the greater body of knowledge that suggests that reduction in ischemic stroke risk is yet another benefit of bariatric surgery.”

The assigned discussant, Corrigan L. McBride, MD, MBA wanted to know if the lower odds ratio at 1 year might be because preoperative patient selection might eliminate patients at high risk of poor cardiovascular outcomes.

Dr. Williams, a resident at Rush Medical College, Chicago, replied that it is difficult to eliminate potential selection bias, despite best efforts, but this study shows that he can tell patients: “Having surgery is not going to increases your risk of stroke.”

“This is an important study,” Dr. McBride, professor and chief of minimally invasive surgery and bariatric surgery, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, told this news organization.

“It is the first large study to show a decreased [or no increased] risk of stroke 1, 3, and 5 years after bariatric surgery compared to matched patients, and it had enough data to look at stroke as a standalone endpoint,” Dr. McBride said. “It is important too, for patients and their physicians to understand that there is a lower chance of them having a stroke if they have surgery than if they do not.”
 

‘Important,’ ‘good news’ for stroke risk after bariatric surgery

The impact of bariatric surgery on remission of type 2 diabetes is well known, Dr. Williams noted, and other studies have reported how bariatric surgery affects the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events – a composite of stroke, myocardial infarction, coronary artery disease, and all-cause death – including a study presented in the same meeting session.

However, a very large sample size is needed to be able to demonstrate the effect of bariatric surgery on stroke, since stroke is a rare event.

The researchers analyzed data from the Mariner (PearlDiver.) all-payer insurance national claims database of patients in the United States.

They matched 56,514 patients with a body mass index over 35 kg/m² and comorbidities or a BMI of more than 40 who underwent sleeve gastrectomy or Roux-en-Y gastric bypass during 2010-2019 with 56,514 control patients who did not undergo bariatric surgery.

A year after bariatric surgery, patients in that group had a lower stroke rate than patients in the control group (0.6% vs. 1.2%), and they had close to 50% lower odds of having a stroke (odds ratio, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.47-0.61).

Three years after bariatric surgery, there were 44,948 patients in each group; the rate of stroke was 2.1% in the surgery group and 2.2% in the control group, and there was no significant difference in the odds of having a stroke (OR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.91-1.00).

Five years after bariatric surgery, there were 27,619 patients in each group; the stroke rate was lower in the bariatric surgery group than in the control group (2.8% vs 3.6%), but reduced odds of stroke was not as great as after 1 year (OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.65-0.90).

Dr. Williams has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. McBride and Dr. Scott disclosed that they are speakers/trainers/faculty advisers for Gore. Dr. Scott is also a consultant for C-SATS (part of Johnson & Johnson).

Patients with obesity who underwent bariatric surgery had 46% lower odds of stroke 1 year later, similar odds of stroke 3 years later, and 22% lower odds of stroke 5 years later, compared with matched control patients, in new research.

purestock/Thinkstock

Michael D. Williams, MD, presented the study findings (abstract A002) at the annual meeting of the American Society for Metabolic & Bariatric Surgery.

The findings are “very good news,” even though the protection against stroke declined further out from the surgery, John D. Scott, MD, scientific program chair of the ASMBS meeting, told this news organization.

The investigators matched more than 56,000 patients with obesity who had bariatric surgery with an equal number of similar patients who did not have this surgery, from a large national insurance database, in what they believe is the largest study of this to date.

“Any intervention that decreases your risk of [cardiovascular] events is good news,” said Dr. Scott, a clinical professor of surgery at the University of South Carolina, Greenville, and metabolic and bariatric surgery director at Prisma Health in Greenville, S.C. “And having a 22%-45% chance of reduction in stroke risk is a very worthwhile intervention.”

Asked how this would change the way clinicians inform patients of what to expect from bariatric surgery, he said: “I would advise patients that studies like this show that surgery would not increase your risk of having a stroke.

“This is consistent with many studies that show that the risks of all macrovascular events decrease after the comorbidity reductions seen after surgery.”

According to Dr. Scott, “the next steps might include a prospective randomized trial of medical treatment versus surgery alone for [cardiovascular]/stroke outcomes, but this is unlikely.”

Similarly, Dr. Williams told this news organization that “I would tell [patients] that surgery is an effective and durable method for weight loss. It also can improve comorbid conditions, particularly diabetes and hypertension.”

Even with this study, “I’m not sure it’s appropriate to say that bariatric surgery will reduce the risk of stroke,” he cautioned.

“However, as we continue to investigate the effects of bariatric surgery, this study contributes to the greater body of knowledge that suggests that reduction in ischemic stroke risk is yet another benefit of bariatric surgery.”

The assigned discussant, Corrigan L. McBride, MD, MBA wanted to know if the lower odds ratio at 1 year might be because preoperative patient selection might eliminate patients at high risk of poor cardiovascular outcomes.

Dr. Williams, a resident at Rush Medical College, Chicago, replied that it is difficult to eliminate potential selection bias, despite best efforts, but this study shows that he can tell patients: “Having surgery is not going to increases your risk of stroke.”

“This is an important study,” Dr. McBride, professor and chief of minimally invasive surgery and bariatric surgery, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, told this news organization.

“It is the first large study to show a decreased [or no increased] risk of stroke 1, 3, and 5 years after bariatric surgery compared to matched patients, and it had enough data to look at stroke as a standalone endpoint,” Dr. McBride said. “It is important too, for patients and their physicians to understand that there is a lower chance of them having a stroke if they have surgery than if they do not.”
 

‘Important,’ ‘good news’ for stroke risk after bariatric surgery

The impact of bariatric surgery on remission of type 2 diabetes is well known, Dr. Williams noted, and other studies have reported how bariatric surgery affects the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events – a composite of stroke, myocardial infarction, coronary artery disease, and all-cause death – including a study presented in the same meeting session.

However, a very large sample size is needed to be able to demonstrate the effect of bariatric surgery on stroke, since stroke is a rare event.

The researchers analyzed data from the Mariner (PearlDiver.) all-payer insurance national claims database of patients in the United States.

They matched 56,514 patients with a body mass index over 35 kg/m² and comorbidities or a BMI of more than 40 who underwent sleeve gastrectomy or Roux-en-Y gastric bypass during 2010-2019 with 56,514 control patients who did not undergo bariatric surgery.

A year after bariatric surgery, patients in that group had a lower stroke rate than patients in the control group (0.6% vs. 1.2%), and they had close to 50% lower odds of having a stroke (odds ratio, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.47-0.61).

Three years after bariatric surgery, there were 44,948 patients in each group; the rate of stroke was 2.1% in the surgery group and 2.2% in the control group, and there was no significant difference in the odds of having a stroke (OR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.91-1.00).

Five years after bariatric surgery, there were 27,619 patients in each group; the stroke rate was lower in the bariatric surgery group than in the control group (2.8% vs 3.6%), but reduced odds of stroke was not as great as after 1 year (OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.65-0.90).

Dr. Williams has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. McBride and Dr. Scott disclosed that they are speakers/trainers/faculty advisers for Gore. Dr. Scott is also a consultant for C-SATS (part of Johnson & Johnson).

Patients with obesity who underwent bariatric surgery had 46% lower odds of stroke 1 year later, similar odds of stroke 3 years later, and 22% lower odds of stroke 5 years later, compared with matched control patients, in new research.

purestock/Thinkstock

Michael D. Williams, MD, presented the study findings (abstract A002) at the annual meeting of the American Society for Metabolic & Bariatric Surgery.

The findings are “very good news,” even though the protection against stroke declined further out from the surgery, John D. Scott, MD, scientific program chair of the ASMBS meeting, told this news organization.

The investigators matched more than 56,000 patients with obesity who had bariatric surgery with an equal number of similar patients who did not have this surgery, from a large national insurance database, in what they believe is the largest study of this to date.

“Any intervention that decreases your risk of [cardiovascular] events is good news,” said Dr. Scott, a clinical professor of surgery at the University of South Carolina, Greenville, and metabolic and bariatric surgery director at Prisma Health in Greenville, S.C. “And having a 22%-45% chance of reduction in stroke risk is a very worthwhile intervention.”

Asked how this would change the way clinicians inform patients of what to expect from bariatric surgery, he said: “I would advise patients that studies like this show that surgery would not increase your risk of having a stroke.

“This is consistent with many studies that show that the risks of all macrovascular events decrease after the comorbidity reductions seen after surgery.”

According to Dr. Scott, “the next steps might include a prospective randomized trial of medical treatment versus surgery alone for [cardiovascular]/stroke outcomes, but this is unlikely.”

Similarly, Dr. Williams told this news organization that “I would tell [patients] that surgery is an effective and durable method for weight loss. It also can improve comorbid conditions, particularly diabetes and hypertension.”

Even with this study, “I’m not sure it’s appropriate to say that bariatric surgery will reduce the risk of stroke,” he cautioned.

“However, as we continue to investigate the effects of bariatric surgery, this study contributes to the greater body of knowledge that suggests that reduction in ischemic stroke risk is yet another benefit of bariatric surgery.”

The assigned discussant, Corrigan L. McBride, MD, MBA wanted to know if the lower odds ratio at 1 year might be because preoperative patient selection might eliminate patients at high risk of poor cardiovascular outcomes.

Dr. Williams, a resident at Rush Medical College, Chicago, replied that it is difficult to eliminate potential selection bias, despite best efforts, but this study shows that he can tell patients: “Having surgery is not going to increases your risk of stroke.”

“This is an important study,” Dr. McBride, professor and chief of minimally invasive surgery and bariatric surgery, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, told this news organization.

“It is the first large study to show a decreased [or no increased] risk of stroke 1, 3, and 5 years after bariatric surgery compared to matched patients, and it had enough data to look at stroke as a standalone endpoint,” Dr. McBride said. “It is important too, for patients and their physicians to understand that there is a lower chance of them having a stroke if they have surgery than if they do not.”
 

‘Important,’ ‘good news’ for stroke risk after bariatric surgery

The impact of bariatric surgery on remission of type 2 diabetes is well known, Dr. Williams noted, and other studies have reported how bariatric surgery affects the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events – a composite of stroke, myocardial infarction, coronary artery disease, and all-cause death – including a study presented in the same meeting session.

However, a very large sample size is needed to be able to demonstrate the effect of bariatric surgery on stroke, since stroke is a rare event.

The researchers analyzed data from the Mariner (PearlDiver.) all-payer insurance national claims database of patients in the United States.

They matched 56,514 patients with a body mass index over 35 kg/m² and comorbidities or a BMI of more than 40 who underwent sleeve gastrectomy or Roux-en-Y gastric bypass during 2010-2019 with 56,514 control patients who did not undergo bariatric surgery.

A year after bariatric surgery, patients in that group had a lower stroke rate than patients in the control group (0.6% vs. 1.2%), and they had close to 50% lower odds of having a stroke (odds ratio, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.47-0.61).

Three years after bariatric surgery, there were 44,948 patients in each group; the rate of stroke was 2.1% in the surgery group and 2.2% in the control group, and there was no significant difference in the odds of having a stroke (OR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.91-1.00).

Five years after bariatric surgery, there were 27,619 patients in each group; the stroke rate was lower in the bariatric surgery group than in the control group (2.8% vs 3.6%), but reduced odds of stroke was not as great as after 1 year (OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.65-0.90).

Dr. Williams has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. McBride and Dr. Scott disclosed that they are speakers/trainers/faculty advisers for Gore. Dr. Scott is also a consultant for C-SATS (part of Johnson & Johnson).

Prophylactic anticoagulation to prevent venous thromboembolism (VTE) was associated with reduced 60-day mortality in patients with COVID-19 who were ill enough to require hospitalization, a new report shows.

In a cohort study of more than 1,300 hospitalized patients with COVID-19 infection across 30 hospitals in Michigan, both prophylactic- and therapeutic-dose anticoagulation were associated with reduced in-hospital mortality; however, at 60 days, only prophylactic-dose anticoagulation remained associated with lower mortality.

And adherence was key; nonadherence, or missing 2 days or more of anticoagulation, was linked to more deaths at 60 days.

The findings, which were published online June 11 in JAMA Network Open, are final proof that a prophylactic anticoagulation strategy for the hospitalized COVID population is, indeed, the right one, Valerie M. Vaughn, MD, director of hospital medicine research at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, said in an interview.

“We’ve probably always known that patients with COVID need prophylaxis for VTE, but we found that early on, unfortunately, that wasn’t being done,” Dr. Vaughn said.

“Now, we see that prophylactic rates have increased. We always knew to use anticoagulation prophylactically in patients who were hospitalized with infection because of their risk for VTE, so this study just drives home that proper adherence to an anticoagulation protocol improves mortality,” she said.

Dr. Vaughn was on the front lines when COVID-19 came to Michigan, where the research was conducted.

“We probably should have been anticoagulating from the get-go, but you have to remember that in the early days of COVID, the hospitals in Michigan were being overwhelmed. They didn’t have PPE. They were taking care of patients outside of their typical hospital beds or setting up field hospitals,” she said. “It was not quite as bad as New York, but at the University of Michigan, we set up four or five ICUs outside of our normal care.”

They also converted the top floor of their pediatric hospital into an ICU to take care of patients with COVID during the first surge, she added. “We didn’t know much about this disease, but faced with this influx of patients, many of whom were dying with blood clots, we had to do something.”  

Some hospitals began prophylactically anticoagulating their patients, but others hesitated before adopting the strategy. “But now we feel confident that prophylactic anticoagulation, done according to the right protocol, with no interruptions in the treatment, is beneficial,” Dr. Vaughn said.

The best medication choice is enoxaparin (Lovenox), which can be given once a day, as opposed to heparin, which needs to be given via injection three times a day, she said.

“Prophylactic dose anticoagulation is typically given by an injection under the skin, but a lot of times, I’ve had patients tell me they feel like a human pin cushion and have all these bruises from being stuck with needles every day, which I can totally relate to,” she said.

“It is important for us as clinicians to explain that we’re having to poke our patients because it is good for them and will help them fight COVID,” she added. “Also having the once-a-day option is going to be a lot better for adherence, and adherence to the protocol, not missing any days, is key to the better outcome.”

Dr. Vaughn and her team reviewed the charts of 1,351 patients (48% women, 49% Black, median age 64 [range 52-75]) who were hospitalized throughout Michigan during the first several months of the COVID-19 pandemic, from March to June 2020.

Only 18 patients (1.3%) had a confirmed VTE and 219 patients (16.2%) received treatment-dose anticoagulation.

The researchers noted that use of treatment-dose anticoagulation without imaging ranged from 0% to 29% across hospitals and increased significantly over time.

Of the 1,127 patients who received anticoagulation, 392 (34.8%) missed 2 days or more of prophylaxis.

In addition, there were varying rates of missed prophylaxis among the hospitals, from 11% to 61%, but these rates decreased markedly over time.

Missed doses were associated with a higher 60-day mortality (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.31; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.67), but not in-hospital mortality (aHR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.91-1.03).

Compared with no anticoagulation, receiving any dose of anticoagulation was associated with lower in-hospital mortality.

However, only prophylactic-dose anticoagulation remained associated with lower mortality at 60 days. The adjusted hazard ratio for prophylactic-dose anticoagulation was 0.71 (95% CI, 0.51-0.90), compared with 0.92 (95% CI, 0.63-1.35) for treatment-dose anticoagulation.
 

Study boosts confidence

Despite its limitations, the study should make clinicians more confident that the use of prophylactic anticoagulation is warranted for hospitalized patients with COVID-19, write Andrew B. Dicks, MD, and Ido Weinberg, MD, from Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, in an invited commentary.

“Practically, we still lack the granular data we need to help guide us in patient-by-patient decision-making – such as anticoagulation agent choice, dosage, and duration of therapy – especially as dictated by acuity of patient illness,” Dr. Dicks and Dr. Weinberg note.

“While we still await the data from randomized controlled trials to guide the optimal anticoagulation dose and duration, this study adds significant merit to the previously published recommendations from several different medical organizations regarding the use of prophylactic anticoagulation in hospitalized patients with COVID-19,” Dr. Dicks told this news organization.

The study was supported by Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Michigan and Blue Care Network as part of their Value Partnerships program. Dr. Vaughn has reported receiving speaking fees from Thermo Fisher Scientific. Dr. Dicks and Dr. Weinberg have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Prophylactic anticoagulation to prevent venous thromboembolism (VTE) was associated with reduced 60-day mortality in patients with COVID-19 who were ill enough to require hospitalization, a new report shows.

In a cohort study of more than 1,300 hospitalized patients with COVID-19 infection across 30 hospitals in Michigan, both prophylactic- and therapeutic-dose anticoagulation were associated with reduced in-hospital mortality; however, at 60 days, only prophylactic-dose anticoagulation remained associated with lower mortality.

And adherence was key; nonadherence, or missing 2 days or more of anticoagulation, was linked to more deaths at 60 days.

The findings, which were published online June 11 in JAMA Network Open, are final proof that a prophylactic anticoagulation strategy for the hospitalized COVID population is, indeed, the right one, Valerie M. Vaughn, MD, director of hospital medicine research at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, said in an interview.

“We’ve probably always known that patients with COVID need prophylaxis for VTE, but we found that early on, unfortunately, that wasn’t being done,” Dr. Vaughn said.

“Now, we see that prophylactic rates have increased. We always knew to use anticoagulation prophylactically in patients who were hospitalized with infection because of their risk for VTE, so this study just drives home that proper adherence to an anticoagulation protocol improves mortality,” she said.

Dr. Vaughn was on the front lines when COVID-19 came to Michigan, where the research was conducted.

“We probably should have been anticoagulating from the get-go, but you have to remember that in the early days of COVID, the hospitals in Michigan were being overwhelmed. They didn’t have PPE. They were taking care of patients outside of their typical hospital beds or setting up field hospitals,” she said. “It was not quite as bad as New York, but at the University of Michigan, we set up four or five ICUs outside of our normal care.”

They also converted the top floor of their pediatric hospital into an ICU to take care of patients with COVID during the first surge, she added. “We didn’t know much about this disease, but faced with this influx of patients, many of whom were dying with blood clots, we had to do something.”  

Some hospitals began prophylactically anticoagulating their patients, but others hesitated before adopting the strategy. “But now we feel confident that prophylactic anticoagulation, done according to the right protocol, with no interruptions in the treatment, is beneficial,” Dr. Vaughn said.

The best medication choice is enoxaparin (Lovenox), which can be given once a day, as opposed to heparin, which needs to be given via injection three times a day, she said.

“Prophylactic dose anticoagulation is typically given by an injection under the skin, but a lot of times, I’ve had patients tell me they feel like a human pin cushion and have all these bruises from being stuck with needles every day, which I can totally relate to,” she said.

“It is important for us as clinicians to explain that we’re having to poke our patients because it is good for them and will help them fight COVID,” she added. “Also having the once-a-day option is going to be a lot better for adherence, and adherence to the protocol, not missing any days, is key to the better outcome.”

Dr. Vaughn and her team reviewed the charts of 1,351 patients (48% women, 49% Black, median age 64 [range 52-75]) who were hospitalized throughout Michigan during the first several months of the COVID-19 pandemic, from March to June 2020.

Only 18 patients (1.3%) had a confirmed VTE and 219 patients (16.2%) received treatment-dose anticoagulation.

The researchers noted that use of treatment-dose anticoagulation without imaging ranged from 0% to 29% across hospitals and increased significantly over time.

Of the 1,127 patients who received anticoagulation, 392 (34.8%) missed 2 days or more of prophylaxis.

In addition, there were varying rates of missed prophylaxis among the hospitals, from 11% to 61%, but these rates decreased markedly over time.

Missed doses were associated with a higher 60-day mortality (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.31; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.67), but not in-hospital mortality (aHR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.91-1.03).

Compared with no anticoagulation, receiving any dose of anticoagulation was associated with lower in-hospital mortality.

However, only prophylactic-dose anticoagulation remained associated with lower mortality at 60 days. The adjusted hazard ratio for prophylactic-dose anticoagulation was 0.71 (95% CI, 0.51-0.90), compared with 0.92 (95% CI, 0.63-1.35) for treatment-dose anticoagulation.
 

Study boosts confidence

Despite its limitations, the study should make clinicians more confident that the use of prophylactic anticoagulation is warranted for hospitalized patients with COVID-19, write Andrew B. Dicks, MD, and Ido Weinberg, MD, from Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, in an invited commentary.

“Practically, we still lack the granular data we need to help guide us in patient-by-patient decision-making – such as anticoagulation agent choice, dosage, and duration of therapy – especially as dictated by acuity of patient illness,” Dr. Dicks and Dr. Weinberg note.

“While we still await the data from randomized controlled trials to guide the optimal anticoagulation dose and duration, this study adds significant merit to the previously published recommendations from several different medical organizations regarding the use of prophylactic anticoagulation in hospitalized patients with COVID-19,” Dr. Dicks told this news organization.

The study was supported by Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Michigan and Blue Care Network as part of their Value Partnerships program. Dr. Vaughn has reported receiving speaking fees from Thermo Fisher Scientific. Dr. Dicks and Dr. Weinberg have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Prophylactic anticoagulation to prevent venous thromboembolism (VTE) was associated with reduced 60-day mortality in patients with COVID-19 who were ill enough to require hospitalization, a new report shows.

In a cohort study of more than 1,300 hospitalized patients with COVID-19 infection across 30 hospitals in Michigan, both prophylactic- and therapeutic-dose anticoagulation were associated with reduced in-hospital mortality; however, at 60 days, only prophylactic-dose anticoagulation remained associated with lower mortality.

And adherence was key; nonadherence, or missing 2 days or more of anticoagulation, was linked to more deaths at 60 days.

The findings, which were published online June 11 in JAMA Network Open, are final proof that a prophylactic anticoagulation strategy for the hospitalized COVID population is, indeed, the right one, Valerie M. Vaughn, MD, director of hospital medicine research at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, said in an interview.

“We’ve probably always known that patients with COVID need prophylaxis for VTE, but we found that early on, unfortunately, that wasn’t being done,” Dr. Vaughn said.

“Now, we see that prophylactic rates have increased. We always knew to use anticoagulation prophylactically in patients who were hospitalized with infection because of their risk for VTE, so this study just drives home that proper adherence to an anticoagulation protocol improves mortality,” she said.

Dr. Vaughn was on the front lines when COVID-19 came to Michigan, where the research was conducted.

“We probably should have been anticoagulating from the get-go, but you have to remember that in the early days of COVID, the hospitals in Michigan were being overwhelmed. They didn’t have PPE. They were taking care of patients outside of their typical hospital beds or setting up field hospitals,” she said. “It was not quite as bad as New York, but at the University of Michigan, we set up four or five ICUs outside of our normal care.”

They also converted the top floor of their pediatric hospital into an ICU to take care of patients with COVID during the first surge, she added. “We didn’t know much about this disease, but faced with this influx of patients, many of whom were dying with blood clots, we had to do something.”  

Some hospitals began prophylactically anticoagulating their patients, but others hesitated before adopting the strategy. “But now we feel confident that prophylactic anticoagulation, done according to the right protocol, with no interruptions in the treatment, is beneficial,” Dr. Vaughn said.

The best medication choice is enoxaparin (Lovenox), which can be given once a day, as opposed to heparin, which needs to be given via injection three times a day, she said.

“Prophylactic dose anticoagulation is typically given by an injection under the skin, but a lot of times, I’ve had patients tell me they feel like a human pin cushion and have all these bruises from being stuck with needles every day, which I can totally relate to,” she said.

“It is important for us as clinicians to explain that we’re having to poke our patients because it is good for them and will help them fight COVID,” she added. “Also having the once-a-day option is going to be a lot better for adherence, and adherence to the protocol, not missing any days, is key to the better outcome.”

Dr. Vaughn and her team reviewed the charts of 1,351 patients (48% women, 49% Black, median age 64 [range 52-75]) who were hospitalized throughout Michigan during the first several months of the COVID-19 pandemic, from March to June 2020.

Only 18 patients (1.3%) had a confirmed VTE and 219 patients (16.2%) received treatment-dose anticoagulation.

The researchers noted that use of treatment-dose anticoagulation without imaging ranged from 0% to 29% across hospitals and increased significantly over time.

Of the 1,127 patients who received anticoagulation, 392 (34.8%) missed 2 days or more of prophylaxis.

In addition, there were varying rates of missed prophylaxis among the hospitals, from 11% to 61%, but these rates decreased markedly over time.

Missed doses were associated with a higher 60-day mortality (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.31; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.67), but not in-hospital mortality (aHR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.91-1.03).

Compared with no anticoagulation, receiving any dose of anticoagulation was associated with lower in-hospital mortality.

However, only prophylactic-dose anticoagulation remained associated with lower mortality at 60 days. The adjusted hazard ratio for prophylactic-dose anticoagulation was 0.71 (95% CI, 0.51-0.90), compared with 0.92 (95% CI, 0.63-1.35) for treatment-dose anticoagulation.
 

Study boosts confidence

Despite its limitations, the study should make clinicians more confident that the use of prophylactic anticoagulation is warranted for hospitalized patients with COVID-19, write Andrew B. Dicks, MD, and Ido Weinberg, MD, from Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, in an invited commentary.

“Practically, we still lack the granular data we need to help guide us in patient-by-patient decision-making – such as anticoagulation agent choice, dosage, and duration of therapy – especially as dictated by acuity of patient illness,” Dr. Dicks and Dr. Weinberg note.

“While we still await the data from randomized controlled trials to guide the optimal anticoagulation dose and duration, this study adds significant merit to the previously published recommendations from several different medical organizations regarding the use of prophylactic anticoagulation in hospitalized patients with COVID-19,” Dr. Dicks told this news organization.

The study was supported by Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Michigan and Blue Care Network as part of their Value Partnerships program. Dr. Vaughn has reported receiving speaking fees from Thermo Fisher Scientific. Dr. Dicks and Dr. Weinberg have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

In the absence of formal clinical trials, pediatricians are racing to determine the efficacy and risks of currently used therapies for the SARS-CoV-2–linked multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C).

That requires rapid pragmatic evaluation of therapies. Two real-world observational studies published online June 16 in The New England Journal of Medicine do that, with differing results.

In the Overcoming COVID-19 study, investigators assessed initial therapy and outcomes for patients with MIS-C using surveillance data from 58 pediatric hospitals nationwide.

The results suggest that patients with MIS-C who were younger than 21 years of age and who were initially treated with intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) plus glucocorticoids fared better in terms of cardiovascular function.

The study included 518 children (median age, 8.7 years) who were admitted to the hospital between March and October 2020 and who received at least one immunomodulatory therapy. In a propensity score–matched analysis, those given IVIG plus glucocorticoids (n = 103) had a lower risk for the primary outcome of cardiovascular dysfunction on or after day 2 than those given IVIG alone (n = 103), at 17% versus 31% (risk ratio, 0.56; 95% confidence interval, 0.34-0.94).

Risks for individual aspects of the study’s composite outcome were also lower with IVIG plus glucocorticoids. Left ventricular dysfunction occurred in 8% and 17%, respectively (RR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.19-1.15). Shock requiring vasopressor use emerged in 13% and 24%, respectively (RR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.29-1.00).

In addition, there were fewer cases in which adjunctive therapy was given on day one among those who received combination therapy than among those who received IVIG alone, at 34% versus 70% (RR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.36-0.65), but the risk for fever was not lower on or after day two (31% and 40%, respectively; RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.53-1.13).

Lead author Mary Beth F. Son, MD, director of the rheumatology program at Boston Children’s Hospital, who is also associate professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School, stressed that the study did not assess which MIS-C patients should receive treatment. “Rather, we studied children who had been treated with one of two initial regimens and then assessed short-term outcomes,” she told this news organization.

Going forward, it will be important to study which children should receive immunomodulatory treatment, Dr. Son said. “Specifically, can the less ill children receive IVIG alone or no treatment? This is an unanswered question at the moment, which could be addressed with a randomized controlled trial.”

Future directions, she added, will include assessing long-term cardiac outcomes for patients with MIS-C as well as studying outpatient regimens, especially those that involve steroids.

Earlier this year, French investigators found better outcomes with combined corticosteroids and IVIG than with IVIG alone. They suggested that combination therapy should be the standard of care, given the present state of therapeutic knowledge.
 

Maybe not so standard

Different results emerged, however, from an international study of MIS-C that compared three, rather than two, treatment approaches. Collaborators from the Best Available Treatment Study for MIS-C (BATS) evaluated data for 614 children with suspected MIS-C between June 2020 and February 2021 in 32 countries and found no substantial differences in recovery among children whose primary treatment was IVIG alone, IVIG plus glucocorticoids, or glucocorticoids alone.

The study by Andrew J. McArdle, MB BChir, MSC, a clinical research fellow at Imperial College London, and colleagues was published June 16 in The New England Journal of Medicine.

In the BATS cohort, 246 received IVIG alone, 208 received IVIG plus glucocorticoids, and 99 received glucocorticoids alone. Twenty-two patients received other combinations, including biologics, and 39 received no immunomodulatory therapy.

Among patients who were included in the primary analysis, death occurred or inotropic or ventilatory support was employed in 56 of 180 of the patients who received IVIG plus glucocorticoids, compared with 44 of 211 patients treated with IVIG alone, for an adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of 0.77 (95% CI, 0.33-1.82). Among those who received glucocorticoids alone, 17 of 83 met the primary endpoint of death or inotropic or ventilatory support, for an aOR relative to IVIG alone of 0.54 (95% CI, 0.22-1.33).

After adjustments, the likelihood for reduced disease severity was similar in the two groups relative to IVIG alone, at 0.90 for IVIG plus glucocorticoids and 0.93 for glucocorticoids alone. Time to reduction in disease severity was also comparable across all groups.

Some of the differences between the U.S. study and the global studies could be the result of the larger size of the international cohort and possibly a difference in the strains of virus in the United States and abroad, according to S. Sexson Tejtel, MD, PhD, MPH, a pediatric cardiologist at Texas Children’s Hospital and an assistant professor at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas. “Some strains make children sicker than others, and they’re going to need more treatment,” said Dr. Sexson Tejtel, who was not involved in either study.

Dr. Sexson Tejtel also noted that the U.S. researchers did not assess outcomes among children treated with steroids alone. “It would be interesting to know what steroids alone look like in the U.S. MIS-C population,” she said in an interview.

BATS corresponding author Michael Levin, MBE, PhD, FRCPCH, an Imperial College professor of pediatrics and international child health, told this news organization that the differing results may have arisen because of the international study’s three-treatment focus, its wider spectrum of patients, and its different endpoints: Death and inotropic support on or after day 2, versus echocardiographic left ventricular dysfunction or inotropic usage.

Regardless of the differences between the two studies, neither establishes the most effective single or combination treatment, writes Roberta L. DeBiasi, MD, of the Division of Pediatric Infectious Diseases at Children’s National Hospital and Research Institute and George Washington University, Washington, in an accompanying editorial. “Specifically, neither study was powered to include an evaluation of approaches that steer away from broad immunosuppression with glucocorticoids and that focus on more targeted and titratable treatments with biologic agents, such as anakinra and infliximab,” she writes.

Dr. DeBiasi adds that long-term follow-up studies of cardiac and noncardiac outcomes in these patients will launch soon. “Meanwhile, continued collaboration across centers is essential to decreasing the short-term incidence of death and complications,” she writes.

“It will be interesting as we apply results from these studies as they come out to see how they change our practice,” Dr. Sexson Tejtel said. “And it would be good to have some randomized clinical trials.”

For Dr. Levin, the bottom line is that all three treatments are associated with recovery for a majority of children. “This is good news for clinicians who have been guessing which treatment to use,” he said. “Both studies are attempts to provide doctors with some evidence on which to base treatment decisions and are not the final answer. Our study is ongoing, and with larger numbers of patients it may give clearer answers.”

The Overcoming COVID-19 study was funded by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Several coauthors have reported support from industry outside of the submitted work. BATS was funded by the European Union’s Horizons 2020 Program. The study authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. One coauthor’s spouse is employed by GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. DeBiasi and Dr. Sexson Tejtel have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

In the absence of formal clinical trials, pediatricians are racing to determine the efficacy and risks of currently used therapies for the SARS-CoV-2–linked multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C).

That requires rapid pragmatic evaluation of therapies. Two real-world observational studies published online June 16 in The New England Journal of Medicine do that, with differing results.

In the Overcoming COVID-19 study, investigators assessed initial therapy and outcomes for patients with MIS-C using surveillance data from 58 pediatric hospitals nationwide.

The results suggest that patients with MIS-C who were younger than 21 years of age and who were initially treated with intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) plus glucocorticoids fared better in terms of cardiovascular function.

The study included 518 children (median age, 8.7 years) who were admitted to the hospital between March and October 2020 and who received at least one immunomodulatory therapy. In a propensity score–matched analysis, those given IVIG plus glucocorticoids (n = 103) had a lower risk for the primary outcome of cardiovascular dysfunction on or after day 2 than those given IVIG alone (n = 103), at 17% versus 31% (risk ratio, 0.56; 95% confidence interval, 0.34-0.94).

Risks for individual aspects of the study’s composite outcome were also lower with IVIG plus glucocorticoids. Left ventricular dysfunction occurred in 8% and 17%, respectively (RR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.19-1.15). Shock requiring vasopressor use emerged in 13% and 24%, respectively (RR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.29-1.00).

In addition, there were fewer cases in which adjunctive therapy was given on day one among those who received combination therapy than among those who received IVIG alone, at 34% versus 70% (RR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.36-0.65), but the risk for fever was not lower on or after day two (31% and 40%, respectively; RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.53-1.13).

Lead author Mary Beth F. Son, MD, director of the rheumatology program at Boston Children’s Hospital, who is also associate professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School, stressed that the study did not assess which MIS-C patients should receive treatment. “Rather, we studied children who had been treated with one of two initial regimens and then assessed short-term outcomes,” she told this news organization.

Going forward, it will be important to study which children should receive immunomodulatory treatment, Dr. Son said. “Specifically, can the less ill children receive IVIG alone or no treatment? This is an unanswered question at the moment, which could be addressed with a randomized controlled trial.”

Future directions, she added, will include assessing long-term cardiac outcomes for patients with MIS-C as well as studying outpatient regimens, especially those that involve steroids.

Earlier this year, French investigators found better outcomes with combined corticosteroids and IVIG than with IVIG alone. They suggested that combination therapy should be the standard of care, given the present state of therapeutic knowledge.
 

Maybe not so standard

Different results emerged, however, from an international study of MIS-C that compared three, rather than two, treatment approaches. Collaborators from the Best Available Treatment Study for MIS-C (BATS) evaluated data for 614 children with suspected MIS-C between June 2020 and February 2021 in 32 countries and found no substantial differences in recovery among children whose primary treatment was IVIG alone, IVIG plus glucocorticoids, or glucocorticoids alone.

The study by Andrew J. McArdle, MB BChir, MSC, a clinical research fellow at Imperial College London, and colleagues was published June 16 in The New England Journal of Medicine.

In the BATS cohort, 246 received IVIG alone, 208 received IVIG plus glucocorticoids, and 99 received glucocorticoids alone. Twenty-two patients received other combinations, including biologics, and 39 received no immunomodulatory therapy.

Among patients who were included in the primary analysis, death occurred or inotropic or ventilatory support was employed in 56 of 180 of the patients who received IVIG plus glucocorticoids, compared with 44 of 211 patients treated with IVIG alone, for an adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of 0.77 (95% CI, 0.33-1.82). Among those who received glucocorticoids alone, 17 of 83 met the primary endpoint of death or inotropic or ventilatory support, for an aOR relative to IVIG alone of 0.54 (95% CI, 0.22-1.33).

After adjustments, the likelihood for reduced disease severity was similar in the two groups relative to IVIG alone, at 0.90 for IVIG plus glucocorticoids and 0.93 for glucocorticoids alone. Time to reduction in disease severity was also comparable across all groups.

Some of the differences between the U.S. study and the global studies could be the result of the larger size of the international cohort and possibly a difference in the strains of virus in the United States and abroad, according to S. Sexson Tejtel, MD, PhD, MPH, a pediatric cardiologist at Texas Children’s Hospital and an assistant professor at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas. “Some strains make children sicker than others, and they’re going to need more treatment,” said Dr. Sexson Tejtel, who was not involved in either study.

Dr. Sexson Tejtel also noted that the U.S. researchers did not assess outcomes among children treated with steroids alone. “It would be interesting to know what steroids alone look like in the U.S. MIS-C population,” she said in an interview.

BATS corresponding author Michael Levin, MBE, PhD, FRCPCH, an Imperial College professor of pediatrics and international child health, told this news organization that the differing results may have arisen because of the international study’s three-treatment focus, its wider spectrum of patients, and its different endpoints: Death and inotropic support on or after day 2, versus echocardiographic left ventricular dysfunction or inotropic usage.

Regardless of the differences between the two studies, neither establishes the most effective single or combination treatment, writes Roberta L. DeBiasi, MD, of the Division of Pediatric Infectious Diseases at Children’s National Hospital and Research Institute and George Washington University, Washington, in an accompanying editorial. “Specifically, neither study was powered to include an evaluation of approaches that steer away from broad immunosuppression with glucocorticoids and that focus on more targeted and titratable treatments with biologic agents, such as anakinra and infliximab,” she writes.

Dr. DeBiasi adds that long-term follow-up studies of cardiac and noncardiac outcomes in these patients will launch soon. “Meanwhile, continued collaboration across centers is essential to decreasing the short-term incidence of death and complications,” she writes.

“It will be interesting as we apply results from these studies as they come out to see how they change our practice,” Dr. Sexson Tejtel said. “And it would be good to have some randomized clinical trials.”

For Dr. Levin, the bottom line is that all three treatments are associated with recovery for a majority of children. “This is good news for clinicians who have been guessing which treatment to use,” he said. “Both studies are attempts to provide doctors with some evidence on which to base treatment decisions and are not the final answer. Our study is ongoing, and with larger numbers of patients it may give clearer answers.”

The Overcoming COVID-19 study was funded by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Several coauthors have reported support from industry outside of the submitted work. BATS was funded by the European Union’s Horizons 2020 Program. The study authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. One coauthor’s spouse is employed by GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. DeBiasi and Dr. Sexson Tejtel have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

In the absence of formal clinical trials, pediatricians are racing to determine the efficacy and risks of currently used therapies for the SARS-CoV-2–linked multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C).

That requires rapid pragmatic evaluation of therapies. Two real-world observational studies published online June 16 in The New England Journal of Medicine do that, with differing results.

In the Overcoming COVID-19 study, investigators assessed initial therapy and outcomes for patients with MIS-C using surveillance data from 58 pediatric hospitals nationwide.

The results suggest that patients with MIS-C who were younger than 21 years of age and who were initially treated with intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) plus glucocorticoids fared better in terms of cardiovascular function.

The study included 518 children (median age, 8.7 years) who were admitted to the hospital between March and October 2020 and who received at least one immunomodulatory therapy. In a propensity score–matched analysis, those given IVIG plus glucocorticoids (n = 103) had a lower risk for the primary outcome of cardiovascular dysfunction on or after day 2 than those given IVIG alone (n = 103), at 17% versus 31% (risk ratio, 0.56; 95% confidence interval, 0.34-0.94).

Risks for individual aspects of the study’s composite outcome were also lower with IVIG plus glucocorticoids. Left ventricular dysfunction occurred in 8% and 17%, respectively (RR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.19-1.15). Shock requiring vasopressor use emerged in 13% and 24%, respectively (RR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.29-1.00).

In addition, there were fewer cases in which adjunctive therapy was given on day one among those who received combination therapy than among those who received IVIG alone, at 34% versus 70% (RR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.36-0.65), but the risk for fever was not lower on or after day two (31% and 40%, respectively; RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.53-1.13).

Lead author Mary Beth F. Son, MD, director of the rheumatology program at Boston Children’s Hospital, who is also associate professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School, stressed that the study did not assess which MIS-C patients should receive treatment. “Rather, we studied children who had been treated with one of two initial regimens and then assessed short-term outcomes,” she told this news organization.

Going forward, it will be important to study which children should receive immunomodulatory treatment, Dr. Son said. “Specifically, can the less ill children receive IVIG alone or no treatment? This is an unanswered question at the moment, which could be addressed with a randomized controlled trial.”

Future directions, she added, will include assessing long-term cardiac outcomes for patients with MIS-C as well as studying outpatient regimens, especially those that involve steroids.

Earlier this year, French investigators found better outcomes with combined corticosteroids and IVIG than with IVIG alone. They suggested that combination therapy should be the standard of care, given the present state of therapeutic knowledge.
 

Maybe not so standard

Different results emerged, however, from an international study of MIS-C that compared three, rather than two, treatment approaches. Collaborators from the Best Available Treatment Study for MIS-C (BATS) evaluated data for 614 children with suspected MIS-C between June 2020 and February 2021 in 32 countries and found no substantial differences in recovery among children whose primary treatment was IVIG alone, IVIG plus glucocorticoids, or glucocorticoids alone.

The study by Andrew J. McArdle, MB BChir, MSC, a clinical research fellow at Imperial College London, and colleagues was published June 16 in The New England Journal of Medicine.

In the BATS cohort, 246 received IVIG alone, 208 received IVIG plus glucocorticoids, and 99 received glucocorticoids alone. Twenty-two patients received other combinations, including biologics, and 39 received no immunomodulatory therapy.

Among patients who were included in the primary analysis, death occurred or inotropic or ventilatory support was employed in 56 of 180 of the patients who received IVIG plus glucocorticoids, compared with 44 of 211 patients treated with IVIG alone, for an adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of 0.77 (95% CI, 0.33-1.82). Among those who received glucocorticoids alone, 17 of 83 met the primary endpoint of death or inotropic or ventilatory support, for an aOR relative to IVIG alone of 0.54 (95% CI, 0.22-1.33).

After adjustments, the likelihood for reduced disease severity was similar in the two groups relative to IVIG alone, at 0.90 for IVIG plus glucocorticoids and 0.93 for glucocorticoids alone. Time to reduction in disease severity was also comparable across all groups.

Some of the differences between the U.S. study and the global studies could be the result of the larger size of the international cohort and possibly a difference in the strains of virus in the United States and abroad, according to S. Sexson Tejtel, MD, PhD, MPH, a pediatric cardiologist at Texas Children’s Hospital and an assistant professor at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas. “Some strains make children sicker than others, and they’re going to need more treatment,” said Dr. Sexson Tejtel, who was not involved in either study.

Dr. Sexson Tejtel also noted that the U.S. researchers did not assess outcomes among children treated with steroids alone. “It would be interesting to know what steroids alone look like in the U.S. MIS-C population,” she said in an interview.

BATS corresponding author Michael Levin, MBE, PhD, FRCPCH, an Imperial College professor of pediatrics and international child health, told this news organization that the differing results may have arisen because of the international study’s three-treatment focus, its wider spectrum of patients, and its different endpoints: Death and inotropic support on or after day 2, versus echocardiographic left ventricular dysfunction or inotropic usage.

Regardless of the differences between the two studies, neither establishes the most effective single or combination treatment, writes Roberta L. DeBiasi, MD, of the Division of Pediatric Infectious Diseases at Children’s National Hospital and Research Institute and George Washington University, Washington, in an accompanying editorial. “Specifically, neither study was powered to include an evaluation of approaches that steer away from broad immunosuppression with glucocorticoids and that focus on more targeted and titratable treatments with biologic agents, such as anakinra and infliximab,” she writes.

Dr. DeBiasi adds that long-term follow-up studies of cardiac and noncardiac outcomes in these patients will launch soon. “Meanwhile, continued collaboration across centers is essential to decreasing the short-term incidence of death and complications,” she writes.

“It will be interesting as we apply results from these studies as they come out to see how they change our practice,” Dr. Sexson Tejtel said. “And it would be good to have some randomized clinical trials.”

For Dr. Levin, the bottom line is that all three treatments are associated with recovery for a majority of children. “This is good news for clinicians who have been guessing which treatment to use,” he said. “Both studies are attempts to provide doctors with some evidence on which to base treatment decisions and are not the final answer. Our study is ongoing, and with larger numbers of patients it may give clearer answers.”

The Overcoming COVID-19 study was funded by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Several coauthors have reported support from industry outside of the submitted work. BATS was funded by the European Union’s Horizons 2020 Program. The study authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. One coauthor’s spouse is employed by GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. DeBiasi and Dr. Sexson Tejtel have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Agents that reverse the effect of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are highly effective in patients with severe bleeding, but mortality rates remain high despite their use, a meta-analysis shows.

Effective hemostasis was achieved in 78.5% of patients treated with a reversal agent, whereas failure to achieve hemostasis was associated with more than a threefold higher relative risk for death (relative risk, 3.63; 95% confidence interval, 2.56-5.16).

“This has implications in practice because it emphasizes the need for achieving effective hemostasis, if not with only one agent, trying other agents or treatment modalities, because it is a strong predictor of survival,” lead author Antonio Gómez-Outes, MD, PhD, said in an interview.

The bad news, he said, is that the mortality rate was still significant, at 17.7%, and approximately half of patients with DOAC-related severe intracranial bleeding survived with long-term moderate/severe disability.

“The lesson is to prevent these bleeding events because once they appear, even if you give an antidote, the outcome is poor, particularly for intracranial bleeding,” said Dr. Gómez-Outes, division of pharmacology and clinical drug evaluation, Spanish Agency for Medicines and Medical Devices, Madrid.

To put this in context, mortality rates were close to 50% after intracranial bleeding a decade ago when there were no antidotes or reversal agents, he observed. “So to some extent, patient care has improved, and the outcome has improved, but there is a long road to improve regarding disability.”

More than 100,000 DOAC-related major bleeding cases occur each year in the United States and European Union, Dr. Gómez-Outes said, and about half are severe enough to require hospitalization and potentially the use of a reversal agent. These include idarucizumab (Praxbind) for dabigatran reversal and prothombin complex concentrates (4CCC) or andexanet alpha (Andexxa) for reversal of direct factor Xa inhibitors like rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban.

As reported in the June 22 issue of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, the meta-analysis comprised 4,735 patients (mean age, 77 years; 57% male) with severe DOAC-related bleeding who received 4PCC (n = 2,688), idarucizumab (n = 1,111), or andexanet (n = 936) in 60 studies between January 2010 and December 2020.

Atrial fibrillation (AFib) was the most common reason for use of a DOAC (82%), followed by venous thromboembolism (14%). Rivaroxaban was used in 36%, apixaban in 32%, dabigatran in 31%, and edoxaban in 1%.

The index bleeding event was intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) in 55%. Anticoagulation was restarted in 57% of patients an average of 11 days after admission.

Mortality rates were 20.2% in patients with ICH and 15.4% in those with extracranial bleeding. There were no differences in death rates by reversal agent used, type of study, risk for bias, or study sponsorship in meta-regression analysis.

Rebleeding occurred in 13.2% of patients; 82.0% of these events were described as an ICH, and 78.0% occurred after anticoagulation was restarted.

The overall rate of thromboembolism was 4.6%. The risk was particularly high with andexanet, at 10.7%, and relatively low with idarucizumab (3.8%) and 4PCC (4.3%), the authors note.

“Our meta-analysis suggests specific reversal with andexanet is not superior to unspecific reversal with 4PCC, and that’s good news because many centers, in many countries, have no access to specific antidotes that are more costly,” Dr. Gómez-Outes said. “4PCC is an effective and relatively safe drug, so it’s still a good option for these patients.”

Labeling for andexanet includes a warning for thromboembolic events, but in the absence of direct comparisons, the findings should be interpreted with caution, he added. Further insights are expected from an ongoing randomized trial of andexanet and standard of care in 900 patients who present with acute ICH less than 15 hours after taking an oral factor Xa inhibitor. The preliminary completion date is set for 2023.

“The meta-analysis raises awareness about the rates of mortality and thromboembolism after reversal agent administration, although understanding the implications of these data is challenging,” Christopher Granger, MD, and Sean P. Pokomey, MD, MBA, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., say in an accompanying editorial.

The fact that failure to achieve hemostasis was associated with death is expected and might be related to the way hemostasis was defined, rather than the actual failure of the hemostatic treatments, they suggest. “The prothrombotic effects of each agent, including andexanet, need to be better understood, as clinicians work toward including reversal agents into algorithms for bleeding management.”

Effective hemostasis was defined in the studies through various methods as: “Excellent/good” using the Sarode and ANNEXA-4 scales; “yes” in the International Society on Thrombosis and Hemostasis Scale; and with other scales and through clinical judgment.

Although the size of the meta-analysis dwarfs previous reviews, the editorialists and authors point out that 47 of the 60 studies were retrospective, only two had control groups, and 45 had a high risk for bias.

In general, there was also poor reporting of key clinical data, such as postbleeding anticoagulation management, and a limitation of the mortality analysis is that it was based in selected patients with effective hemostasis assessed within 48 hours, which may not capture early deaths, the authors note.

“The morbidity and mortality from ischemic strokes as a result of undertreatment of stroke prevention in patients with AFib continue to dwarf the bleeding related mortality among patients with AFib and on DOACs, and thus the number one priority is to treat nearly all patients with AFib with a DOAC,” Dr. Granger and Dr. Pokomey conclude. “The availability of reversal agents for DOACs should provide reassurance, with another tool in our armamentarium, to providers to prescribe OACs for stroke prevention.”

No funding/grant support was received to conduct the study. Coauthor Ramón Lecumberri has received personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim and Bristol Myers Squibb outside the submitted work. All other authors report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Granger has received research and consulting fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, Janssen, Boston Scientific, Apple, AstraZeneca, Novartis, AbbVie, Biomed, CeleCor, GSK, Novartis, Medtronic, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Philips, Rho, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Dr. Pokomey has received modest consulting support from Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Janssen, and Zoll; modest research support from Gilead, Boston Scientific, Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, and Janssen; and significant research support from the FDA.

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

Agents that reverse the effect of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are highly effective in patients with severe bleeding, but mortality rates remain high despite their use, a meta-analysis shows.

Effective hemostasis was achieved in 78.5% of patients treated with a reversal agent, whereas failure to achieve hemostasis was associated with more than a threefold higher relative risk for death (relative risk, 3.63; 95% confidence interval, 2.56-5.16).

“This has implications in practice because it emphasizes the need for achieving effective hemostasis, if not with only one agent, trying other agents or treatment modalities, because it is a strong predictor of survival,” lead author Antonio Gómez-Outes, MD, PhD, said in an interview.

The bad news, he said, is that the mortality rate was still significant, at 17.7%, and approximately half of patients with DOAC-related severe intracranial bleeding survived with long-term moderate/severe disability.

“The lesson is to prevent these bleeding events because once they appear, even if you give an antidote, the outcome is poor, particularly for intracranial bleeding,” said Dr. Gómez-Outes, division of pharmacology and clinical drug evaluation, Spanish Agency for Medicines and Medical Devices, Madrid.

To put this in context, mortality rates were close to 50% after intracranial bleeding a decade ago when there were no antidotes or reversal agents, he observed. “So to some extent, patient care has improved, and the outcome has improved, but there is a long road to improve regarding disability.”

More than 100,000 DOAC-related major bleeding cases occur each year in the United States and European Union, Dr. Gómez-Outes said, and about half are severe enough to require hospitalization and potentially the use of a reversal agent. These include idarucizumab (Praxbind) for dabigatran reversal and prothombin complex concentrates (4CCC) or andexanet alpha (Andexxa) for reversal of direct factor Xa inhibitors like rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban.

As reported in the June 22 issue of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, the meta-analysis comprised 4,735 patients (mean age, 77 years; 57% male) with severe DOAC-related bleeding who received 4PCC (n = 2,688), idarucizumab (n = 1,111), or andexanet (n = 936) in 60 studies between January 2010 and December 2020.

Atrial fibrillation (AFib) was the most common reason for use of a DOAC (82%), followed by venous thromboembolism (14%). Rivaroxaban was used in 36%, apixaban in 32%, dabigatran in 31%, and edoxaban in 1%.

The index bleeding event was intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) in 55%. Anticoagulation was restarted in 57% of patients an average of 11 days after admission.

Mortality rates were 20.2% in patients with ICH and 15.4% in those with extracranial bleeding. There were no differences in death rates by reversal agent used, type of study, risk for bias, or study sponsorship in meta-regression analysis.

Rebleeding occurred in 13.2% of patients; 82.0% of these events were described as an ICH, and 78.0% occurred after anticoagulation was restarted.

The overall rate of thromboembolism was 4.6%. The risk was particularly high with andexanet, at 10.7%, and relatively low with idarucizumab (3.8%) and 4PCC (4.3%), the authors note.

“Our meta-analysis suggests specific reversal with andexanet is not superior to unspecific reversal with 4PCC, and that’s good news because many centers, in many countries, have no access to specific antidotes that are more costly,” Dr. Gómez-Outes said. “4PCC is an effective and relatively safe drug, so it’s still a good option for these patients.”

Labeling for andexanet includes a warning for thromboembolic events, but in the absence of direct comparisons, the findings should be interpreted with caution, he added. Further insights are expected from an ongoing randomized trial of andexanet and standard of care in 900 patients who present with acute ICH less than 15 hours after taking an oral factor Xa inhibitor. The preliminary completion date is set for 2023.

“The meta-analysis raises awareness about the rates of mortality and thromboembolism after reversal agent administration, although understanding the implications of these data is challenging,” Christopher Granger, MD, and Sean P. Pokomey, MD, MBA, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., say in an accompanying editorial.

The fact that failure to achieve hemostasis was associated with death is expected and might be related to the way hemostasis was defined, rather than the actual failure of the hemostatic treatments, they suggest. “The prothrombotic effects of each agent, including andexanet, need to be better understood, as clinicians work toward including reversal agents into algorithms for bleeding management.”

Effective hemostasis was defined in the studies through various methods as: “Excellent/good” using the Sarode and ANNEXA-4 scales; “yes” in the International Society on Thrombosis and Hemostasis Scale; and with other scales and through clinical judgment.

Although the size of the meta-analysis dwarfs previous reviews, the editorialists and authors point out that 47 of the 60 studies were retrospective, only two had control groups, and 45 had a high risk for bias.

In general, there was also poor reporting of key clinical data, such as postbleeding anticoagulation management, and a limitation of the mortality analysis is that it was based in selected patients with effective hemostasis assessed within 48 hours, which may not capture early deaths, the authors note.

“The morbidity and mortality from ischemic strokes as a result of undertreatment of stroke prevention in patients with AFib continue to dwarf the bleeding related mortality among patients with AFib and on DOACs, and thus the number one priority is to treat nearly all patients with AFib with a DOAC,” Dr. Granger and Dr. Pokomey conclude. “The availability of reversal agents for DOACs should provide reassurance, with another tool in our armamentarium, to providers to prescribe OACs for stroke prevention.”

No funding/grant support was received to conduct the study. Coauthor Ramón Lecumberri has received personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim and Bristol Myers Squibb outside the submitted work. All other authors report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Granger has received research and consulting fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, Janssen, Boston Scientific, Apple, AstraZeneca, Novartis, AbbVie, Biomed, CeleCor, GSK, Novartis, Medtronic, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Philips, Rho, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Dr. Pokomey has received modest consulting support from Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Janssen, and Zoll; modest research support from Gilead, Boston Scientific, Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, and Janssen; and significant research support from the FDA.

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

Agents that reverse the effect of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are highly effective in patients with severe bleeding, but mortality rates remain high despite their use, a meta-analysis shows.

Effective hemostasis was achieved in 78.5% of patients treated with a reversal agent, whereas failure to achieve hemostasis was associated with more than a threefold higher relative risk for death (relative risk, 3.63; 95% confidence interval, 2.56-5.16).

“This has implications in practice because it emphasizes the need for achieving effective hemostasis, if not with only one agent, trying other agents or treatment modalities, because it is a strong predictor of survival,” lead author Antonio Gómez-Outes, MD, PhD, said in an interview.

The bad news, he said, is that the mortality rate was still significant, at 17.7%, and approximately half of patients with DOAC-related severe intracranial bleeding survived with long-term moderate/severe disability.

“The lesson is to prevent these bleeding events because once they appear, even if you give an antidote, the outcome is poor, particularly for intracranial bleeding,” said Dr. Gómez-Outes, division of pharmacology and clinical drug evaluation, Spanish Agency for Medicines and Medical Devices, Madrid.

To put this in context, mortality rates were close to 50% after intracranial bleeding a decade ago when there were no antidotes or reversal agents, he observed. “So to some extent, patient care has improved, and the outcome has improved, but there is a long road to improve regarding disability.”

More than 100,000 DOAC-related major bleeding cases occur each year in the United States and European Union, Dr. Gómez-Outes said, and about half are severe enough to require hospitalization and potentially the use of a reversal agent. These include idarucizumab (Praxbind) for dabigatran reversal and prothombin complex concentrates (4CCC) or andexanet alpha (Andexxa) for reversal of direct factor Xa inhibitors like rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban.

As reported in the June 22 issue of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, the meta-analysis comprised 4,735 patients (mean age, 77 years; 57% male) with severe DOAC-related bleeding who received 4PCC (n = 2,688), idarucizumab (n = 1,111), or andexanet (n = 936) in 60 studies between January 2010 and December 2020.

Atrial fibrillation (AFib) was the most common reason for use of a DOAC (82%), followed by venous thromboembolism (14%). Rivaroxaban was used in 36%, apixaban in 32%, dabigatran in 31%, and edoxaban in 1%.

The index bleeding event was intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) in 55%. Anticoagulation was restarted in 57% of patients an average of 11 days after admission.

Mortality rates were 20.2% in patients with ICH and 15.4% in those with extracranial bleeding. There were no differences in death rates by reversal agent used, type of study, risk for bias, or study sponsorship in meta-regression analysis.

Rebleeding occurred in 13.2% of patients; 82.0% of these events were described as an ICH, and 78.0% occurred after anticoagulation was restarted.

The overall rate of thromboembolism was 4.6%. The risk was particularly high with andexanet, at 10.7%, and relatively low with idarucizumab (3.8%) and 4PCC (4.3%), the authors note.

“Our meta-analysis suggests specific reversal with andexanet is not superior to unspecific reversal with 4PCC, and that’s good news because many centers, in many countries, have no access to specific antidotes that are more costly,” Dr. Gómez-Outes said. “4PCC is an effective and relatively safe drug, so it’s still a good option for these patients.”

Labeling for andexanet includes a warning for thromboembolic events, but in the absence of direct comparisons, the findings should be interpreted with caution, he added. Further insights are expected from an ongoing randomized trial of andexanet and standard of care in 900 patients who present with acute ICH less than 15 hours after taking an oral factor Xa inhibitor. The preliminary completion date is set for 2023.

“The meta-analysis raises awareness about the rates of mortality and thromboembolism after reversal agent administration, although understanding the implications of these data is challenging,” Christopher Granger, MD, and Sean P. Pokomey, MD, MBA, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., say in an accompanying editorial.

The fact that failure to achieve hemostasis was associated with death is expected and might be related to the way hemostasis was defined, rather than the actual failure of the hemostatic treatments, they suggest. “The prothrombotic effects of each agent, including andexanet, need to be better understood, as clinicians work toward including reversal agents into algorithms for bleeding management.”

Effective hemostasis was defined in the studies through various methods as: “Excellent/good” using the Sarode and ANNEXA-4 scales; “yes” in the International Society on Thrombosis and Hemostasis Scale; and with other scales and through clinical judgment.

Although the size of the meta-analysis dwarfs previous reviews, the editorialists and authors point out that 47 of the 60 studies were retrospective, only two had control groups, and 45 had a high risk for bias.

In general, there was also poor reporting of key clinical data, such as postbleeding anticoagulation management, and a limitation of the mortality analysis is that it was based in selected patients with effective hemostasis assessed within 48 hours, which may not capture early deaths, the authors note.

“The morbidity and mortality from ischemic strokes as a result of undertreatment of stroke prevention in patients with AFib continue to dwarf the bleeding related mortality among patients with AFib and on DOACs, and thus the number one priority is to treat nearly all patients with AFib with a DOAC,” Dr. Granger and Dr. Pokomey conclude. “The availability of reversal agents for DOACs should provide reassurance, with another tool in our armamentarium, to providers to prescribe OACs for stroke prevention.”

No funding/grant support was received to conduct the study. Coauthor Ramón Lecumberri has received personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim and Bristol Myers Squibb outside the submitted work. All other authors report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Granger has received research and consulting fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, Janssen, Boston Scientific, Apple, AstraZeneca, Novartis, AbbVie, Biomed, CeleCor, GSK, Novartis, Medtronic, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Philips, Rho, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Dr. Pokomey has received modest consulting support from Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Janssen, and Zoll; modest research support from Gilead, Boston Scientific, Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, and Janssen; and significant research support from the FDA.

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

Gerald E. Harmon, MD, a family physician in South Carolina whose patients sometimes leave produce in the back of his pickup truck, has practiced medicine during military deployments and during 15-hour shifts in the COVID-19 pandemic.

He has encountered “all manner of unexpected situations” and feels “more than prepared” to serve as president of the American Medical Association, he said.

At the same time, “I still find myself a little nervous about it,” Dr. Harmon said in an interview the day after he was sworn in as president. “I would be less than candid if I didn’t tell you that. I don’t mean intimidated. ... It’s almost like before an athletic event.”

Dr. Harmon was sworn in June 15 as the 176th president of the AMA during the virtual Special Meeting of the AMA House of Delegates. He follows Susan R. Bailey, MD, an allergist from Fort Worth, Tex., in leading the organization, which has more than 270,000 members.
 

Advancing health equity

During his inaugural address, Dr. Harmon discussed the pandemic and the AMA’s plan to advance health equity.

COVID-19 “has revealed enormous gaps in how we care for people and communities in America, demonstrated in the disproportionate impact of this pandemic on communities of color and in the weaknesses of our underfunded and underresourced public health infrastructure,” Dr. Harmon said.

He described medical professionals as being “at war against seemingly formidable adversaries,” including the pandemic, the effects of prolonged isolation on emotional and behavioral health, and political and racial tension. There is an “immense battle to rid our health system – and society – of health disparities and racism,” he said. “As we face these battles, we must remember that our actions as physicians and as leaders will have far-reaching consequences.”

Other challenges before the AMA include vaccinating patients, recovering from the ongoing pandemic, removing unnecessary obstacles to care, ending an epidemic of drug overdoses, improving outcomes for patients with chronic disease, incorporating technology in ways that benefit doctors and patients, and preparing future physicians, Dr. Harmon noted.

“We are going to embed the principles of equity and racial justice within the AMA and throughout our health system,” added Dr. Harmon, who has been an AMA board member since 2013 and served as board chair from 2017 to 2018. He highlighted the AMA’s strategic plan, released in May 2021, to advance health equity and justice and improve the quality of care for people who have been marginalized.

“Meaningful progress won’t happen until we, as doctors, recognize how profoundly systemic racism influences the health of our patients, and until we commit to taking action within our own spheres of influence,” Dr. Harmon said. “As a family doctor in a very diverse state, I have treated people from all backgrounds, and have seen inequities up close, inequities that understandably lead to distrust.”

Commenting in an interview on JAMA’s controversial tweet and podcast related to structural racism from earlier this year that have been deleted and removed from JAMA’s website, Dr. Harmon said, JAMA maintains editorial independence from the AMA, but that direction from a journal oversight committee could lead to changes at the journal that could help prevent similar incidents.

“We’ll support whatever the journal oversight committee suggests,” Dr. Harmon said.

“We had public statements about [the podcast]. I do think that we’ll be able to move very quickly in a stronger direction to address the issue of systemic racism,” Dr. Harmon said. “The AMA has acknowledged that it is a public health threat. We have acknowledged that it is ... a political description versus a biologic construct. So, I would anticipate that you’ll find changes.”

The AMA began developing its strategic plan to advance equity several years ago, Dr. Harmon noted. “I think we are very well poised to move forward and attack this enemy of health disparity.”
 

AAFP president supporting Dr. Harmon’s inauguration

Among those congratulating Dr. Harmon on his inauguration was Ada Stewart, MD, a fellow family physician and South Carolina resident who is the president of the American Academy of Family Physicians.

“We are very excited that family physician Dr. Gerald Harmon will serve as president of the AMA this coming year,” Dr. Stewart said. “Family medicine encompasses the very essence of medicine – treating the whole person, in the context of family, community, and each individual’s unique circumstances. As a family physician, Dr. Harmon brings important perspectives from the front lines of primary care. His commitment to health equity and evidence-based care, as well as his concern for practice sustainability and physician well-being, will serve him well as he leads the house of medicine into the future.”

Dr. Harmon has practiced as a family medicine specialist in Georgetown, S.C., for more than 30 years. He is a member of the clinical faculty for the Tidelands Health Medical University of South Carolina family medicine residency program, advises a community health system, and is vice president of a multispecialty physician practice. In addition, Dr. Harmon is the medical director of a nonprofit hospice and volunteers as medical supervisor for his local school district.

Dr. Harmon received his undergraduate degree in physics and mathematics from the University of South Carolina, Columbia, and received his medical degree from the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston. He completed a residency training program in family medicine with the U.S. Air Force at Eglin (Fla.) AFB, Florida.

During a 35-year military career, Dr. Harmon served as chief surgeon for the National Guard Bureau and assistant surgeon general for the U.S. Air Force. He retired from the military as a major general.

Dr. Harmon and his wife, Linda, have three married children and eight grandchildren.

Every now and then, a bucket of tomatoes or even a half bushel of corn shows up in the back of Dr. Harmon’s pickup truck, with a note on the window thanking him. “That really touches you deeply,” Dr. Harmon said. “I practice that type of medicine and I’m honored to be able to do that every day.”

[email protected]

Gerald E. Harmon, MD, a family physician in South Carolina whose patients sometimes leave produce in the back of his pickup truck, has practiced medicine during military deployments and during 15-hour shifts in the COVID-19 pandemic.

He has encountered “all manner of unexpected situations” and feels “more than prepared” to serve as president of the American Medical Association, he said.

At the same time, “I still find myself a little nervous about it,” Dr. Harmon said in an interview the day after he was sworn in as president. “I would be less than candid if I didn’t tell you that. I don’t mean intimidated. ... It’s almost like before an athletic event.”

Dr. Harmon was sworn in June 15 as the 176th president of the AMA during the virtual Special Meeting of the AMA House of Delegates. He follows Susan R. Bailey, MD, an allergist from Fort Worth, Tex., in leading the organization, which has more than 270,000 members.
 

Advancing health equity

During his inaugural address, Dr. Harmon discussed the pandemic and the AMA’s plan to advance health equity.

COVID-19 “has revealed enormous gaps in how we care for people and communities in America, demonstrated in the disproportionate impact of this pandemic on communities of color and in the weaknesses of our underfunded and underresourced public health infrastructure,” Dr. Harmon said.

He described medical professionals as being “at war against seemingly formidable adversaries,” including the pandemic, the effects of prolonged isolation on emotional and behavioral health, and political and racial tension. There is an “immense battle to rid our health system – and society – of health disparities and racism,” he said. “As we face these battles, we must remember that our actions as physicians and as leaders will have far-reaching consequences.”

Other challenges before the AMA include vaccinating patients, recovering from the ongoing pandemic, removing unnecessary obstacles to care, ending an epidemic of drug overdoses, improving outcomes for patients with chronic disease, incorporating technology in ways that benefit doctors and patients, and preparing future physicians, Dr. Harmon noted.

“We are going to embed the principles of equity and racial justice within the AMA and throughout our health system,” added Dr. Harmon, who has been an AMA board member since 2013 and served as board chair from 2017 to 2018. He highlighted the AMA’s strategic plan, released in May 2021, to advance health equity and justice and improve the quality of care for people who have been marginalized.

“Meaningful progress won’t happen until we, as doctors, recognize how profoundly systemic racism influences the health of our patients, and until we commit to taking action within our own spheres of influence,” Dr. Harmon said. “As a family doctor in a very diverse state, I have treated people from all backgrounds, and have seen inequities up close, inequities that understandably lead to distrust.”

Commenting in an interview on JAMA’s controversial tweet and podcast related to structural racism from earlier this year that have been deleted and removed from JAMA’s website, Dr. Harmon said, JAMA maintains editorial independence from the AMA, but that direction from a journal oversight committee could lead to changes at the journal that could help prevent similar incidents.

“We’ll support whatever the journal oversight committee suggests,” Dr. Harmon said.

“We had public statements about [the podcast]. I do think that we’ll be able to move very quickly in a stronger direction to address the issue of systemic racism,” Dr. Harmon said. “The AMA has acknowledged that it is a public health threat. We have acknowledged that it is ... a political description versus a biologic construct. So, I would anticipate that you’ll find changes.”

The AMA began developing its strategic plan to advance equity several years ago, Dr. Harmon noted. “I think we are very well poised to move forward and attack this enemy of health disparity.”
 

AAFP president supporting Dr. Harmon’s inauguration

Among those congratulating Dr. Harmon on his inauguration was Ada Stewart, MD, a fellow family physician and South Carolina resident who is the president of the American Academy of Family Physicians.

“We are very excited that family physician Dr. Gerald Harmon will serve as president of the AMA this coming year,” Dr. Stewart said. “Family medicine encompasses the very essence of medicine – treating the whole person, in the context of family, community, and each individual’s unique circumstances. As a family physician, Dr. Harmon brings important perspectives from the front lines of primary care. His commitment to health equity and evidence-based care, as well as his concern for practice sustainability and physician well-being, will serve him well as he leads the house of medicine into the future.”

Dr. Harmon has practiced as a family medicine specialist in Georgetown, S.C., for more than 30 years. He is a member of the clinical faculty for the Tidelands Health Medical University of South Carolina family medicine residency program, advises a community health system, and is vice president of a multispecialty physician practice. In addition, Dr. Harmon is the medical director of a nonprofit hospice and volunteers as medical supervisor for his local school district.

Dr. Harmon received his undergraduate degree in physics and mathematics from the University of South Carolina, Columbia, and received his medical degree from the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston. He completed a residency training program in family medicine with the U.S. Air Force at Eglin (Fla.) AFB, Florida.

During a 35-year military career, Dr. Harmon served as chief surgeon for the National Guard Bureau and assistant surgeon general for the U.S. Air Force. He retired from the military as a major general.

Dr. Harmon and his wife, Linda, have three married children and eight grandchildren.

Every now and then, a bucket of tomatoes or even a half bushel of corn shows up in the back of Dr. Harmon’s pickup truck, with a note on the window thanking him. “That really touches you deeply,” Dr. Harmon said. “I practice that type of medicine and I’m honored to be able to do that every day.”

[email protected]

Gerald E. Harmon, MD, a family physician in South Carolina whose patients sometimes leave produce in the back of his pickup truck, has practiced medicine during military deployments and during 15-hour shifts in the COVID-19 pandemic.

He has encountered “all manner of unexpected situations” and feels “more than prepared” to serve as president of the American Medical Association, he said.

At the same time, “I still find myself a little nervous about it,” Dr. Harmon said in an interview the day after he was sworn in as president. “I would be less than candid if I didn’t tell you that. I don’t mean intimidated. ... It’s almost like before an athletic event.”

Dr. Harmon was sworn in June 15 as the 176th president of the AMA during the virtual Special Meeting of the AMA House of Delegates. He follows Susan R. Bailey, MD, an allergist from Fort Worth, Tex., in leading the organization, which has more than 270,000 members.
 

Advancing health equity

During his inaugural address, Dr. Harmon discussed the pandemic and the AMA’s plan to advance health equity.

COVID-19 “has revealed enormous gaps in how we care for people and communities in America, demonstrated in the disproportionate impact of this pandemic on communities of color and in the weaknesses of our underfunded and underresourced public health infrastructure,” Dr. Harmon said.

He described medical professionals as being “at war against seemingly formidable adversaries,” including the pandemic, the effects of prolonged isolation on emotional and behavioral health, and political and racial tension. There is an “immense battle to rid our health system – and society – of health disparities and racism,” he said. “As we face these battles, we must remember that our actions as physicians and as leaders will have far-reaching consequences.”

Other challenges before the AMA include vaccinating patients, recovering from the ongoing pandemic, removing unnecessary obstacles to care, ending an epidemic of drug overdoses, improving outcomes for patients with chronic disease, incorporating technology in ways that benefit doctors and patients, and preparing future physicians, Dr. Harmon noted.

“We are going to embed the principles of equity and racial justice within the AMA and throughout our health system,” added Dr. Harmon, who has been an AMA board member since 2013 and served as board chair from 2017 to 2018. He highlighted the AMA’s strategic plan, released in May 2021, to advance health equity and justice and improve the quality of care for people who have been marginalized.

“Meaningful progress won’t happen until we, as doctors, recognize how profoundly systemic racism influences the health of our patients, and until we commit to taking action within our own spheres of influence,” Dr. Harmon said. “As a family doctor in a very diverse state, I have treated people from all backgrounds, and have seen inequities up close, inequities that understandably lead to distrust.”

Commenting in an interview on JAMA’s controversial tweet and podcast related to structural racism from earlier this year that have been deleted and removed from JAMA’s website, Dr. Harmon said, JAMA maintains editorial independence from the AMA, but that direction from a journal oversight committee could lead to changes at the journal that could help prevent similar incidents.

“We’ll support whatever the journal oversight committee suggests,” Dr. Harmon said.

“We had public statements about [the podcast]. I do think that we’ll be able to move very quickly in a stronger direction to address the issue of systemic racism,” Dr. Harmon said. “The AMA has acknowledged that it is a public health threat. We have acknowledged that it is ... a political description versus a biologic construct. So, I would anticipate that you’ll find changes.”

The AMA began developing its strategic plan to advance equity several years ago, Dr. Harmon noted. “I think we are very well poised to move forward and attack this enemy of health disparity.”
 

AAFP president supporting Dr. Harmon’s inauguration

Among those congratulating Dr. Harmon on his inauguration was Ada Stewart, MD, a fellow family physician and South Carolina resident who is the president of the American Academy of Family Physicians.

“We are very excited that family physician Dr. Gerald Harmon will serve as president of the AMA this coming year,” Dr. Stewart said. “Family medicine encompasses the very essence of medicine – treating the whole person, in the context of family, community, and each individual’s unique circumstances. As a family physician, Dr. Harmon brings important perspectives from the front lines of primary care. His commitment to health equity and evidence-based care, as well as his concern for practice sustainability and physician well-being, will serve him well as he leads the house of medicine into the future.”

Dr. Harmon has practiced as a family medicine specialist in Georgetown, S.C., for more than 30 years. He is a member of the clinical faculty for the Tidelands Health Medical University of South Carolina family medicine residency program, advises a community health system, and is vice president of a multispecialty physician practice. In addition, Dr. Harmon is the medical director of a nonprofit hospice and volunteers as medical supervisor for his local school district.

Dr. Harmon received his undergraduate degree in physics and mathematics from the University of South Carolina, Columbia, and received his medical degree from the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston. He completed a residency training program in family medicine with the U.S. Air Force at Eglin (Fla.) AFB, Florida.

During a 35-year military career, Dr. Harmon served as chief surgeon for the National Guard Bureau and assistant surgeon general for the U.S. Air Force. He retired from the military as a major general.

Dr. Harmon and his wife, Linda, have three married children and eight grandchildren.

Every now and then, a bucket of tomatoes or even a half bushel of corn shows up in the back of Dr. Harmon’s pickup truck, with a note on the window thanking him. “That really touches you deeply,” Dr. Harmon said. “I practice that type of medicine and I’m honored to be able to do that every day.”

[email protected]

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Care Act June 17 in a 7 to 2 vote, rejecting claims by the challengers that the requirement for all Americans to obtain health insurance is unconstitutional.

ETIENJones/thinkstockphotos

The challengers were comprised of 18 GOP-dominated states, led by Texas, that took issue with the ACA’s individual mandate – which required most Americans to have health insurance or pay a tax penalty.

But Congress reduced the penalty to zero in 2017. Challengers argued that without the mandate,  the rest of the law should be scrapped, too. The court ruled that eliminated the harm the states were claiming.

“To have standing, a plaintiff must ‘allege personal injury fairly traceable to the defendant’s allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by the requested relief,’” the majority wrote. “No plaintiff has shown such an injury ‘fairly traceable’ to the ‘allegedly unlawful conduct’ challenged here.”

Justice Stephen Breyer authored the opinion. Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissented.

The decision said that the mandate in question did not require the 18 states that brought the complaint to pay anything, and therefore they had no standing.

President Joe Biden has said he plans to build on the ACA – which was enacted while he was vice president – to offer coverage to more Americans.

This marks the third time the Supreme Court spared the Obama-era law from GOP attacks. The mandate was also upheld in 2012 in a 5 to 4 ruling.

American Medical Association president Gerald Harmon, MD, also called for building on the ruling to expand the law.

“With yet another court decision upholding the ACA now behind us, we remain committed to strengthening the current law and look forward to policymakers advancing solutions to improve the ACA,” Dr. Harmon said in a statement. “The AMA will continue working to expand access to health care and ensure that all Americans have meaningful, comprehensive, and affordable health coverage to improve the health of the nation.”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), a longtime advocate for the ACA, called the decision a “landmark victory for Democrats.”

“Thanks to the tireless advocacy of Americans across the country and Democrats in Congress, the Affordable Care Act endures as a pillar of American health and economic security alongside Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security,” she said in a statement.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) also celebrated the ruling.

“The Affordable Care Act has won. The Supreme Court has just ruled: the ACA is here to stay and now we’re going to try to make it bigger and better,” he said, according to CNN. “For more than a decade, the assault on our health care law was relentless from Republicans in Congress, from the executive branch itself and from Republican attorneys general in the courts. Each time in each arena, the ACA has prevailed.”

This article was updated June 17, 2021.

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

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Care Act June 17 in a 7 to 2 vote, rejecting claims by the challengers that the requirement for all Americans to obtain health insurance is unconstitutional.

ETIENJones/thinkstockphotos

The challengers were comprised of 18 GOP-dominated states, led by Texas, that took issue with the ACA’s individual mandate – which required most Americans to have health insurance or pay a tax penalty.

But Congress reduced the penalty to zero in 2017. Challengers argued that without the mandate,  the rest of the law should be scrapped, too. The court ruled that eliminated the harm the states were claiming.

“To have standing, a plaintiff must ‘allege personal injury fairly traceable to the defendant’s allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by the requested relief,’” the majority wrote. “No plaintiff has shown such an injury ‘fairly traceable’ to the ‘allegedly unlawful conduct’ challenged here.”

Justice Stephen Breyer authored the opinion. Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissented.

The decision said that the mandate in question did not require the 18 states that brought the complaint to pay anything, and therefore they had no standing.

President Joe Biden has said he plans to build on the ACA – which was enacted while he was vice president – to offer coverage to more Americans.

This marks the third time the Supreme Court spared the Obama-era law from GOP attacks. The mandate was also upheld in 2012 in a 5 to 4 ruling.

American Medical Association president Gerald Harmon, MD, also called for building on the ruling to expand the law.

“With yet another court decision upholding the ACA now behind us, we remain committed to strengthening the current law and look forward to policymakers advancing solutions to improve the ACA,” Dr. Harmon said in a statement. “The AMA will continue working to expand access to health care and ensure that all Americans have meaningful, comprehensive, and affordable health coverage to improve the health of the nation.”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), a longtime advocate for the ACA, called the decision a “landmark victory for Democrats.”

“Thanks to the tireless advocacy of Americans across the country and Democrats in Congress, the Affordable Care Act endures as a pillar of American health and economic security alongside Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security,” she said in a statement.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) also celebrated the ruling.

“The Affordable Care Act has won. The Supreme Court has just ruled: the ACA is here to stay and now we’re going to try to make it bigger and better,” he said, according to CNN. “For more than a decade, the assault on our health care law was relentless from Republicans in Congress, from the executive branch itself and from Republican attorneys general in the courts. Each time in each arena, the ACA has prevailed.”

This article was updated June 17, 2021.

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

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Care Act June 17 in a 7 to 2 vote, rejecting claims by the challengers that the requirement for all Americans to obtain health insurance is unconstitutional.

ETIENJones/thinkstockphotos

The challengers were comprised of 18 GOP-dominated states, led by Texas, that took issue with the ACA’s individual mandate – which required most Americans to have health insurance or pay a tax penalty.

But Congress reduced the penalty to zero in 2017. Challengers argued that without the mandate,  the rest of the law should be scrapped, too. The court ruled that eliminated the harm the states were claiming.

“To have standing, a plaintiff must ‘allege personal injury fairly traceable to the defendant’s allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by the requested relief,’” the majority wrote. “No plaintiff has shown such an injury ‘fairly traceable’ to the ‘allegedly unlawful conduct’ challenged here.”

Justice Stephen Breyer authored the opinion. Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissented.

The decision said that the mandate in question did not require the 18 states that brought the complaint to pay anything, and therefore they had no standing.

President Joe Biden has said he plans to build on the ACA – which was enacted while he was vice president – to offer coverage to more Americans.

This marks the third time the Supreme Court spared the Obama-era law from GOP attacks. The mandate was also upheld in 2012 in a 5 to 4 ruling.

American Medical Association president Gerald Harmon, MD, also called for building on the ruling to expand the law.

“With yet another court decision upholding the ACA now behind us, we remain committed to strengthening the current law and look forward to policymakers advancing solutions to improve the ACA,” Dr. Harmon said in a statement. “The AMA will continue working to expand access to health care and ensure that all Americans have meaningful, comprehensive, and affordable health coverage to improve the health of the nation.”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), a longtime advocate for the ACA, called the decision a “landmark victory for Democrats.”

“Thanks to the tireless advocacy of Americans across the country and Democrats in Congress, the Affordable Care Act endures as a pillar of American health and economic security alongside Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security,” she said in a statement.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) also celebrated the ruling.

“The Affordable Care Act has won. The Supreme Court has just ruled: the ACA is here to stay and now we’re going to try to make it bigger and better,” he said, according to CNN. “For more than a decade, the assault on our health care law was relentless from Republicans in Congress, from the executive branch itself and from Republican attorneys general in the courts. Each time in each arena, the ACA has prevailed.”

This article was updated June 17, 2021.

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

While the investigation into cases of myocarditis possibly associated with COVID vaccines proceeds, the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association (ASA) continue to urge everyone who is eligible for the vaccine to get it without delay.

“We remain confident that the benefits of vaccination far exceed the very unusual risks,” the leadership of the AHA/ASA said in a statement issued June 12.

“The risks of COVID-19 infection include its potentially fatal consequences and the potential long-term health effects that are still revealing themselves, including lingering consequences affecting the heart, brain, vascular system, and other organs after infection,” they point out.

Late last week, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention alerted health care providers that the COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Technical Work Group (VaST) of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) will meet June 18 to review cases of myocarditis reported in adolescents and young adults after they received a COVID-19 vaccine manufactured by Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna.

The CDC is monitoring the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) and the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) for cases of myocarditis that have been associated with the mRNA vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 from Pfizer and Moderna.

These cases may occur more often in males than females and more frequently after the second dose than the first dose of either mRNA vaccine. Symptoms typically occur in the 3 days after administration.

“The CDC’s ongoing investigation into cases of suspected myocarditis reflects a strong and steadfast commitment to transparency and the importance of scientific rigor on all fronts. We applaud the CDC’s unwavering efforts to lead our nation’s scientific and public health efforts, including ensuring the continued safety of the COVID-19 vaccines,” the AHA/ASA states.

They emphasize that vaccinations should continue, and say it’s important to consider the details of the suspected myocarditis cases being investigated by the CDC.

As of June 11, more than 306 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines have been administered in the United States (since Dec. 14, 2020) and nearly 43% of Americans – more than 142 million people – are now fully vaccinated.

According to the June 10 CDC VAERS report detailing adverse events through May 31:

• 789 cases of suspected myocarditis have been reported, with 475 involving people younger than 30 years; 79 cases reported were in patients 16 or 17 years old.
• The vast majority (81%) of the 270 patients younger than 30 years who were discharged from care after suspected myocarditis related to COVID-19 vaccination have recovered fully; the remaining 19% of patients report ongoing symptoms or complete data are missing.
• 196 cases of suspected myocarditis after a COVID-19 vaccine were reported in young adults 18 to 24 years of age, which is higher than expected for this age group.

As of May 31, only about 9% of the COVID-19 vaccine doses administered were to people 16 to 24 years of age, which is why this “higher-than-normal rate of possible myocarditis cases” warrants investigation, the AHA/ASA says.

They note that these suspected myocarditis cases were reported to VAERS because of their proximity to COVID-19 vaccine administration.

It remains to be determined which cases meet the clinical criteria for a diagnosis of myocarditis and whether they have any direct connection to the COVID-19 vaccine, the AHA/ASA says.

They urge all health care professionals to be aware of “very rare” adverse events that could be related to a COVID-19 vaccine, including myocarditis, blood clots, low platelets, and symptoms of severe inflammation.

They advise asking patients who present with symptoms related to these conditions about the timing of recent COVID vaccinations, as needed, to confirm the diagnosis and provide appropriate treatment quickly.

The AHA will be at the CDC’s June 18 meeting to review the latest evidence on cases of suspected myocarditis after the COVID-19 vaccine, the statement adds.

The statement notes that it reflects the views of the AHA/ASA and its scientific leadership, including current president Mitchel S.V. Elkind, MD, PhD; immediate past-president Robert A. Harrington, MD; president-elect Donald M. Lloyd-Jones, MD; AHA/ASA chief science and medical officer Mariell Jessup, MD; and chief medical officer for prevention Eduardo Sanchez, MD, MPH.

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

While the investigation into cases of myocarditis possibly associated with COVID vaccines proceeds, the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association (ASA) continue to urge everyone who is eligible for the vaccine to get it without delay.

“We remain confident that the benefits of vaccination far exceed the very unusual risks,” the leadership of the AHA/ASA said in a statement issued June 12.

“The risks of COVID-19 infection include its potentially fatal consequences and the potential long-term health effects that are still revealing themselves, including lingering consequences affecting the heart, brain, vascular system, and other organs after infection,” they point out.

Late last week, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention alerted health care providers that the COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Technical Work Group (VaST) of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) will meet June 18 to review cases of myocarditis reported in adolescents and young adults after they received a COVID-19 vaccine manufactured by Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna.

The CDC is monitoring the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) and the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) for cases of myocarditis that have been associated with the mRNA vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 from Pfizer and Moderna.

These cases may occur more often in males than females and more frequently after the second dose than the first dose of either mRNA vaccine. Symptoms typically occur in the 3 days after administration.

“The CDC’s ongoing investigation into cases of suspected myocarditis reflects a strong and steadfast commitment to transparency and the importance of scientific rigor on all fronts. We applaud the CDC’s unwavering efforts to lead our nation’s scientific and public health efforts, including ensuring the continued safety of the COVID-19 vaccines,” the AHA/ASA states.

They emphasize that vaccinations should continue, and say it’s important to consider the details of the suspected myocarditis cases being investigated by the CDC.

As of June 11, more than 306 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines have been administered in the United States (since Dec. 14, 2020) and nearly 43% of Americans – more than 142 million people – are now fully vaccinated.

According to the June 10 CDC VAERS report detailing adverse events through May 31:

• 789 cases of suspected myocarditis have been reported, with 475 involving people younger than 30 years; 79 cases reported were in patients 16 or 17 years old.
• The vast majority (81%) of the 270 patients younger than 30 years who were discharged from care after suspected myocarditis related to COVID-19 vaccination have recovered fully; the remaining 19% of patients report ongoing symptoms or complete data are missing.
• 196 cases of suspected myocarditis after a COVID-19 vaccine were reported in young adults 18 to 24 years of age, which is higher than expected for this age group.

As of May 31, only about 9% of the COVID-19 vaccine doses administered were to people 16 to 24 years of age, which is why this “higher-than-normal rate of possible myocarditis cases” warrants investigation, the AHA/ASA says.

They note that these suspected myocarditis cases were reported to VAERS because of their proximity to COVID-19 vaccine administration.

It remains to be determined which cases meet the clinical criteria for a diagnosis of myocarditis and whether they have any direct connection to the COVID-19 vaccine, the AHA/ASA says.

They urge all health care professionals to be aware of “very rare” adverse events that could be related to a COVID-19 vaccine, including myocarditis, blood clots, low platelets, and symptoms of severe inflammation.

They advise asking patients who present with symptoms related to these conditions about the timing of recent COVID vaccinations, as needed, to confirm the diagnosis and provide appropriate treatment quickly.

The AHA will be at the CDC’s June 18 meeting to review the latest evidence on cases of suspected myocarditis after the COVID-19 vaccine, the statement adds.

The statement notes that it reflects the views of the AHA/ASA and its scientific leadership, including current president Mitchel S.V. Elkind, MD, PhD; immediate past-president Robert A. Harrington, MD; president-elect Donald M. Lloyd-Jones, MD; AHA/ASA chief science and medical officer Mariell Jessup, MD; and chief medical officer for prevention Eduardo Sanchez, MD, MPH.

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

While the investigation into cases of myocarditis possibly associated with COVID vaccines proceeds, the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association (ASA) continue to urge everyone who is eligible for the vaccine to get it without delay.

“We remain confident that the benefits of vaccination far exceed the very unusual risks,” the leadership of the AHA/ASA said in a statement issued June 12.

“The risks of COVID-19 infection include its potentially fatal consequences and the potential long-term health effects that are still revealing themselves, including lingering consequences affecting the heart, brain, vascular system, and other organs after infection,” they point out.

Late last week, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention alerted health care providers that the COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Technical Work Group (VaST) of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) will meet June 18 to review cases of myocarditis reported in adolescents and young adults after they received a COVID-19 vaccine manufactured by Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna.

The CDC is monitoring the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) and the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) for cases of myocarditis that have been associated with the mRNA vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 from Pfizer and Moderna.

These cases may occur more often in males than females and more frequently after the second dose than the first dose of either mRNA vaccine. Symptoms typically occur in the 3 days after administration.

“The CDC’s ongoing investigation into cases of suspected myocarditis reflects a strong and steadfast commitment to transparency and the importance of scientific rigor on all fronts. We applaud the CDC’s unwavering efforts to lead our nation’s scientific and public health efforts, including ensuring the continued safety of the COVID-19 vaccines,” the AHA/ASA states.

They emphasize that vaccinations should continue, and say it’s important to consider the details of the suspected myocarditis cases being investigated by the CDC.

As of June 11, more than 306 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines have been administered in the United States (since Dec. 14, 2020) and nearly 43% of Americans – more than 142 million people – are now fully vaccinated.

According to the June 10 CDC VAERS report detailing adverse events through May 31:

• 789 cases of suspected myocarditis have been reported, with 475 involving people younger than 30 years; 79 cases reported were in patients 16 or 17 years old.
• The vast majority (81%) of the 270 patients younger than 30 years who were discharged from care after suspected myocarditis related to COVID-19 vaccination have recovered fully; the remaining 19% of patients report ongoing symptoms or complete data are missing.
• 196 cases of suspected myocarditis after a COVID-19 vaccine were reported in young adults 18 to 24 years of age, which is higher than expected for this age group.

As of May 31, only about 9% of the COVID-19 vaccine doses administered were to people 16 to 24 years of age, which is why this “higher-than-normal rate of possible myocarditis cases” warrants investigation, the AHA/ASA says.

They note that these suspected myocarditis cases were reported to VAERS because of their proximity to COVID-19 vaccine administration.

It remains to be determined which cases meet the clinical criteria for a diagnosis of myocarditis and whether they have any direct connection to the COVID-19 vaccine, the AHA/ASA says.

They urge all health care professionals to be aware of “very rare” adverse events that could be related to a COVID-19 vaccine, including myocarditis, blood clots, low platelets, and symptoms of severe inflammation.

They advise asking patients who present with symptoms related to these conditions about the timing of recent COVID vaccinations, as needed, to confirm the diagnosis and provide appropriate treatment quickly.

The AHA will be at the CDC’s June 18 meeting to review the latest evidence on cases of suspected myocarditis after the COVID-19 vaccine, the statement adds.

The statement notes that it reflects the views of the AHA/ASA and its scientific leadership, including current president Mitchel S.V. Elkind, MD, PhD; immediate past-president Robert A. Harrington, MD; president-elect Donald M. Lloyd-Jones, MD; AHA/ASA chief science and medical officer Mariell Jessup, MD; and chief medical officer for prevention Eduardo Sanchez, MD, MPH.

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

Busting the myth of skipping breakfast

Your mother told you that breakfast was the most important meal of the day. Cereal marketing teams banked on that, selling breakfast to millions of people based on a common turn of phrase like “an apple a day keeps the doctor away.” Well, what if the notion of breakfast’s importance isn’t just marketing BS?

NorthStar203/iStock/Getty Images Plus

A new study suggests that adults who don’t eat breakfast are setting themselves up for a nutritional gap. Common breakfast foods pack a ton of calcium, fiber, and vitamin C from milk, cereals, and fruit. Christopher Taylor, PhD, senior author of the study and professor of dietetics at the Ohio State University, Columbus, said that if you’re not getting those nutrients from foods at breakfast, there’s a tendency to skip them throughout the rest of your day.

Data from a sample of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey – 30,889 adults aged 19 and older who participated between 2005 and 2016 – showed that 15.2% of participants reported skipping breakfast.

The research team then estimated nutrient consumption using federal dietary studies and guidelines and compared it to Food and Nutrition Board of National Academies nutrient recommendations. The breakfast skippers, they determined, were missing out on pronounced levels of fiber, magnesium, iron, calcium, and vitamins A, B₁, B₂, B₃, C, and D and were more likely to fall prey to lower-quality snacking. Cue those Oreos at 3 pm.

You may get more total calories within the day by eating breakfast, but your lunch, dinner, and snacks are much larger when you skip it. So the case of breakfast being the most important meal of the day checks out. Who knew that Tony the Tiger – and Mom – were actually on to something?
 

The bitter taste of a healthy liver

Alcohol and liver disease. They go together like, well, alcohol and liver disease. But alcohol isn’t the only reason people get liver disease, and now there’s a potential new treatment for people with hepatic steatosis on the way to becoming nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: beer.

Okay, not literally beer, but a pair of compounds derived from hops, the plant that gives beer its color and bitter flavor. In a study published in eLife, researchers from Oregon State University fed mice either a low-fat diet or a high-fat diet to induce hepatic steatosis, with some on the high-fat diet receiving either xanthohumol, a prenylated flavonoid from the hop plant, or tetrahydroxanthohumol, a hydrogenated derivative of xanthohumol.

Courtesy Oregon State University

Life’s great mysteries, from A to zinc

Thanks to science, we now have answers to what were once unanswerable questions: Is Jello a solid or a liquid? If someone leads but no one follows, are they just out for a walk? Does zinc inhibit or promote the growth of kidney stones? How many licks does it take to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop? (Turns out science really did answer this one.)

If you’re anything like us, then you’ve been following the big debate on the two competing theories involving the role of zinc in kidney stone formation for years. One theory says that zinc stops the growth of calcium oxalate crystals that make up stones. The other says that zinc alters the surfaces of crystals, which encourages growth.

We can’t stand the suspense any longer, so here goes: The answer to “does zinc inhibit or promote the growth of kidney stones?” is … yes.

decade3d/Thinkstock

Babies’ ‘gut instinct’ to cry

At some point or another, you’ve probably been told not to “be such a baby” when you were scared of something. If you’ve been called a crybaby, it may be an indicator that you had a different gut microbiome as an infant.

Investigators from Michigan State University and the University of North Carolina say that babies who react more strongly to scary situations have different gut microbiomes compared with babies who don’t have such a strong reaction. The way babies react to scary situations can say a lot about their future, and there is even some evidence that gut microbiomes may have something to do with mental health.

©a-fitz/iStockphoto.com

Busting the myth of skipping breakfast

Your mother told you that breakfast was the most important meal of the day. Cereal marketing teams banked on that, selling breakfast to millions of people based on a common turn of phrase like “an apple a day keeps the doctor away.” Well, what if the notion of breakfast’s importance isn’t just marketing BS?

NorthStar203/iStock/Getty Images Plus

A new study suggests that adults who don’t eat breakfast are setting themselves up for a nutritional gap. Common breakfast foods pack a ton of calcium, fiber, and vitamin C from milk, cereals, and fruit. Christopher Taylor, PhD, senior author of the study and professor of dietetics at the Ohio State University, Columbus, said that if you’re not getting those nutrients from foods at breakfast, there’s a tendency to skip them throughout the rest of your day.

Data from a sample of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey – 30,889 adults aged 19 and older who participated between 2005 and 2016 – showed that 15.2% of participants reported skipping breakfast.

The research team then estimated nutrient consumption using federal dietary studies and guidelines and compared it to Food and Nutrition Board of National Academies nutrient recommendations. The breakfast skippers, they determined, were missing out on pronounced levels of fiber, magnesium, iron, calcium, and vitamins A, B₁, B₂, B₃, C, and D and were more likely to fall prey to lower-quality snacking. Cue those Oreos at 3 pm.

You may get more total calories within the day by eating breakfast, but your lunch, dinner, and snacks are much larger when you skip it. So the case of breakfast being the most important meal of the day checks out. Who knew that Tony the Tiger – and Mom – were actually on to something?
 

The bitter taste of a healthy liver

Alcohol and liver disease. They go together like, well, alcohol and liver disease. But alcohol isn’t the only reason people get liver disease, and now there’s a potential new treatment for people with hepatic steatosis on the way to becoming nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: beer.

Okay, not literally beer, but a pair of compounds derived from hops, the plant that gives beer its color and bitter flavor. In a study published in eLife, researchers from Oregon State University fed mice either a low-fat diet or a high-fat diet to induce hepatic steatosis, with some on the high-fat diet receiving either xanthohumol, a prenylated flavonoid from the hop plant, or tetrahydroxanthohumol, a hydrogenated derivative of xanthohumol.

Courtesy Oregon State University

Life’s great mysteries, from A to zinc

Thanks to science, we now have answers to what were once unanswerable questions: Is Jello a solid or a liquid? If someone leads but no one follows, are they just out for a walk? Does zinc inhibit or promote the growth of kidney stones? How many licks does it take to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop? (Turns out science really did answer this one.)

If you’re anything like us, then you’ve been following the big debate on the two competing theories involving the role of zinc in kidney stone formation for years. One theory says that zinc stops the growth of calcium oxalate crystals that make up stones. The other says that zinc alters the surfaces of crystals, which encourages growth.

We can’t stand the suspense any longer, so here goes: The answer to “does zinc inhibit or promote the growth of kidney stones?” is … yes.

decade3d/Thinkstock

Babies’ ‘gut instinct’ to cry

At some point or another, you’ve probably been told not to “be such a baby” when you were scared of something. If you’ve been called a crybaby, it may be an indicator that you had a different gut microbiome as an infant.

Investigators from Michigan State University and the University of North Carolina say that babies who react more strongly to scary situations have different gut microbiomes compared with babies who don’t have such a strong reaction. The way babies react to scary situations can say a lot about their future, and there is even some evidence that gut microbiomes may have something to do with mental health.

©a-fitz/iStockphoto.com

Busting the myth of skipping breakfast

Your mother told you that breakfast was the most important meal of the day. Cereal marketing teams banked on that, selling breakfast to millions of people based on a common turn of phrase like “an apple a day keeps the doctor away.” Well, what if the notion of breakfast’s importance isn’t just marketing BS?

NorthStar203/iStock/Getty Images Plus

A new study suggests that adults who don’t eat breakfast are setting themselves up for a nutritional gap. Common breakfast foods pack a ton of calcium, fiber, and vitamin C from milk, cereals, and fruit. Christopher Taylor, PhD, senior author of the study and professor of dietetics at the Ohio State University, Columbus, said that if you’re not getting those nutrients from foods at breakfast, there’s a tendency to skip them throughout the rest of your day.

Data from a sample of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey – 30,889 adults aged 19 and older who participated between 2005 and 2016 – showed that 15.2% of participants reported skipping breakfast.

The research team then estimated nutrient consumption using federal dietary studies and guidelines and compared it to Food and Nutrition Board of National Academies nutrient recommendations. The breakfast skippers, they determined, were missing out on pronounced levels of fiber, magnesium, iron, calcium, and vitamins A, B₁, B₂, B₃, C, and D and were more likely to fall prey to lower-quality snacking. Cue those Oreos at 3 pm.

You may get more total calories within the day by eating breakfast, but your lunch, dinner, and snacks are much larger when you skip it. So the case of breakfast being the most important meal of the day checks out. Who knew that Tony the Tiger – and Mom – were actually on to something?
 

The bitter taste of a healthy liver

Alcohol and liver disease. They go together like, well, alcohol and liver disease. But alcohol isn’t the only reason people get liver disease, and now there’s a potential new treatment for people with hepatic steatosis on the way to becoming nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: beer.

Okay, not literally beer, but a pair of compounds derived from hops, the plant that gives beer its color and bitter flavor. In a study published in eLife, researchers from Oregon State University fed mice either a low-fat diet or a high-fat diet to induce hepatic steatosis, with some on the high-fat diet receiving either xanthohumol, a prenylated flavonoid from the hop plant, or tetrahydroxanthohumol, a hydrogenated derivative of xanthohumol.

Courtesy Oregon State University

Life’s great mysteries, from A to zinc

Thanks to science, we now have answers to what were once unanswerable questions: Is Jello a solid or a liquid? If someone leads but no one follows, are they just out for a walk? Does zinc inhibit or promote the growth of kidney stones? How many licks does it take to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop? (Turns out science really did answer this one.)

If you’re anything like us, then you’ve been following the big debate on the two competing theories involving the role of zinc in kidney stone formation for years. One theory says that zinc stops the growth of calcium oxalate crystals that make up stones. The other says that zinc alters the surfaces of crystals, which encourages growth.

We can’t stand the suspense any longer, so here goes: The answer to “does zinc inhibit or promote the growth of kidney stones?” is … yes.

decade3d/Thinkstock

Babies’ ‘gut instinct’ to cry

At some point or another, you’ve probably been told not to “be such a baby” when you were scared of something. If you’ve been called a crybaby, it may be an indicator that you had a different gut microbiome as an infant.

Investigators from Michigan State University and the University of North Carolina say that babies who react more strongly to scary situations have different gut microbiomes compared with babies who don’t have such a strong reaction. The way babies react to scary situations can say a lot about their future, and there is even some evidence that gut microbiomes may have something to do with mental health.

©a-fitz/iStockphoto.com