MDedge Emergency Medicine

Personalized nutritional support for adults hospitalized with chronic heart failure and deemed to be at high nutritional risk reduced the risk of death or adverse cardiovascular events, compared with standard hospital food, new research indicates.
 

The Swiss EFFORT trial focused on patients with chronic heart failure and high risk of malnutrition defined by low body mass index, weight loss, and low food intake upon hospital admission.

“This high-risk group of chronic heart failure patients showed a significant improvement in mortality over 30 and 180 days, as well as other clinical outcomes, when individualized nutritional support interventions were offered to patients,” Philipp Schuetz, MD, MPH, Kantonsspital Aarau, Switzerland, said in an interview.

“While monitoring the nutritional status should be done also in outpatient settings by [general practitioners], malnutrition screening upon hospital admission may help to identify high-risk patients with high risk for nutritional status deterioration during the hospital stay who will benefit from nutritional assessment and treatment,” said Dr. Schuetz.

The study was published online May 3 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
 

It’s not all about salt

The findings are based on a prespecified secondary analysis of outcomes in 645 patients (median age, 78.8 years, 52% men) hospitalized with chronic heart failure who participated in the open-label EFFORT study.  

One-third of patients were hospitalized for acute decompensated heart failure and two-thirds had chronic heart failure and other acute medical illnesses requiring hospitalization.

All patients were at risk of malnutrition based on a Nutritional Risk Screening (NRS) score of 3 points or higher. They were randomly allocated 1:1 to individualized nutritional support to reach energy, protein, and micronutrient goals or usual hospital food (control group). 

By 30 days, 27 of 321 patients (8.4%) receiving nutritional support had died compared with 48 of 324 patients (14.8%) in the control group (adjusted odds ratio [OR]: 0.44; 95% confidence interval, 0.26-0.75; P = .002)

Patients with high nutritional risk (NRS >4 points) showed the most benefit from nutritional support.

Compared with patients with moderate nutritional risk scores (NRS score 3-4), those with high nutritional risk (NRS >4) had a highly significant 65% increased mortality risk over 180 days.

The individual component of the NRS with the strongest association with mortality was low food intake in the week before hospitalization.

Patients who received nutritional support in the hospital also had a lower risk for major cardiovascular events at 30 days (17.4% vs. 26.9%; OR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.34-0.75; P = .001).

“Historically, cardiologists and internists caring for patients with heart failure have mainly focused on salt-restrictive diets to reduce blood volume and thus optimize heart function. Yet, reduction of salt intake has not been shown to effectively improve clinical outcome but may, on the contrary, increase the risk of malnutrition as low-salt diets are often not tasty,” Dr. Schuetz said.

“Our data suggest that we should move our focus away from salt-restrictive diets to high-protein diets to cover individual nutritional goals in this high-risk group of patients, which includes screening, assessment, and nutritional support by dietitians,” Dr. Schuetz said.

In a linked editorial, Sheldon Gottlieb, MD, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said there has been “relatively little attention” paid to the role of diet in heart failure other than recommending reduced salt intake. 

In fact, in the 2021 American College of Cardiology expert consensus recommendations for optimizing heart failure treatment, roughly five words are devoted to diet and exercise and there is no mention of nutrition assessment by a dietitian, he points out.

“This study adds another tile to the still-fragmentary mosaic picture of the patient with heart failure at nutritional risk who might benefit from nutritional support,” Dr. Dr. Gottlieb wrote.

“ ‘Good medical care’ dictates that all hospitalized patients deserve to have a standardized nutritional assessment; the challenge remains: how to determine which patient with heart failure at nutritional risk will benefit by medical nutrition therapy,” Dr. Gottlieb said.

The Swiss National Science Foundation and the Research Council of the Kantonsspital Aarau provided funding for the trial. Dr. Schuetz’s institution has previously received unrestricted grant money unrelated to this project from Nestle Health Science and Abbott Nutrition. Dr. Gottlieb owns a federal trademark for the “Greens, Beans, and Leans” diet, and has a pending federal trademark for “FLOATS”: flax + oats cereal.

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

Personalized nutritional support for adults hospitalized with chronic heart failure and deemed to be at high nutritional risk reduced the risk of death or adverse cardiovascular events, compared with standard hospital food, new research indicates.
 

The Swiss EFFORT trial focused on patients with chronic heart failure and high risk of malnutrition defined by low body mass index, weight loss, and low food intake upon hospital admission.

“This high-risk group of chronic heart failure patients showed a significant improvement in mortality over 30 and 180 days, as well as other clinical outcomes, when individualized nutritional support interventions were offered to patients,” Philipp Schuetz, MD, MPH, Kantonsspital Aarau, Switzerland, said in an interview.

“While monitoring the nutritional status should be done also in outpatient settings by [general practitioners], malnutrition screening upon hospital admission may help to identify high-risk patients with high risk for nutritional status deterioration during the hospital stay who will benefit from nutritional assessment and treatment,” said Dr. Schuetz.

The study was published online May 3 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
 

It’s not all about salt

The findings are based on a prespecified secondary analysis of outcomes in 645 patients (median age, 78.8 years, 52% men) hospitalized with chronic heart failure who participated in the open-label EFFORT study.  

One-third of patients were hospitalized for acute decompensated heart failure and two-thirds had chronic heart failure and other acute medical illnesses requiring hospitalization.

All patients were at risk of malnutrition based on a Nutritional Risk Screening (NRS) score of 3 points or higher. They were randomly allocated 1:1 to individualized nutritional support to reach energy, protein, and micronutrient goals or usual hospital food (control group). 

By 30 days, 27 of 321 patients (8.4%) receiving nutritional support had died compared with 48 of 324 patients (14.8%) in the control group (adjusted odds ratio [OR]: 0.44; 95% confidence interval, 0.26-0.75; P = .002)

Patients with high nutritional risk (NRS >4 points) showed the most benefit from nutritional support.

Compared with patients with moderate nutritional risk scores (NRS score 3-4), those with high nutritional risk (NRS >4) had a highly significant 65% increased mortality risk over 180 days.

The individual component of the NRS with the strongest association with mortality was low food intake in the week before hospitalization.

Patients who received nutritional support in the hospital also had a lower risk for major cardiovascular events at 30 days (17.4% vs. 26.9%; OR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.34-0.75; P = .001).

“Historically, cardiologists and internists caring for patients with heart failure have mainly focused on salt-restrictive diets to reduce blood volume and thus optimize heart function. Yet, reduction of salt intake has not been shown to effectively improve clinical outcome but may, on the contrary, increase the risk of malnutrition as low-salt diets are often not tasty,” Dr. Schuetz said.

“Our data suggest that we should move our focus away from salt-restrictive diets to high-protein diets to cover individual nutritional goals in this high-risk group of patients, which includes screening, assessment, and nutritional support by dietitians,” Dr. Schuetz said.

In a linked editorial, Sheldon Gottlieb, MD, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said there has been “relatively little attention” paid to the role of diet in heart failure other than recommending reduced salt intake. 

In fact, in the 2021 American College of Cardiology expert consensus recommendations for optimizing heart failure treatment, roughly five words are devoted to diet and exercise and there is no mention of nutrition assessment by a dietitian, he points out.

“This study adds another tile to the still-fragmentary mosaic picture of the patient with heart failure at nutritional risk who might benefit from nutritional support,” Dr. Dr. Gottlieb wrote.

“ ‘Good medical care’ dictates that all hospitalized patients deserve to have a standardized nutritional assessment; the challenge remains: how to determine which patient with heart failure at nutritional risk will benefit by medical nutrition therapy,” Dr. Gottlieb said.

The Swiss National Science Foundation and the Research Council of the Kantonsspital Aarau provided funding for the trial. Dr. Schuetz’s institution has previously received unrestricted grant money unrelated to this project from Nestle Health Science and Abbott Nutrition. Dr. Gottlieb owns a federal trademark for the “Greens, Beans, and Leans” diet, and has a pending federal trademark for “FLOATS”: flax + oats cereal.

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

Personalized nutritional support for adults hospitalized with chronic heart failure and deemed to be at high nutritional risk reduced the risk of death or adverse cardiovascular events, compared with standard hospital food, new research indicates.
 

The Swiss EFFORT trial focused on patients with chronic heart failure and high risk of malnutrition defined by low body mass index, weight loss, and low food intake upon hospital admission.

“This high-risk group of chronic heart failure patients showed a significant improvement in mortality over 30 and 180 days, as well as other clinical outcomes, when individualized nutritional support interventions were offered to patients,” Philipp Schuetz, MD, MPH, Kantonsspital Aarau, Switzerland, said in an interview.

“While monitoring the nutritional status should be done also in outpatient settings by [general practitioners], malnutrition screening upon hospital admission may help to identify high-risk patients with high risk for nutritional status deterioration during the hospital stay who will benefit from nutritional assessment and treatment,” said Dr. Schuetz.

The study was published online May 3 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
 

It’s not all about salt

The findings are based on a prespecified secondary analysis of outcomes in 645 patients (median age, 78.8 years, 52% men) hospitalized with chronic heart failure who participated in the open-label EFFORT study.  

One-third of patients were hospitalized for acute decompensated heart failure and two-thirds had chronic heart failure and other acute medical illnesses requiring hospitalization.

All patients were at risk of malnutrition based on a Nutritional Risk Screening (NRS) score of 3 points or higher. They were randomly allocated 1:1 to individualized nutritional support to reach energy, protein, and micronutrient goals or usual hospital food (control group). 

By 30 days, 27 of 321 patients (8.4%) receiving nutritional support had died compared with 48 of 324 patients (14.8%) in the control group (adjusted odds ratio [OR]: 0.44; 95% confidence interval, 0.26-0.75; P = .002)

Patients with high nutritional risk (NRS >4 points) showed the most benefit from nutritional support.

Compared with patients with moderate nutritional risk scores (NRS score 3-4), those with high nutritional risk (NRS >4) had a highly significant 65% increased mortality risk over 180 days.

The individual component of the NRS with the strongest association with mortality was low food intake in the week before hospitalization.

Patients who received nutritional support in the hospital also had a lower risk for major cardiovascular events at 30 days (17.4% vs. 26.9%; OR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.34-0.75; P = .001).

“Historically, cardiologists and internists caring for patients with heart failure have mainly focused on salt-restrictive diets to reduce blood volume and thus optimize heart function. Yet, reduction of salt intake has not been shown to effectively improve clinical outcome but may, on the contrary, increase the risk of malnutrition as low-salt diets are often not tasty,” Dr. Schuetz said.

“Our data suggest that we should move our focus away from salt-restrictive diets to high-protein diets to cover individual nutritional goals in this high-risk group of patients, which includes screening, assessment, and nutritional support by dietitians,” Dr. Schuetz said.

In a linked editorial, Sheldon Gottlieb, MD, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said there has been “relatively little attention” paid to the role of diet in heart failure other than recommending reduced salt intake. 

In fact, in the 2021 American College of Cardiology expert consensus recommendations for optimizing heart failure treatment, roughly five words are devoted to diet and exercise and there is no mention of nutrition assessment by a dietitian, he points out.

“This study adds another tile to the still-fragmentary mosaic picture of the patient with heart failure at nutritional risk who might benefit from nutritional support,” Dr. Dr. Gottlieb wrote.

“ ‘Good medical care’ dictates that all hospitalized patients deserve to have a standardized nutritional assessment; the challenge remains: how to determine which patient with heart failure at nutritional risk will benefit by medical nutrition therapy,” Dr. Gottlieb said.

The Swiss National Science Foundation and the Research Council of the Kantonsspital Aarau provided funding for the trial. Dr. Schuetz’s institution has previously received unrestricted grant money unrelated to this project from Nestle Health Science and Abbott Nutrition. Dr. Gottlieb owns a federal trademark for the “Greens, Beans, and Leans” diet, and has a pending federal trademark for “FLOATS”: flax + oats cereal.

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

Physicians and nonphysicians clearly differ in whether or not a PhD or EdD should be able to call themselves ‘doctor,’ a new Medscape poll Who Should Get to Be Called ‘Doctor’? shows. The topic has clearly struck a nerve, since a record number of respondents – over 12,000 – voted in the poll.

Most physicians think it’s appropriate for people with other doctorate degrees such as a PhD or EdD to call themselves ‘doctor,’ although slightly more than half said it depends on the context.

The controversy over who gets to be called a doctor was reignited when a Wall Street Journal opinion piece criticized First Lady Jill Biden, EdD, for wanting to be called “Dr Biden.” The piece also challenged the idea that having a PhD is worth the honorific of ‘doctor.’

Medical ethicist Arthur Caplan, PhD, disagreed with that viewpoint, saying the context matters. For example, he prefers to be called “professor” when he’s introduced to the public rather than “doctor” to avoid any confusion about his professional status.

More than 12,000 clinicians including physicians, medical students, nurses, pharmacists, and other health care professionals responded to the poll. The non-MD clinicians were the most likely to say it was always appropriate to be called “doctor” while physicians were the least likely.
 

Context matters

Large percentages of clinicians – 54% of doctors, 62% of medical students, and 41% of nurses – said that the context matters for being called “doctor.’’

“I earned my PhD in 1995 and my MD in 2000. I think it is contextual. In a research or University setting, “Dr.” seems appropriate for a PhD. That same person in public should probably not hold themselves out as “Dr.” So, maybe MDs and DOs can choose, while others maintain the title in their specific setting.” 

Some readers proposed that people with MDs call themselves physicians rather than doctors. Said one: “Anyone with a terminal doctorate degree has the right to use the word doctor.  As a physician when someone asks what I do, I say: ‘I am a physician.’ Problem solved. There can only be one physician but there are many types of doctors.”

Physicians and nurses differed most in their views. Just 24% of physicians said it was always appropriate for people with other doctorate degrees to call themselves doctor whereas about an equal number (22%) thought it was never appropriate.

In contrast, 43% of nurses (including advance practice nurses) said it was always appropriate for people with non-MD doctorates to be called doctor. Only 16% said it’s never appropriate. 

This difference may reflect the growing number of nurses with doctorate degrees, either a DNP or PhD, who want to be called doctor in clinical settings.

Age made a difference too. Only 16% of physicians younger than age 45 said it was always appropriate for people with non-MD doctorate degrees to be called doctor, compared with 27% of physicians aged 45 and up.

Medical students (31%) were also more likely than physicians to say it was always appropriate for non-MD doctorates to use the title “doctor” and 64% said it depends on the context. This was noteworthy because twice as many medical students as physicians (16% vs. 8%) said they work in academia, research, or military government settings.
 

Too many ‘doctors’ confuse the public

Physicians (70%) were also more likely to say it was always or often confusing for the public to hear someone without a medical degree addressed as “doctor.” Only 6% of physicians thought it was never or rarely confusing.

Nurses disagreed. Just 45% said that it was always or often confusing while 16% said it was never or rarely confusing.

Medical students were more aligned with physicians on this issue – 60% said it was always or often confusing to the public and just 10% said it was never or rarely confusing.  

One reader commented, “The problem is the confusion the ‘doctor’ title causes for patients, especially in a hospital setting. Is the ‘doctor’ a physician, a pharmacist, a psychologist, a nurse, etc., etc.? We need to think not of our own egos but if and how  the confusion about this plethora of titles may be hindering good patient care.”

These concerns are not unfounded. The American Medical Association reported in its Truth in Advertising campaign that “patients mistake physicians with nonphysician providers” based on an online survey of 802 adults in 2018. The participants thought these specialists were MDs: dentists (61%), podiatrists (67%), optometrists (47%), psychologists (43%), doctors of nursing (39%), and chiropractors (27%).

The AMA has advocated that states pass the “Health Care Professional Transparency Act,” which New Jersey has enacted. The law requires all health care professionals dealing with patients to wear a name tag that clearly identifies their licensure. Health care professionals must also display their education, training, and licensure in their office.

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

Physicians and nonphysicians clearly differ in whether or not a PhD or EdD should be able to call themselves ‘doctor,’ a new Medscape poll Who Should Get to Be Called ‘Doctor’? shows. The topic has clearly struck a nerve, since a record number of respondents – over 12,000 – voted in the poll.

Most physicians think it’s appropriate for people with other doctorate degrees such as a PhD or EdD to call themselves ‘doctor,’ although slightly more than half said it depends on the context.

The controversy over who gets to be called a doctor was reignited when a Wall Street Journal opinion piece criticized First Lady Jill Biden, EdD, for wanting to be called “Dr Biden.” The piece also challenged the idea that having a PhD is worth the honorific of ‘doctor.’

Medical ethicist Arthur Caplan, PhD, disagreed with that viewpoint, saying the context matters. For example, he prefers to be called “professor” when he’s introduced to the public rather than “doctor” to avoid any confusion about his professional status.

More than 12,000 clinicians including physicians, medical students, nurses, pharmacists, and other health care professionals responded to the poll. The non-MD clinicians were the most likely to say it was always appropriate to be called “doctor” while physicians were the least likely.
 

Context matters

Large percentages of clinicians – 54% of doctors, 62% of medical students, and 41% of nurses – said that the context matters for being called “doctor.’’

“I earned my PhD in 1995 and my MD in 2000. I think it is contextual. In a research or University setting, “Dr.” seems appropriate for a PhD. That same person in public should probably not hold themselves out as “Dr.” So, maybe MDs and DOs can choose, while others maintain the title in their specific setting.” 

Some readers proposed that people with MDs call themselves physicians rather than doctors. Said one: “Anyone with a terminal doctorate degree has the right to use the word doctor.  As a physician when someone asks what I do, I say: ‘I am a physician.’ Problem solved. There can only be one physician but there are many types of doctors.”

Physicians and nurses differed most in their views. Just 24% of physicians said it was always appropriate for people with other doctorate degrees to call themselves doctor whereas about an equal number (22%) thought it was never appropriate.

In contrast, 43% of nurses (including advance practice nurses) said it was always appropriate for people with non-MD doctorates to be called doctor. Only 16% said it’s never appropriate. 

This difference may reflect the growing number of nurses with doctorate degrees, either a DNP or PhD, who want to be called doctor in clinical settings.

Age made a difference too. Only 16% of physicians younger than age 45 said it was always appropriate for people with non-MD doctorate degrees to be called doctor, compared with 27% of physicians aged 45 and up.

Medical students (31%) were also more likely than physicians to say it was always appropriate for non-MD doctorates to use the title “doctor” and 64% said it depends on the context. This was noteworthy because twice as many medical students as physicians (16% vs. 8%) said they work in academia, research, or military government settings.
 

Too many ‘doctors’ confuse the public

Physicians (70%) were also more likely to say it was always or often confusing for the public to hear someone without a medical degree addressed as “doctor.” Only 6% of physicians thought it was never or rarely confusing.

Nurses disagreed. Just 45% said that it was always or often confusing while 16% said it was never or rarely confusing.

Medical students were more aligned with physicians on this issue – 60% said it was always or often confusing to the public and just 10% said it was never or rarely confusing.  

One reader commented, “The problem is the confusion the ‘doctor’ title causes for patients, especially in a hospital setting. Is the ‘doctor’ a physician, a pharmacist, a psychologist, a nurse, etc., etc.? We need to think not of our own egos but if and how  the confusion about this plethora of titles may be hindering good patient care.”

These concerns are not unfounded. The American Medical Association reported in its Truth in Advertising campaign that “patients mistake physicians with nonphysician providers” based on an online survey of 802 adults in 2018. The participants thought these specialists were MDs: dentists (61%), podiatrists (67%), optometrists (47%), psychologists (43%), doctors of nursing (39%), and chiropractors (27%).

The AMA has advocated that states pass the “Health Care Professional Transparency Act,” which New Jersey has enacted. The law requires all health care professionals dealing with patients to wear a name tag that clearly identifies their licensure. Health care professionals must also display their education, training, and licensure in their office.

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

Physicians and nonphysicians clearly differ in whether or not a PhD or EdD should be able to call themselves ‘doctor,’ a new Medscape poll Who Should Get to Be Called ‘Doctor’? shows. The topic has clearly struck a nerve, since a record number of respondents – over 12,000 – voted in the poll.

Most physicians think it’s appropriate for people with other doctorate degrees such as a PhD or EdD to call themselves ‘doctor,’ although slightly more than half said it depends on the context.

The controversy over who gets to be called a doctor was reignited when a Wall Street Journal opinion piece criticized First Lady Jill Biden, EdD, for wanting to be called “Dr Biden.” The piece also challenged the idea that having a PhD is worth the honorific of ‘doctor.’

Medical ethicist Arthur Caplan, PhD, disagreed with that viewpoint, saying the context matters. For example, he prefers to be called “professor” when he’s introduced to the public rather than “doctor” to avoid any confusion about his professional status.

More than 12,000 clinicians including physicians, medical students, nurses, pharmacists, and other health care professionals responded to the poll. The non-MD clinicians were the most likely to say it was always appropriate to be called “doctor” while physicians were the least likely.
 

Context matters

Large percentages of clinicians – 54% of doctors, 62% of medical students, and 41% of nurses – said that the context matters for being called “doctor.’’

“I earned my PhD in 1995 and my MD in 2000. I think it is contextual. In a research or University setting, “Dr.” seems appropriate for a PhD. That same person in public should probably not hold themselves out as “Dr.” So, maybe MDs and DOs can choose, while others maintain the title in their specific setting.” 

Some readers proposed that people with MDs call themselves physicians rather than doctors. Said one: “Anyone with a terminal doctorate degree has the right to use the word doctor.  As a physician when someone asks what I do, I say: ‘I am a physician.’ Problem solved. There can only be one physician but there are many types of doctors.”

Physicians and nurses differed most in their views. Just 24% of physicians said it was always appropriate for people with other doctorate degrees to call themselves doctor whereas about an equal number (22%) thought it was never appropriate.

In contrast, 43% of nurses (including advance practice nurses) said it was always appropriate for people with non-MD doctorates to be called doctor. Only 16% said it’s never appropriate. 

This difference may reflect the growing number of nurses with doctorate degrees, either a DNP or PhD, who want to be called doctor in clinical settings.

Age made a difference too. Only 16% of physicians younger than age 45 said it was always appropriate for people with non-MD doctorate degrees to be called doctor, compared with 27% of physicians aged 45 and up.

Medical students (31%) were also more likely than physicians to say it was always appropriate for non-MD doctorates to use the title “doctor” and 64% said it depends on the context. This was noteworthy because twice as many medical students as physicians (16% vs. 8%) said they work in academia, research, or military government settings.
 

Too many ‘doctors’ confuse the public

Physicians (70%) were also more likely to say it was always or often confusing for the public to hear someone without a medical degree addressed as “doctor.” Only 6% of physicians thought it was never or rarely confusing.

Nurses disagreed. Just 45% said that it was always or often confusing while 16% said it was never or rarely confusing.

Medical students were more aligned with physicians on this issue – 60% said it was always or often confusing to the public and just 10% said it was never or rarely confusing.  

One reader commented, “The problem is the confusion the ‘doctor’ title causes for patients, especially in a hospital setting. Is the ‘doctor’ a physician, a pharmacist, a psychologist, a nurse, etc., etc.? We need to think not of our own egos but if and how  the confusion about this plethora of titles may be hindering good patient care.”

These concerns are not unfounded. The American Medical Association reported in its Truth in Advertising campaign that “patients mistake physicians with nonphysician providers” based on an online survey of 802 adults in 2018. The participants thought these specialists were MDs: dentists (61%), podiatrists (67%), optometrists (47%), psychologists (43%), doctors of nursing (39%), and chiropractors (27%).

The AMA has advocated that states pass the “Health Care Professional Transparency Act,” which New Jersey has enacted. The law requires all health care professionals dealing with patients to wear a name tag that clearly identifies their licensure. Health care professionals must also display their education, training, and licensure in their office.

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

The Moderna SARS-CoV-2 vaccine booster developed specifically with variant B.1.351 in mind shows efficacy against that strain and the P1 variant among people already vaccinated for COVID-19, according to first results released May 5.
 

Furthermore, data from the company’s ongoing phase 2 study show the variant-specific booster, known as mRNA-1273.351, achieved higher antibody titers against the B.1.351 variant than did a booster with the original Moderna vaccine.

“We are encouraged by these new data, which reinforce our confidence that our booster strategy should be protective against these newly detected variants. The strong and rapid boost in titers to levels above primary vaccination also clearly demonstrates the ability of mRNA-1273 to induce immune memory,” Stéphane Bancel, chief executive officer of Moderna, said in a statement.

The phase 2 study researchers also are evaluating a multivariant booster that is a 50/50 mix of mRNA-1273.351 and mRNA-1273, the initial vaccine given Food and Drug Administration emergency use authorization, in a single vial.

Unlike the two-dose regimen with the original vaccine, the boosters are administered as a single dose immunization.

The trial participants received a booster 6-8 months after primary vaccination. Titers to the wild-type SARS-CoV-2 virus remained high and detectable in 37 out of 40 participants. However, prior to the booster, titers against the two variants of concern, B.1.351 and P.1, were lower, with about half of participants showing undetectable levels.

In contrast, 2 weeks after a booster with the original vaccine or the B.1.351 strain-specific product, pseudovirus neutralizing titers were boosted in all participants and all variants tested.

“Following [the] boost, geometric mean titers against the wild-type, B.1.351, and P.1 variants increased to levels similar to or higher than the previously reported peak titers against the ancestral (D614G) strain following primary vaccination,” the company stated.

Both mRNA-1273.351 and mRNA-1273 booster doses were generally well tolerated, the company reported. Safety and tolerability were generally comparable to those reported after the second dose of the original vaccine. Most adverse events were mild to moderate, with injection site pain most common in both groups. Participants also reported fatigue, headache, myalgia, and arthralgia.

The company plans to release data shortly on the booster efficacy at additional time points beyond 2 weeks for mRNA-1273.351, a lower-dose booster with mRNA-1272/351, as well as data on the multivariant mRNA vaccine booster.

In addition to the company’s phase 2 study, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases is conducting a separate phase 1 study of mRNA-1273.351.

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

The Moderna SARS-CoV-2 vaccine booster developed specifically with variant B.1.351 in mind shows efficacy against that strain and the P1 variant among people already vaccinated for COVID-19, according to first results released May 5.
 

Furthermore, data from the company’s ongoing phase 2 study show the variant-specific booster, known as mRNA-1273.351, achieved higher antibody titers against the B.1.351 variant than did a booster with the original Moderna vaccine.

“We are encouraged by these new data, which reinforce our confidence that our booster strategy should be protective against these newly detected variants. The strong and rapid boost in titers to levels above primary vaccination also clearly demonstrates the ability of mRNA-1273 to induce immune memory,” Stéphane Bancel, chief executive officer of Moderna, said in a statement.

The phase 2 study researchers also are evaluating a multivariant booster that is a 50/50 mix of mRNA-1273.351 and mRNA-1273, the initial vaccine given Food and Drug Administration emergency use authorization, in a single vial.

Unlike the two-dose regimen with the original vaccine, the boosters are administered as a single dose immunization.

The trial participants received a booster 6-8 months after primary vaccination. Titers to the wild-type SARS-CoV-2 virus remained high and detectable in 37 out of 40 participants. However, prior to the booster, titers against the two variants of concern, B.1.351 and P.1, were lower, with about half of participants showing undetectable levels.

In contrast, 2 weeks after a booster with the original vaccine or the B.1.351 strain-specific product, pseudovirus neutralizing titers were boosted in all participants and all variants tested.

“Following [the] boost, geometric mean titers against the wild-type, B.1.351, and P.1 variants increased to levels similar to or higher than the previously reported peak titers against the ancestral (D614G) strain following primary vaccination,” the company stated.

Both mRNA-1273.351 and mRNA-1273 booster doses were generally well tolerated, the company reported. Safety and tolerability were generally comparable to those reported after the second dose of the original vaccine. Most adverse events were mild to moderate, with injection site pain most common in both groups. Participants also reported fatigue, headache, myalgia, and arthralgia.

The company plans to release data shortly on the booster efficacy at additional time points beyond 2 weeks for mRNA-1273.351, a lower-dose booster with mRNA-1272/351, as well as data on the multivariant mRNA vaccine booster.

In addition to the company’s phase 2 study, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases is conducting a separate phase 1 study of mRNA-1273.351.

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

The Moderna SARS-CoV-2 vaccine booster developed specifically with variant B.1.351 in mind shows efficacy against that strain and the P1 variant among people already vaccinated for COVID-19, according to first results released May 5.
 

Furthermore, data from the company’s ongoing phase 2 study show the variant-specific booster, known as mRNA-1273.351, achieved higher antibody titers against the B.1.351 variant than did a booster with the original Moderna vaccine.

“We are encouraged by these new data, which reinforce our confidence that our booster strategy should be protective against these newly detected variants. The strong and rapid boost in titers to levels above primary vaccination also clearly demonstrates the ability of mRNA-1273 to induce immune memory,” Stéphane Bancel, chief executive officer of Moderna, said in a statement.

The phase 2 study researchers also are evaluating a multivariant booster that is a 50/50 mix of mRNA-1273.351 and mRNA-1273, the initial vaccine given Food and Drug Administration emergency use authorization, in a single vial.

Unlike the two-dose regimen with the original vaccine, the boosters are administered as a single dose immunization.

The trial participants received a booster 6-8 months after primary vaccination. Titers to the wild-type SARS-CoV-2 virus remained high and detectable in 37 out of 40 participants. However, prior to the booster, titers against the two variants of concern, B.1.351 and P.1, were lower, with about half of participants showing undetectable levels.

In contrast, 2 weeks after a booster with the original vaccine or the B.1.351 strain-specific product, pseudovirus neutralizing titers were boosted in all participants and all variants tested.

“Following [the] boost, geometric mean titers against the wild-type, B.1.351, and P.1 variants increased to levels similar to or higher than the previously reported peak titers against the ancestral (D614G) strain following primary vaccination,” the company stated.

Both mRNA-1273.351 and mRNA-1273 booster doses were generally well tolerated, the company reported. Safety and tolerability were generally comparable to those reported after the second dose of the original vaccine. Most adverse events were mild to moderate, with injection site pain most common in both groups. Participants also reported fatigue, headache, myalgia, and arthralgia.

The company plans to release data shortly on the booster efficacy at additional time points beyond 2 weeks for mRNA-1273.351, a lower-dose booster with mRNA-1272/351, as well as data on the multivariant mRNA vaccine booster.

In addition to the company’s phase 2 study, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases is conducting a separate phase 1 study of mRNA-1273.351.

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

Nearly one out of five American adults with hypertension is on a prescription drug known to raise blood pressure, based on analysis of more than 27,000 people included in recent reports from the recurring National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES).

Nearly half of these American adults had hypertension, and in this subgroup, 18.5% reported using a prescription drug known to increase blood pressure. The most widely used class of agents with this effect was antidepressants, used by 8.7%; followed by nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), used by 6.5%; steroids, 1.9%; estrogens, 1.7%; and several other agents each used by fewer than 1% of the study cohort, John Vitarello, MD, said during a press briefing on reports from the upcoming annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.

He and his associates estimated that this use of prescription drugs known to raise blood pressure could be what stands in the way of some 560,000-2.2 million Americans from having their hypertension under control, depending on the exact blood pressure impact that various pressure-increasing drugs have and presuming that half of those on blood pressure increasing agents could stop them and switch to alternative agents, said Dr. Vitarello, a researcher at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston.

He also highlighted that the study assessed only prescription drugs and did not examine OTC drug use, which may be especially relevant for the many people who regularly take NSAIDs.

“Clinicians should review the prescription and OTC drug use of patients with hypertension and consider stopping drugs that increase blood pressure or switching the patient to alternatives” that are blood pressure neutral, Dr. Vitarello said during the briefing. He cautioned that maintaining hypertensive patients on agents that raise their blood pressure can result in “prescribing cascades” where taking drugs that boost blood pressure results in need for intensified antihypertensive treatment.
 

An opportunity for NSAID alternatives

“This study hopefully raises awareness that there is a very high use of medications that increase blood pressure, and use of OTC agents could increase the rate even higher” said Eugene Yang, MD, a cardiologist and codirector of the Cardiovascular Wellness and Prevention Program of the University of Washington, Seattle. Substituting for certain antidepressant agents may often not be realistic, but an opportunity exists for reducing NSAID use, a class also linked with an increased risk for bleeding and other adverse effects, Dr. Yang said during the briefing. Minimizing use of NSAIDs including ibuprofen and naproxen use “is something to think about,” he suggested.

“The effect of NSAIDs on blood pressure is not well studied and can vary from person to person” noted Dr. Vitarello, who added that higher NSAID dosages and more prolonged use likely increase the risk for an adverse effect on blood pressure. One reasonable option is to encourage patients to use an alternative class of pain reliever such as acetaminophen.

It remains “a challenge” to discern differences in adverse blood pressure effects, and in all adverse cardiovascular effects among different NSAIDs, said Dr. Yang. Results from “some studies show that certain NSAIDs may be safer, but other studies did not. We need to be very careful using NSAIDs because, on average, they increase blood pressure by about 3 mm Hg. We need to be mindful to try to prescribe alternative agents, like acetaminophen.”
 

A decade of data from NHANES

The analysis run by Dr. Vitarello and associates used data from 27,599 American adults included in the NHANES during 2009-2018, and focused on the 44% who either had an average blood pressure measurement of at least 130/80 mm Hg or reported having ever been told by a clinician that they had hypertension. The NHANES assessments included the prescription medications taken by each participant. The prevalence of using at least one prescription drug known to raise blood pressure was 24% among women and 14% among men, and 4% of those with hypertension were on two or more pressure-increasing agents.

The researchers based their identification of pressure-increasing prescription drugs on the list included in the 2017 guideline for managing high blood pressure from the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association. This list specifies that the antidepressants that raise blood pressure are the monoamine oxidase inhibitors, serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, and tricyclic antidepressants.

Dr. Vitarello and Dr. Yang had no disclosures.

[email protected]

Nearly one out of five American adults with hypertension is on a prescription drug known to raise blood pressure, based on analysis of more than 27,000 people included in recent reports from the recurring National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES).

Nearly half of these American adults had hypertension, and in this subgroup, 18.5% reported using a prescription drug known to increase blood pressure. The most widely used class of agents with this effect was antidepressants, used by 8.7%; followed by nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), used by 6.5%; steroids, 1.9%; estrogens, 1.7%; and several other agents each used by fewer than 1% of the study cohort, John Vitarello, MD, said during a press briefing on reports from the upcoming annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.

He and his associates estimated that this use of prescription drugs known to raise blood pressure could be what stands in the way of some 560,000-2.2 million Americans from having their hypertension under control, depending on the exact blood pressure impact that various pressure-increasing drugs have and presuming that half of those on blood pressure increasing agents could stop them and switch to alternative agents, said Dr. Vitarello, a researcher at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston.

He also highlighted that the study assessed only prescription drugs and did not examine OTC drug use, which may be especially relevant for the many people who regularly take NSAIDs.

“Clinicians should review the prescription and OTC drug use of patients with hypertension and consider stopping drugs that increase blood pressure or switching the patient to alternatives” that are blood pressure neutral, Dr. Vitarello said during the briefing. He cautioned that maintaining hypertensive patients on agents that raise their blood pressure can result in “prescribing cascades” where taking drugs that boost blood pressure results in need for intensified antihypertensive treatment.
 

An opportunity for NSAID alternatives

“This study hopefully raises awareness that there is a very high use of medications that increase blood pressure, and use of OTC agents could increase the rate even higher” said Eugene Yang, MD, a cardiologist and codirector of the Cardiovascular Wellness and Prevention Program of the University of Washington, Seattle. Substituting for certain antidepressant agents may often not be realistic, but an opportunity exists for reducing NSAID use, a class also linked with an increased risk for bleeding and other adverse effects, Dr. Yang said during the briefing. Minimizing use of NSAIDs including ibuprofen and naproxen use “is something to think about,” he suggested.

“The effect of NSAIDs on blood pressure is not well studied and can vary from person to person” noted Dr. Vitarello, who added that higher NSAID dosages and more prolonged use likely increase the risk for an adverse effect on blood pressure. One reasonable option is to encourage patients to use an alternative class of pain reliever such as acetaminophen.

It remains “a challenge” to discern differences in adverse blood pressure effects, and in all adverse cardiovascular effects among different NSAIDs, said Dr. Yang. Results from “some studies show that certain NSAIDs may be safer, but other studies did not. We need to be very careful using NSAIDs because, on average, they increase blood pressure by about 3 mm Hg. We need to be mindful to try to prescribe alternative agents, like acetaminophen.”
 

A decade of data from NHANES

The analysis run by Dr. Vitarello and associates used data from 27,599 American adults included in the NHANES during 2009-2018, and focused on the 44% who either had an average blood pressure measurement of at least 130/80 mm Hg or reported having ever been told by a clinician that they had hypertension. The NHANES assessments included the prescription medications taken by each participant. The prevalence of using at least one prescription drug known to raise blood pressure was 24% among women and 14% among men, and 4% of those with hypertension were on two or more pressure-increasing agents.

The researchers based their identification of pressure-increasing prescription drugs on the list included in the 2017 guideline for managing high blood pressure from the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association. This list specifies that the antidepressants that raise blood pressure are the monoamine oxidase inhibitors, serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, and tricyclic antidepressants.

Dr. Vitarello and Dr. Yang had no disclosures.

[email protected]

Nearly one out of five American adults with hypertension is on a prescription drug known to raise blood pressure, based on analysis of more than 27,000 people included in recent reports from the recurring National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES).

Nearly half of these American adults had hypertension, and in this subgroup, 18.5% reported using a prescription drug known to increase blood pressure. The most widely used class of agents with this effect was antidepressants, used by 8.7%; followed by nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), used by 6.5%; steroids, 1.9%; estrogens, 1.7%; and several other agents each used by fewer than 1% of the study cohort, John Vitarello, MD, said during a press briefing on reports from the upcoming annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.

He and his associates estimated that this use of prescription drugs known to raise blood pressure could be what stands in the way of some 560,000-2.2 million Americans from having their hypertension under control, depending on the exact blood pressure impact that various pressure-increasing drugs have and presuming that half of those on blood pressure increasing agents could stop them and switch to alternative agents, said Dr. Vitarello, a researcher at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston.

He also highlighted that the study assessed only prescription drugs and did not examine OTC drug use, which may be especially relevant for the many people who regularly take NSAIDs.

“Clinicians should review the prescription and OTC drug use of patients with hypertension and consider stopping drugs that increase blood pressure or switching the patient to alternatives” that are blood pressure neutral, Dr. Vitarello said during the briefing. He cautioned that maintaining hypertensive patients on agents that raise their blood pressure can result in “prescribing cascades” where taking drugs that boost blood pressure results in need for intensified antihypertensive treatment.
 

An opportunity for NSAID alternatives

“This study hopefully raises awareness that there is a very high use of medications that increase blood pressure, and use of OTC agents could increase the rate even higher” said Eugene Yang, MD, a cardiologist and codirector of the Cardiovascular Wellness and Prevention Program of the University of Washington, Seattle. Substituting for certain antidepressant agents may often not be realistic, but an opportunity exists for reducing NSAID use, a class also linked with an increased risk for bleeding and other adverse effects, Dr. Yang said during the briefing. Minimizing use of NSAIDs including ibuprofen and naproxen use “is something to think about,” he suggested.

“The effect of NSAIDs on blood pressure is not well studied and can vary from person to person” noted Dr. Vitarello, who added that higher NSAID dosages and more prolonged use likely increase the risk for an adverse effect on blood pressure. One reasonable option is to encourage patients to use an alternative class of pain reliever such as acetaminophen.

It remains “a challenge” to discern differences in adverse blood pressure effects, and in all adverse cardiovascular effects among different NSAIDs, said Dr. Yang. Results from “some studies show that certain NSAIDs may be safer, but other studies did not. We need to be very careful using NSAIDs because, on average, they increase blood pressure by about 3 mm Hg. We need to be mindful to try to prescribe alternative agents, like acetaminophen.”
 

A decade of data from NHANES

The analysis run by Dr. Vitarello and associates used data from 27,599 American adults included in the NHANES during 2009-2018, and focused on the 44% who either had an average blood pressure measurement of at least 130/80 mm Hg or reported having ever been told by a clinician that they had hypertension. The NHANES assessments included the prescription medications taken by each participant. The prevalence of using at least one prescription drug known to raise blood pressure was 24% among women and 14% among men, and 4% of those with hypertension were on two or more pressure-increasing agents.

The researchers based their identification of pressure-increasing prescription drugs on the list included in the 2017 guideline for managing high blood pressure from the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association. This list specifies that the antidepressants that raise blood pressure are the monoamine oxidase inhibitors, serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, and tricyclic antidepressants.

Dr. Vitarello and Dr. Yang had no disclosures.

[email protected]

In 2017-2018, only one in three U.S. adults with diabetes received five basic elements of care recommended by the American Diabetes Association, new research indicates.

BakiBG

The proportions of patients who visited a physician for diabetes care and received hemoglobin A1c testing, foot and eye exams, and cholesterol testing increased from 2005 to 2018. However, this increase was primarily among those aged 65 years and older, and therefore eligible for Medicare.

“Our study suggests that providing affordable health care coverage can help ensure people with diabetes get recommended care. We also found that patients who were not receiving recommended care were more likely to be younger, newly diagnosed with diabetes, and not on diabetes medication. Clinicians can pay more attention to these patient populations to improve recommended care delivery and prevent diabetes-related complications,” lead author Jung-Im Shin, MD, said in an interview.

The data predate the COVID-19 pandemic, which has also had major effects on delivery of diabetes care, added Dr. Shin of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

“Routine visits to the doctor and important screenings for retinopathy or foot examination have been postponed. People with diabetes have had to reschedule or cancel nonurgent visits, some have lost ... insurance following unemployment, and many have avoided health care facilities out of fear. We are only just beginning to understand the consequences of the pandemic on the health of people with diabetes,” Dr. Shin noted.
 

Overall improvements seen only in those aged 65 and older

The data, from 4,069 adults aged 20 years and older from the 2005-2018 National Health and Nutrition and Examination Survey (NHANES), were published online April 16, 2021, in Diabetes Care.

Dr. Shin and colleagues defined receipt of diabetes care as meeting all of the following five criteria in the past 12 months, based on the ADA Standards of Care and NHANES data availability: seeing a primary doctor for diabetes care, receiving A1c testing, receiving a foot examination, receiving an eye examination, and receiving cholesterol testing.

Over the entire 13-year period, 29.2% of respondents reported having received all five components.

That proportion increased significantly over time, from 25.0% in 2005-2006 to 34.1% in 2017-2018 (P = .004). However, among the individual components, only receiving A1c testing increased significantly over time, from 64.4% to 85.3%, in all age groups (P < .001).

Moreover, when stratified by age, receipt of all five components only increased significantly among participants aged 65 and older, from 29.3% in 2005-2006 to 44.2% in 2017-2018 (P = .001).

The proportion remained unchanged among those aged 40-64 (25.2% to 25.8%; P =  .457) and showed a nonsignificant increase in those aged 20-39 (9.9% to 26.0%; P = .401).

In adjusted analyses, older age, higher income and education, health insurance, longer duration of diabetes, use of diabetes medications, and hypercholesterolemia were significantly associated with receipt of ADA guideline–recommended diabetes care.

Factors not found to be associated with care receipt included sex, race/ethnicity, body mass index, smoking status, A1c, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, and depressive symptoms.

Participants who received ADA guideline–recommended care were significantly more likely to achieve A1c below 7.5% (adjusted odds ratio, 1.52), blood pressure less than 140/90 mm Hg (aOR, 1.47), and LDL cholesterol below 100 mg/dL (aOR, 1.47), and to receive cholesterol-lowering medication (aOR, 1.79).

Dr. Shin said that it will be “important to study the impact of COVID-19 on diabetes care when new data are available.”

The project was supported by a research grant from Merck to Johns Hopkins University. Shin has reported receiving a grant from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Two coauthors are Merck employees.

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

In 2017-2018, only one in three U.S. adults with diabetes received five basic elements of care recommended by the American Diabetes Association, new research indicates.

BakiBG

The proportions of patients who visited a physician for diabetes care and received hemoglobin A1c testing, foot and eye exams, and cholesterol testing increased from 2005 to 2018. However, this increase was primarily among those aged 65 years and older, and therefore eligible for Medicare.

“Our study suggests that providing affordable health care coverage can help ensure people with diabetes get recommended care. We also found that patients who were not receiving recommended care were more likely to be younger, newly diagnosed with diabetes, and not on diabetes medication. Clinicians can pay more attention to these patient populations to improve recommended care delivery and prevent diabetes-related complications,” lead author Jung-Im Shin, MD, said in an interview.

The data predate the COVID-19 pandemic, which has also had major effects on delivery of diabetes care, added Dr. Shin of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

“Routine visits to the doctor and important screenings for retinopathy or foot examination have been postponed. People with diabetes have had to reschedule or cancel nonurgent visits, some have lost ... insurance following unemployment, and many have avoided health care facilities out of fear. We are only just beginning to understand the consequences of the pandemic on the health of people with diabetes,” Dr. Shin noted.
 

Overall improvements seen only in those aged 65 and older

The data, from 4,069 adults aged 20 years and older from the 2005-2018 National Health and Nutrition and Examination Survey (NHANES), were published online April 16, 2021, in Diabetes Care.

Dr. Shin and colleagues defined receipt of diabetes care as meeting all of the following five criteria in the past 12 months, based on the ADA Standards of Care and NHANES data availability: seeing a primary doctor for diabetes care, receiving A1c testing, receiving a foot examination, receiving an eye examination, and receiving cholesterol testing.

Over the entire 13-year period, 29.2% of respondents reported having received all five components.

That proportion increased significantly over time, from 25.0% in 2005-2006 to 34.1% in 2017-2018 (P = .004). However, among the individual components, only receiving A1c testing increased significantly over time, from 64.4% to 85.3%, in all age groups (P < .001).

Moreover, when stratified by age, receipt of all five components only increased significantly among participants aged 65 and older, from 29.3% in 2005-2006 to 44.2% in 2017-2018 (P = .001).

The proportion remained unchanged among those aged 40-64 (25.2% to 25.8%; P =  .457) and showed a nonsignificant increase in those aged 20-39 (9.9% to 26.0%; P = .401).

In adjusted analyses, older age, higher income and education, health insurance, longer duration of diabetes, use of diabetes medications, and hypercholesterolemia were significantly associated with receipt of ADA guideline–recommended diabetes care.

Factors not found to be associated with care receipt included sex, race/ethnicity, body mass index, smoking status, A1c, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, and depressive symptoms.

Participants who received ADA guideline–recommended care were significantly more likely to achieve A1c below 7.5% (adjusted odds ratio, 1.52), blood pressure less than 140/90 mm Hg (aOR, 1.47), and LDL cholesterol below 100 mg/dL (aOR, 1.47), and to receive cholesterol-lowering medication (aOR, 1.79).

Dr. Shin said that it will be “important to study the impact of COVID-19 on diabetes care when new data are available.”

The project was supported by a research grant from Merck to Johns Hopkins University. Shin has reported receiving a grant from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Two coauthors are Merck employees.

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

In 2017-2018, only one in three U.S. adults with diabetes received five basic elements of care recommended by the American Diabetes Association, new research indicates.

BakiBG

The proportions of patients who visited a physician for diabetes care and received hemoglobin A1c testing, foot and eye exams, and cholesterol testing increased from 2005 to 2018. However, this increase was primarily among those aged 65 years and older, and therefore eligible for Medicare.

“Our study suggests that providing affordable health care coverage can help ensure people with diabetes get recommended care. We also found that patients who were not receiving recommended care were more likely to be younger, newly diagnosed with diabetes, and not on diabetes medication. Clinicians can pay more attention to these patient populations to improve recommended care delivery and prevent diabetes-related complications,” lead author Jung-Im Shin, MD, said in an interview.

The data predate the COVID-19 pandemic, which has also had major effects on delivery of diabetes care, added Dr. Shin of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

“Routine visits to the doctor and important screenings for retinopathy or foot examination have been postponed. People with diabetes have had to reschedule or cancel nonurgent visits, some have lost ... insurance following unemployment, and many have avoided health care facilities out of fear. We are only just beginning to understand the consequences of the pandemic on the health of people with diabetes,” Dr. Shin noted.
 

Overall improvements seen only in those aged 65 and older

The data, from 4,069 adults aged 20 years and older from the 2005-2018 National Health and Nutrition and Examination Survey (NHANES), were published online April 16, 2021, in Diabetes Care.

Dr. Shin and colleagues defined receipt of diabetes care as meeting all of the following five criteria in the past 12 months, based on the ADA Standards of Care and NHANES data availability: seeing a primary doctor for diabetes care, receiving A1c testing, receiving a foot examination, receiving an eye examination, and receiving cholesterol testing.

Over the entire 13-year period, 29.2% of respondents reported having received all five components.

That proportion increased significantly over time, from 25.0% in 2005-2006 to 34.1% in 2017-2018 (P = .004). However, among the individual components, only receiving A1c testing increased significantly over time, from 64.4% to 85.3%, in all age groups (P < .001).

Moreover, when stratified by age, receipt of all five components only increased significantly among participants aged 65 and older, from 29.3% in 2005-2006 to 44.2% in 2017-2018 (P = .001).

The proportion remained unchanged among those aged 40-64 (25.2% to 25.8%; P =  .457) and showed a nonsignificant increase in those aged 20-39 (9.9% to 26.0%; P = .401).

In adjusted analyses, older age, higher income and education, health insurance, longer duration of diabetes, use of diabetes medications, and hypercholesterolemia were significantly associated with receipt of ADA guideline–recommended diabetes care.

Factors not found to be associated with care receipt included sex, race/ethnicity, body mass index, smoking status, A1c, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, and depressive symptoms.

Participants who received ADA guideline–recommended care were significantly more likely to achieve A1c below 7.5% (adjusted odds ratio, 1.52), blood pressure less than 140/90 mm Hg (aOR, 1.47), and LDL cholesterol below 100 mg/dL (aOR, 1.47), and to receive cholesterol-lowering medication (aOR, 1.79).

Dr. Shin said that it will be “important to study the impact of COVID-19 on diabetes care when new data are available.”

The project was supported by a research grant from Merck to Johns Hopkins University. Shin has reported receiving a grant from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Two coauthors are Merck employees.

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

Printing meds per patient

tomspentys/Unsplash

What if there was a way to get exact doses of a medication, tailored specifically for each and every patient that needed it? Well, apparently it’s as easy as getting them out of a printer.

Researchers from the University of East Anglia in England may have found a new method to do just that.

Currently, medicine is “manufactured in ‘one-size-fits-all’ fashion,” said Dr. Sheng Qi, the research lead. But no patient is exactly the same, so why shouldn’t their medications be just as unique? Research on pharmaceutical 3D printing has been developing over the past 5 years, with the most common method requiring the drug to be put into “spaghetti-like filaments” before printing.

Dr. Qi and his team developed a process that bypasses the filaments, allowing them to 3D-print pills with varied porous structures that can regulate the rate of release of the drug into the body. This could be revolutionary for elderly patients and patients with complicated conditions – who often take many different drugs – to ensure more accurate doses that provide maximum benefits and minimal adverse effects.

Just as a custom-tailored suit perfectly fits the body for which it was made, the ability to tailor medication could have the same effect on a patient’s health. The only difference is what’s coming through the printer would be pills, not fabric.
 

It’s hip to be Pfizered

peterschreiber_media/iStock/Getty Images

COVID-19 vaccination levels are rising, but we’ve heard a rumor that some people are still a bit reticent to participate. So how can physicians get more people to come in for a shot?

Make sure that they’re giving patients the right vaccine, for one thing. And by “right” vaccine, we mean, of course, the cool vaccine. Yes, the Internet has decided that the Pfizer vaccine is cooler than the others, according to the Atlantic.

There is, it seems, such a thing as “Pfizer superiority complex,” the article noted, while adding that, “on TikTok, hundreds of videos use a soundtrack of a woman explaining – slowly, voice full of disdain, like the rudest preschool teacher on Earth – ‘Only hot people get the Pfizer vaccine.’ ” A reporter from Slate was welcomed “to the ruling class” after sharing her upcoming Pfizer vaccination.

For the ultimate test of coolness, we surveyed the LOTME staff about the COVID-19 vaccines they had received. The results? Two Pfizers (coincidentally, the only two who knew what the hell TikTok is), one Moderna, one Johnson & Johnson, and one Godbold’s Vegetable Balsam (coincidentally, the same one who told us to get off his lawn).

And yes, we are checking on that last one.
 

Allergies stink!

Petro Feketa/iStockphoto

A baby’s first bowel movement might mean more than just being the first of many diaper changes.

That particular bowel movement, called meconium, is a mixture of materials that have gone into a baby’s mouth late in the pregnancy, such as skin cells and amniotic fluid. Sounds lovely, right? The contents also include certain biochemicals and gut bacteria, and a lack of these can show an increased risk of allergies, eczema, and asthma.

Studies show that certain gut bacteria actually teach the immune system to accept compounds that are not harmful. Since allergies and other conditions are caused by a person’s immune system telling them harmless compounds are bad, it makes sense that lacking gut bacteria might show potential for developing such conditions.

Charisse Petersen, a researcher at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, told NewScientist that parents could help decrease the development of allergies by not giving their children antibiotics that aren’t necessary and by letting kids play outside more.

Tom Marrs of King’s College London even noted that having a dog in the house is linked to a lower risk of allergies, so it might be time to get that puppy that the kids have been begging you for all through the pandemic.
 

Indiana Jones and the outhouse of parasites

Photo by Jesse Casana

Some archaeological finds are more impressive than others. Sometimes you find evidence of some long-lost civilization, sometimes you find a 200-year-old outhouse. That was the case with an outhouse buried near Dartmouth College that belonged to Mill Olcott, a wealthy businessman and politician who was a graduate of the college, and his family.

Now, that’s not particularly medically interesting, but the contents of the outhouse were very well preserved. That treasure trove included some fecal samples, and that’s where the story gets good, since they were preserved enough to be analyzed for parasites. Now, researchers know that parasites were very common in urban areas back in those days, when medicinal knowledge and sanitation were still deep in the dark ages, but whether or not people who lived in rural areas, wealthy or not, had them as well was a mystery.

Of course, 200-year-old poop is 200-year-old poop, so, in a task we wouldn’t envy anyone, the samples were rehydrated and run through several sieves to isolate the ancient goodies within. When all was said and done, both tapeworm and whipworm eggs were found, a surprise considering parasitic preference for warmer environments – not something northern New England is known for. But don’t forget, parasites can be your friend, too.

We will probably never know just which member of the Olcott household the poop belonged to, but the researchers noted that it was almost certain the entire house was infected. They added that, without proper infrastructure, even wealth was unable to protect people from disease. Hmm, we can’t think of any relevance that has in today’s world. Nope, absolutely none, since our health infrastructure is literally without flaw.
 

Printing meds per patient

tomspentys/Unsplash

What if there was a way to get exact doses of a medication, tailored specifically for each and every patient that needed it? Well, apparently it’s as easy as getting them out of a printer.

Researchers from the University of East Anglia in England may have found a new method to do just that.

Currently, medicine is “manufactured in ‘one-size-fits-all’ fashion,” said Dr. Sheng Qi, the research lead. But no patient is exactly the same, so why shouldn’t their medications be just as unique? Research on pharmaceutical 3D printing has been developing over the past 5 years, with the most common method requiring the drug to be put into “spaghetti-like filaments” before printing.

Dr. Qi and his team developed a process that bypasses the filaments, allowing them to 3D-print pills with varied porous structures that can regulate the rate of release of the drug into the body. This could be revolutionary for elderly patients and patients with complicated conditions – who often take many different drugs – to ensure more accurate doses that provide maximum benefits and minimal adverse effects.

Just as a custom-tailored suit perfectly fits the body for which it was made, the ability to tailor medication could have the same effect on a patient’s health. The only difference is what’s coming through the printer would be pills, not fabric.
 

It’s hip to be Pfizered

peterschreiber_media/iStock/Getty Images

COVID-19 vaccination levels are rising, but we’ve heard a rumor that some people are still a bit reticent to participate. So how can physicians get more people to come in for a shot?

Make sure that they’re giving patients the right vaccine, for one thing. And by “right” vaccine, we mean, of course, the cool vaccine. Yes, the Internet has decided that the Pfizer vaccine is cooler than the others, according to the Atlantic.

There is, it seems, such a thing as “Pfizer superiority complex,” the article noted, while adding that, “on TikTok, hundreds of videos use a soundtrack of a woman explaining – slowly, voice full of disdain, like the rudest preschool teacher on Earth – ‘Only hot people get the Pfizer vaccine.’ ” A reporter from Slate was welcomed “to the ruling class” after sharing her upcoming Pfizer vaccination.

For the ultimate test of coolness, we surveyed the LOTME staff about the COVID-19 vaccines they had received. The results? Two Pfizers (coincidentally, the only two who knew what the hell TikTok is), one Moderna, one Johnson & Johnson, and one Godbold’s Vegetable Balsam (coincidentally, the same one who told us to get off his lawn).

And yes, we are checking on that last one.
 

Allergies stink!

Petro Feketa/iStockphoto

A baby’s first bowel movement might mean more than just being the first of many diaper changes.

That particular bowel movement, called meconium, is a mixture of materials that have gone into a baby’s mouth late in the pregnancy, such as skin cells and amniotic fluid. Sounds lovely, right? The contents also include certain biochemicals and gut bacteria, and a lack of these can show an increased risk of allergies, eczema, and asthma.

Studies show that certain gut bacteria actually teach the immune system to accept compounds that are not harmful. Since allergies and other conditions are caused by a person’s immune system telling them harmless compounds are bad, it makes sense that lacking gut bacteria might show potential for developing such conditions.

Charisse Petersen, a researcher at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, told NewScientist that parents could help decrease the development of allergies by not giving their children antibiotics that aren’t necessary and by letting kids play outside more.

Tom Marrs of King’s College London even noted that having a dog in the house is linked to a lower risk of allergies, so it might be time to get that puppy that the kids have been begging you for all through the pandemic.
 

Indiana Jones and the outhouse of parasites

Photo by Jesse Casana

Some archaeological finds are more impressive than others. Sometimes you find evidence of some long-lost civilization, sometimes you find a 200-year-old outhouse. That was the case with an outhouse buried near Dartmouth College that belonged to Mill Olcott, a wealthy businessman and politician who was a graduate of the college, and his family.

Now, that’s not particularly medically interesting, but the contents of the outhouse were very well preserved. That treasure trove included some fecal samples, and that’s where the story gets good, since they were preserved enough to be analyzed for parasites. Now, researchers know that parasites were very common in urban areas back in those days, when medicinal knowledge and sanitation were still deep in the dark ages, but whether or not people who lived in rural areas, wealthy or not, had them as well was a mystery.

Of course, 200-year-old poop is 200-year-old poop, so, in a task we wouldn’t envy anyone, the samples were rehydrated and run through several sieves to isolate the ancient goodies within. When all was said and done, both tapeworm and whipworm eggs were found, a surprise considering parasitic preference for warmer environments – not something northern New England is known for. But don’t forget, parasites can be your friend, too.

We will probably never know just which member of the Olcott household the poop belonged to, but the researchers noted that it was almost certain the entire house was infected. They added that, without proper infrastructure, even wealth was unable to protect people from disease. Hmm, we can’t think of any relevance that has in today’s world. Nope, absolutely none, since our health infrastructure is literally without flaw.
 

Printing meds per patient

tomspentys/Unsplash

What if there was a way to get exact doses of a medication, tailored specifically for each and every patient that needed it? Well, apparently it’s as easy as getting them out of a printer.

Researchers from the University of East Anglia in England may have found a new method to do just that.

Currently, medicine is “manufactured in ‘one-size-fits-all’ fashion,” said Dr. Sheng Qi, the research lead. But no patient is exactly the same, so why shouldn’t their medications be just as unique? Research on pharmaceutical 3D printing has been developing over the past 5 years, with the most common method requiring the drug to be put into “spaghetti-like filaments” before printing.

Dr. Qi and his team developed a process that bypasses the filaments, allowing them to 3D-print pills with varied porous structures that can regulate the rate of release of the drug into the body. This could be revolutionary for elderly patients and patients with complicated conditions – who often take many different drugs – to ensure more accurate doses that provide maximum benefits and minimal adverse effects.

Just as a custom-tailored suit perfectly fits the body for which it was made, the ability to tailor medication could have the same effect on a patient’s health. The only difference is what’s coming through the printer would be pills, not fabric.
 

It’s hip to be Pfizered

peterschreiber_media/iStock/Getty Images

COVID-19 vaccination levels are rising, but we’ve heard a rumor that some people are still a bit reticent to participate. So how can physicians get more people to come in for a shot?

Make sure that they’re giving patients the right vaccine, for one thing. And by “right” vaccine, we mean, of course, the cool vaccine. Yes, the Internet has decided that the Pfizer vaccine is cooler than the others, according to the Atlantic.

There is, it seems, such a thing as “Pfizer superiority complex,” the article noted, while adding that, “on TikTok, hundreds of videos use a soundtrack of a woman explaining – slowly, voice full of disdain, like the rudest preschool teacher on Earth – ‘Only hot people get the Pfizer vaccine.’ ” A reporter from Slate was welcomed “to the ruling class” after sharing her upcoming Pfizer vaccination.

For the ultimate test of coolness, we surveyed the LOTME staff about the COVID-19 vaccines they had received. The results? Two Pfizers (coincidentally, the only two who knew what the hell TikTok is), one Moderna, one Johnson & Johnson, and one Godbold’s Vegetable Balsam (coincidentally, the same one who told us to get off his lawn).

And yes, we are checking on that last one.
 

Allergies stink!

Petro Feketa/iStockphoto

A baby’s first bowel movement might mean more than just being the first of many diaper changes.

That particular bowel movement, called meconium, is a mixture of materials that have gone into a baby’s mouth late in the pregnancy, such as skin cells and amniotic fluid. Sounds lovely, right? The contents also include certain biochemicals and gut bacteria, and a lack of these can show an increased risk of allergies, eczema, and asthma.

Studies show that certain gut bacteria actually teach the immune system to accept compounds that are not harmful. Since allergies and other conditions are caused by a person’s immune system telling them harmless compounds are bad, it makes sense that lacking gut bacteria might show potential for developing such conditions.

Charisse Petersen, a researcher at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, told NewScientist that parents could help decrease the development of allergies by not giving their children antibiotics that aren’t necessary and by letting kids play outside more.

Tom Marrs of King’s College London even noted that having a dog in the house is linked to a lower risk of allergies, so it might be time to get that puppy that the kids have been begging you for all through the pandemic.
 

Indiana Jones and the outhouse of parasites

Photo by Jesse Casana

Some archaeological finds are more impressive than others. Sometimes you find evidence of some long-lost civilization, sometimes you find a 200-year-old outhouse. That was the case with an outhouse buried near Dartmouth College that belonged to Mill Olcott, a wealthy businessman and politician who was a graduate of the college, and his family.

Now, that’s not particularly medically interesting, but the contents of the outhouse were very well preserved. That treasure trove included some fecal samples, and that’s where the story gets good, since they were preserved enough to be analyzed for parasites. Now, researchers know that parasites were very common in urban areas back in those days, when medicinal knowledge and sanitation were still deep in the dark ages, but whether or not people who lived in rural areas, wealthy or not, had them as well was a mystery.

Of course, 200-year-old poop is 200-year-old poop, so, in a task we wouldn’t envy anyone, the samples were rehydrated and run through several sieves to isolate the ancient goodies within. When all was said and done, both tapeworm and whipworm eggs were found, a surprise considering parasitic preference for warmer environments – not something northern New England is known for. But don’t forget, parasites can be your friend, too.

We will probably never know just which member of the Olcott household the poop belonged to, but the researchers noted that it was almost certain the entire house was infected. They added that, without proper infrastructure, even wealth was unable to protect people from disease. Hmm, we can’t think of any relevance that has in today’s world. Nope, absolutely none, since our health infrastructure is literally without flaw.
 

The majority of children with type 1 diabetes who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 were cared for at home and did well, according to the first report of outcomes of pediatric patients with type 1 diabetes and COVID-19 from the United States.

Most children who were hospitalized had diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) and high hemoglobin A1c levels, the new report from the T1D Exchange Quality Improvement Collaborative indicates. Fewer than 2% required respiratory support, and no deaths were recorded.

The greatest risk for adverse COVID-19 outcomes was among children with A1c levels >9%. In addition, children of certain ethnic minority groups and those with public health insurance were more likely to be hospitalized.

The study, conducted by G. Todd Alonso, MD, of the University of Colorado, Barbara Davis Center, Aurora, and colleagues, was published online April 14 in the Journal of Diabetes..

“As early reports identified diabetes as a risk factor for increased morbidity and mortality with COVID-19, the findings from this surveillance study should provide measured reassurance for families of children with type 1 diabetes as well as pediatric endocrinologists and their care teams,” say Dr. Alonso and colleagues.
 

Disproportionate rate of hospitalization, DKA among Black patients

Initiated in April 2020, the T1D Exchange Quality Improvement Collaborative comprises 56 diabetes centers, of which 52 submitted a total of 266 cases involving patients younger than 19 years who had type 1 diabetes and who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Those with new-onset type 1 diabetes were excluded from this analysis and were reported separately. The data were collected between April 9, 2020, and Jan. 15, 2021.

Of the 266 patients, 23% (61) were hospitalized, and 205 were not. There were no differences by age, gender, or diabetes duration.

However, those hospitalized were more likely to be Black (34% vs. 13% among White patients; P < .001) and to have public health insurance (64% vs. 41%; P < .001). They also had higher A1c levels than patients who were not hospitalized (11% vs. 8.2%; P < .001), and fewer used insulin pumps (26% vs. 54%; P < .001) and continuous glucose monitors (39% vs. 75%; P < .001).

Those hospitalized were also more likely to have hyperglycemia (48% vs. 28%; P = .007), nausea (33% vs. 6%; P < .001), and vomiting (49% vs. 3%; P < .001). Rates of dry cough, excess fatigue, and body aches/headaches did not differ between those hospitalized and those who remained at home.

The most common adverse outcome was DKA, which occurred in 72% (44) of those hospitalized.

The most recent A1c level was less than 9% in 82% of those hospitalized vs. 31% of those who weren’t (P < .001) and in 38 of the 44 (86%) who had DKA.

“Our data reveal a disproportionate rate of hospitalization and DKA among racial and ethnic minority groups, children who were publicly insured, and those with higher A1c. It is essential to find pathways for the most vulnerable patients to have adequate, equitable access to medical care via in person and telehealth services, to obtain and successfully use diabetes technology, and to optimize sick day management,” say Dr. Alonso and colleagues.

One child, a 15-year-old White boy, underwent intubation and was placed on a ventilator. His most recent A1c was 8.9%. Another child, a 13-year-old boy whose most recent A1c level was 11.1%, developed multisystem inflammatory syndrome of childhood.

The registry remains open.

The T1D Exchange QI Collaborative is funded by the Helmsley Charitable Trust. The T1D Exchange received partial financial support for this study from Abbott Diabetes, Dexcom, Medtronic, Insulet Corporation, JDRF, Eli Lilly, and Tandem Diabetes Care. None of the sponsors were involved in initiating, designing, or preparing the manuscript for this study.

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

The majority of children with type 1 diabetes who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 were cared for at home and did well, according to the first report of outcomes of pediatric patients with type 1 diabetes and COVID-19 from the United States.

Most children who were hospitalized had diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) and high hemoglobin A1c levels, the new report from the T1D Exchange Quality Improvement Collaborative indicates. Fewer than 2% required respiratory support, and no deaths were recorded.

The greatest risk for adverse COVID-19 outcomes was among children with A1c levels >9%. In addition, children of certain ethnic minority groups and those with public health insurance were more likely to be hospitalized.

The study, conducted by G. Todd Alonso, MD, of the University of Colorado, Barbara Davis Center, Aurora, and colleagues, was published online April 14 in the Journal of Diabetes..

“As early reports identified diabetes as a risk factor for increased morbidity and mortality with COVID-19, the findings from this surveillance study should provide measured reassurance for families of children with type 1 diabetes as well as pediatric endocrinologists and their care teams,” say Dr. Alonso and colleagues.
 

Disproportionate rate of hospitalization, DKA among Black patients

Initiated in April 2020, the T1D Exchange Quality Improvement Collaborative comprises 56 diabetes centers, of which 52 submitted a total of 266 cases involving patients younger than 19 years who had type 1 diabetes and who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Those with new-onset type 1 diabetes were excluded from this analysis and were reported separately. The data were collected between April 9, 2020, and Jan. 15, 2021.

Of the 266 patients, 23% (61) were hospitalized, and 205 were not. There were no differences by age, gender, or diabetes duration.

However, those hospitalized were more likely to be Black (34% vs. 13% among White patients; P < .001) and to have public health insurance (64% vs. 41%; P < .001). They also had higher A1c levels than patients who were not hospitalized (11% vs. 8.2%; P < .001), and fewer used insulin pumps (26% vs. 54%; P < .001) and continuous glucose monitors (39% vs. 75%; P < .001).

Those hospitalized were also more likely to have hyperglycemia (48% vs. 28%; P = .007), nausea (33% vs. 6%; P < .001), and vomiting (49% vs. 3%; P < .001). Rates of dry cough, excess fatigue, and body aches/headaches did not differ between those hospitalized and those who remained at home.

The most common adverse outcome was DKA, which occurred in 72% (44) of those hospitalized.

The most recent A1c level was less than 9% in 82% of those hospitalized vs. 31% of those who weren’t (P < .001) and in 38 of the 44 (86%) who had DKA.

“Our data reveal a disproportionate rate of hospitalization and DKA among racial and ethnic minority groups, children who were publicly insured, and those with higher A1c. It is essential to find pathways for the most vulnerable patients to have adequate, equitable access to medical care via in person and telehealth services, to obtain and successfully use diabetes technology, and to optimize sick day management,” say Dr. Alonso and colleagues.

One child, a 15-year-old White boy, underwent intubation and was placed on a ventilator. His most recent A1c was 8.9%. Another child, a 13-year-old boy whose most recent A1c level was 11.1%, developed multisystem inflammatory syndrome of childhood.

The registry remains open.

The T1D Exchange QI Collaborative is funded by the Helmsley Charitable Trust. The T1D Exchange received partial financial support for this study from Abbott Diabetes, Dexcom, Medtronic, Insulet Corporation, JDRF, Eli Lilly, and Tandem Diabetes Care. None of the sponsors were involved in initiating, designing, or preparing the manuscript for this study.

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

The majority of children with type 1 diabetes who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 were cared for at home and did well, according to the first report of outcomes of pediatric patients with type 1 diabetes and COVID-19 from the United States.

Most children who were hospitalized had diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) and high hemoglobin A1c levels, the new report from the T1D Exchange Quality Improvement Collaborative indicates. Fewer than 2% required respiratory support, and no deaths were recorded.

The greatest risk for adverse COVID-19 outcomes was among children with A1c levels >9%. In addition, children of certain ethnic minority groups and those with public health insurance were more likely to be hospitalized.

The study, conducted by G. Todd Alonso, MD, of the University of Colorado, Barbara Davis Center, Aurora, and colleagues, was published online April 14 in the Journal of Diabetes..

“As early reports identified diabetes as a risk factor for increased morbidity and mortality with COVID-19, the findings from this surveillance study should provide measured reassurance for families of children with type 1 diabetes as well as pediatric endocrinologists and their care teams,” say Dr. Alonso and colleagues.
 

Disproportionate rate of hospitalization, DKA among Black patients

Initiated in April 2020, the T1D Exchange Quality Improvement Collaborative comprises 56 diabetes centers, of which 52 submitted a total of 266 cases involving patients younger than 19 years who had type 1 diabetes and who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Those with new-onset type 1 diabetes were excluded from this analysis and were reported separately. The data were collected between April 9, 2020, and Jan. 15, 2021.

Of the 266 patients, 23% (61) were hospitalized, and 205 were not. There were no differences by age, gender, or diabetes duration.

However, those hospitalized were more likely to be Black (34% vs. 13% among White patients; P < .001) and to have public health insurance (64% vs. 41%; P < .001). They also had higher A1c levels than patients who were not hospitalized (11% vs. 8.2%; P < .001), and fewer used insulin pumps (26% vs. 54%; P < .001) and continuous glucose monitors (39% vs. 75%; P < .001).

Those hospitalized were also more likely to have hyperglycemia (48% vs. 28%; P = .007), nausea (33% vs. 6%; P < .001), and vomiting (49% vs. 3%; P < .001). Rates of dry cough, excess fatigue, and body aches/headaches did not differ between those hospitalized and those who remained at home.

The most common adverse outcome was DKA, which occurred in 72% (44) of those hospitalized.

The most recent A1c level was less than 9% in 82% of those hospitalized vs. 31% of those who weren’t (P < .001) and in 38 of the 44 (86%) who had DKA.

“Our data reveal a disproportionate rate of hospitalization and DKA among racial and ethnic minority groups, children who were publicly insured, and those with higher A1c. It is essential to find pathways for the most vulnerable patients to have adequate, equitable access to medical care via in person and telehealth services, to obtain and successfully use diabetes technology, and to optimize sick day management,” say Dr. Alonso and colleagues.

One child, a 15-year-old White boy, underwent intubation and was placed on a ventilator. His most recent A1c was 8.9%. Another child, a 13-year-old boy whose most recent A1c level was 11.1%, developed multisystem inflammatory syndrome of childhood.

The registry remains open.

The T1D Exchange QI Collaborative is funded by the Helmsley Charitable Trust. The T1D Exchange received partial financial support for this study from Abbott Diabetes, Dexcom, Medtronic, Insulet Corporation, JDRF, Eli Lilly, and Tandem Diabetes Care. None of the sponsors were involved in initiating, designing, or preparing the manuscript for this study.

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

Plasma levels of von Willebrand factor may be a useful biomarker of traumatic brain injury (TBI) and its severity, new research suggests. “Reliable detection of this biomarker at very early time points may allow for prompt TBI detection and therefore intervention,” said study investigator Rachel Elizabeth Thomas, MD, PhD, a neurology resident at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, while presenting study findings at the American Academy of Neurology’s 2021 annual meeting.

“The level reflects the degree of severity and provides some degree of prognostic information,” she added.
 

A specific marker of acute injury?

Von Willebrand factor is a glycoprotein released in the endothelium in response to local trauma. It plays a part in hemostasis and inflammation and is an indicator of traumatic microvascular injury. Research has shown that it is a biomarker of cerebrovascular pathology. In addition, increased expression of the factor is associated with vascular and neurodegenerative dementia.

The researchers examined whether von Willebrand factor is a biomarker of mild, repetitive TBI. They measured plasma levels of von Willebrand factor in 17 professional boxers before and after boxing bouts.

Eligible participants were between the ages of 18 and 35 years. They had a score of greater than or equal to 1 on the Rivermead Post-Concussion Symptoms Questionnaire (RPQ-3), had competed in at least three 3-minute bouts, and had withstood 25 or more blows to the head.

The investigators compared the plasma levels of von Willebrand factor of the boxers with those of 42 patients who presented to the University of Pennsylvania Trauma Center with TBI and with those of 23 uninjured control persons.

There was no significant difference in plasma levels of von Willebrand factor between boxers before the bout (13.15 µg/mL) and the control persons (6.16 µg/mL). Among the boxers, levels of von Willebrand factor increased by a factor of 1.8 within 30 minutes after bouts, compared with the levels among the control persons. The mean post-bout von Willebrand factor level was 25.09 µg/mL.

“Von Willebrand factor may be more specific for acute injuries, given that it does not seem to stay chronically elevated,” said Dr. Thomas.

In addition, the researchers found a significant positive correlation (r = 0.51; P = .03) between the fold change in plasma von Willebrand factor levels and the number of blows to the head that the athletes sustained.

They also found a significant positive correlation between fold change in von Willebrand factor and RPQ-3 score (r = 0.69; P = .002). These objective and subjective data suggest that levels of von Willebrand factor reflect injury severity, said Dr. Thomas.

Among patients hospitalized with TBI, levels of von Willebrand factor were significantly higher than among control persons (73.2 µg/mL vs. 40.8 µg/mL; P < .0009). The investigators found a linear correlation between plasma von Willebrand factor level and RPQ-3 score (r = 0.24) that was not statistically significant.

Levels of von Willebrand factor among patients hospitalized with TBI were higher on average and demonstrated a greater degree of variability than the levels among boxers immediately after a bout.

“This is not unexpected, given that this group represents a more heterogeneous population with varied forms of acute blunt injury, as compared to the boxers, who have undergone relatively repetitive, milder trauma,” Dr. Thomas said.

The traditional biomarkers of neurotrauma reflect neuronal and glial injury, whereas von Willebrand factor is an indicator of vascular trauma.

“Although on its own, von Willebrand factor is not specific to intracranial vascular injury, paired together with markers such as neurofilament light, GFAP [glial fibrillary acidic protein], and tau, it could be utilized to identify TBI-associated microvascular injury and thus delineate between specific TBI endophenotypes,” said Dr. Thomas. It could distinguish, for example, predominantly neuronal injury from predominantly vascular injury.

Because von Willebrand factor plays a role in the neurovascular unit and is a marker of microvascular injury, the investigators intend to pair measurements of plasma von Willebrand factor with advanced imaging techniques to evaluate cerebral blood flow or cerebrovascular reactivity. Such a study could help determine whether von Willebrand factor levels correlate with the degree of vascular injury and cerebrovascular dysregulation.
 

Point-of-care test?

Commenting on the findings, Kristine O’Phelan, MD, professor of clinical neurology and director of neurocritical care in the department of neurology at the University of Miami, said von Willebrand factor’s likely utility would be as a marker of injury in patients with mild TBI or sports-related concussion.

Imaging and clinical exams do not always reveal these injuries, Dr. O’Phelan added. “Having a biomarker that you can easily test in the blood would be extremely helpful,” she said.

The most exciting part of this study is that it indicates the potential to develop a point-of-care test for use on the athletic field or the battlefield for early detection of mild TBI, she added.

The fact that the test for von Willebrand factor has already been developed is an advantage, said Dr. O’Phelan. The normal and abnormal values of the test are clearly understood. “I do think that they will still need to calibrate it for head injury, because that’s not usually what the test is used for,” said Dr. O’Phelan.

One of the study’s strengths is that the investigators compared patients with TBI with control persons who had exercised, she added, because such a comparison helps clarify the biomarker’s relationship to the injury. Another strength is the application of the test to injuries of various types and of different degrees of severity.

But the biomarker will need to be tested in a larger population, said Dr. O’Phelan. In addition, there is a need to identify the right patient population for this test, as well as the best time frame for its application and potential factors that could confound the test results.

“I do worry a little bit about using early biomarkers for prognosis, particularly in severe TBI, because there’s so many variables that go into outcome,” said Dr. O’Phelan. This test likely would be administered in the first hours after injury, but many factors might affect patients’ outcomes, she added.

One influential factor is age. “If you have a von Willebrand factor of whatever number, that might have different importance in a 30-year-old than in an 80-year-old,” said Dr. O’Phelan. “We need to understand how to interpret those findings better.”

The study was supported by the National Institute for Neurological Disorders and Stroke, the U.S. Department of Defense, and the Pennsylvania Department of Health. Dr. Thomas and Dr. O’Phelan have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Plasma levels of von Willebrand factor may be a useful biomarker of traumatic brain injury (TBI) and its severity, new research suggests. “Reliable detection of this biomarker at very early time points may allow for prompt TBI detection and therefore intervention,” said study investigator Rachel Elizabeth Thomas, MD, PhD, a neurology resident at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, while presenting study findings at the American Academy of Neurology’s 2021 annual meeting.

“The level reflects the degree of severity and provides some degree of prognostic information,” she added.
 

A specific marker of acute injury?

Von Willebrand factor is a glycoprotein released in the endothelium in response to local trauma. It plays a part in hemostasis and inflammation and is an indicator of traumatic microvascular injury. Research has shown that it is a biomarker of cerebrovascular pathology. In addition, increased expression of the factor is associated with vascular and neurodegenerative dementia.

The researchers examined whether von Willebrand factor is a biomarker of mild, repetitive TBI. They measured plasma levels of von Willebrand factor in 17 professional boxers before and after boxing bouts.

Eligible participants were between the ages of 18 and 35 years. They had a score of greater than or equal to 1 on the Rivermead Post-Concussion Symptoms Questionnaire (RPQ-3), had competed in at least three 3-minute bouts, and had withstood 25 or more blows to the head.

The investigators compared the plasma levels of von Willebrand factor of the boxers with those of 42 patients who presented to the University of Pennsylvania Trauma Center with TBI and with those of 23 uninjured control persons.

There was no significant difference in plasma levels of von Willebrand factor between boxers before the bout (13.15 µg/mL) and the control persons (6.16 µg/mL). Among the boxers, levels of von Willebrand factor increased by a factor of 1.8 within 30 minutes after bouts, compared with the levels among the control persons. The mean post-bout von Willebrand factor level was 25.09 µg/mL.

“Von Willebrand factor may be more specific for acute injuries, given that it does not seem to stay chronically elevated,” said Dr. Thomas.

In addition, the researchers found a significant positive correlation (r = 0.51; P = .03) between the fold change in plasma von Willebrand factor levels and the number of blows to the head that the athletes sustained.

They also found a significant positive correlation between fold change in von Willebrand factor and RPQ-3 score (r = 0.69; P = .002). These objective and subjective data suggest that levels of von Willebrand factor reflect injury severity, said Dr. Thomas.

Among patients hospitalized with TBI, levels of von Willebrand factor were significantly higher than among control persons (73.2 µg/mL vs. 40.8 µg/mL; P < .0009). The investigators found a linear correlation between plasma von Willebrand factor level and RPQ-3 score (r = 0.24) that was not statistically significant.

Levels of von Willebrand factor among patients hospitalized with TBI were higher on average and demonstrated a greater degree of variability than the levels among boxers immediately after a bout.

“This is not unexpected, given that this group represents a more heterogeneous population with varied forms of acute blunt injury, as compared to the boxers, who have undergone relatively repetitive, milder trauma,” Dr. Thomas said.

The traditional biomarkers of neurotrauma reflect neuronal and glial injury, whereas von Willebrand factor is an indicator of vascular trauma.

“Although on its own, von Willebrand factor is not specific to intracranial vascular injury, paired together with markers such as neurofilament light, GFAP [glial fibrillary acidic protein], and tau, it could be utilized to identify TBI-associated microvascular injury and thus delineate between specific TBI endophenotypes,” said Dr. Thomas. It could distinguish, for example, predominantly neuronal injury from predominantly vascular injury.

Because von Willebrand factor plays a role in the neurovascular unit and is a marker of microvascular injury, the investigators intend to pair measurements of plasma von Willebrand factor with advanced imaging techniques to evaluate cerebral blood flow or cerebrovascular reactivity. Such a study could help determine whether von Willebrand factor levels correlate with the degree of vascular injury and cerebrovascular dysregulation.
 

Point-of-care test?

Commenting on the findings, Kristine O’Phelan, MD, professor of clinical neurology and director of neurocritical care in the department of neurology at the University of Miami, said von Willebrand factor’s likely utility would be as a marker of injury in patients with mild TBI or sports-related concussion.

Imaging and clinical exams do not always reveal these injuries, Dr. O’Phelan added. “Having a biomarker that you can easily test in the blood would be extremely helpful,” she said.

The most exciting part of this study is that it indicates the potential to develop a point-of-care test for use on the athletic field or the battlefield for early detection of mild TBI, she added.

The fact that the test for von Willebrand factor has already been developed is an advantage, said Dr. O’Phelan. The normal and abnormal values of the test are clearly understood. “I do think that they will still need to calibrate it for head injury, because that’s not usually what the test is used for,” said Dr. O’Phelan.

One of the study’s strengths is that the investigators compared patients with TBI with control persons who had exercised, she added, because such a comparison helps clarify the biomarker’s relationship to the injury. Another strength is the application of the test to injuries of various types and of different degrees of severity.

But the biomarker will need to be tested in a larger population, said Dr. O’Phelan. In addition, there is a need to identify the right patient population for this test, as well as the best time frame for its application and potential factors that could confound the test results.

“I do worry a little bit about using early biomarkers for prognosis, particularly in severe TBI, because there’s so many variables that go into outcome,” said Dr. O’Phelan. This test likely would be administered in the first hours after injury, but many factors might affect patients’ outcomes, she added.

One influential factor is age. “If you have a von Willebrand factor of whatever number, that might have different importance in a 30-year-old than in an 80-year-old,” said Dr. O’Phelan. “We need to understand how to interpret those findings better.”

The study was supported by the National Institute for Neurological Disorders and Stroke, the U.S. Department of Defense, and the Pennsylvania Department of Health. Dr. Thomas and Dr. O’Phelan have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Plasma levels of von Willebrand factor may be a useful biomarker of traumatic brain injury (TBI) and its severity, new research suggests. “Reliable detection of this biomarker at very early time points may allow for prompt TBI detection and therefore intervention,” said study investigator Rachel Elizabeth Thomas, MD, PhD, a neurology resident at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, while presenting study findings at the American Academy of Neurology’s 2021 annual meeting.

“The level reflects the degree of severity and provides some degree of prognostic information,” she added.
 

A specific marker of acute injury?

Von Willebrand factor is a glycoprotein released in the endothelium in response to local trauma. It plays a part in hemostasis and inflammation and is an indicator of traumatic microvascular injury. Research has shown that it is a biomarker of cerebrovascular pathology. In addition, increased expression of the factor is associated with vascular and neurodegenerative dementia.

The researchers examined whether von Willebrand factor is a biomarker of mild, repetitive TBI. They measured plasma levels of von Willebrand factor in 17 professional boxers before and after boxing bouts.

Eligible participants were between the ages of 18 and 35 years. They had a score of greater than or equal to 1 on the Rivermead Post-Concussion Symptoms Questionnaire (RPQ-3), had competed in at least three 3-minute bouts, and had withstood 25 or more blows to the head.

The investigators compared the plasma levels of von Willebrand factor of the boxers with those of 42 patients who presented to the University of Pennsylvania Trauma Center with TBI and with those of 23 uninjured control persons.

There was no significant difference in plasma levels of von Willebrand factor between boxers before the bout (13.15 µg/mL) and the control persons (6.16 µg/mL). Among the boxers, levels of von Willebrand factor increased by a factor of 1.8 within 30 minutes after bouts, compared with the levels among the control persons. The mean post-bout von Willebrand factor level was 25.09 µg/mL.

“Von Willebrand factor may be more specific for acute injuries, given that it does not seem to stay chronically elevated,” said Dr. Thomas.

In addition, the researchers found a significant positive correlation (r = 0.51; P = .03) between the fold change in plasma von Willebrand factor levels and the number of blows to the head that the athletes sustained.

They also found a significant positive correlation between fold change in von Willebrand factor and RPQ-3 score (r = 0.69; P = .002). These objective and subjective data suggest that levels of von Willebrand factor reflect injury severity, said Dr. Thomas.

Among patients hospitalized with TBI, levels of von Willebrand factor were significantly higher than among control persons (73.2 µg/mL vs. 40.8 µg/mL; P < .0009). The investigators found a linear correlation between plasma von Willebrand factor level and RPQ-3 score (r = 0.24) that was not statistically significant.

Levels of von Willebrand factor among patients hospitalized with TBI were higher on average and demonstrated a greater degree of variability than the levels among boxers immediately after a bout.

“This is not unexpected, given that this group represents a more heterogeneous population with varied forms of acute blunt injury, as compared to the boxers, who have undergone relatively repetitive, milder trauma,” Dr. Thomas said.

The traditional biomarkers of neurotrauma reflect neuronal and glial injury, whereas von Willebrand factor is an indicator of vascular trauma.

“Although on its own, von Willebrand factor is not specific to intracranial vascular injury, paired together with markers such as neurofilament light, GFAP [glial fibrillary acidic protein], and tau, it could be utilized to identify TBI-associated microvascular injury and thus delineate between specific TBI endophenotypes,” said Dr. Thomas. It could distinguish, for example, predominantly neuronal injury from predominantly vascular injury.

Because von Willebrand factor plays a role in the neurovascular unit and is a marker of microvascular injury, the investigators intend to pair measurements of plasma von Willebrand factor with advanced imaging techniques to evaluate cerebral blood flow or cerebrovascular reactivity. Such a study could help determine whether von Willebrand factor levels correlate with the degree of vascular injury and cerebrovascular dysregulation.
 

Point-of-care test?

Commenting on the findings, Kristine O’Phelan, MD, professor of clinical neurology and director of neurocritical care in the department of neurology at the University of Miami, said von Willebrand factor’s likely utility would be as a marker of injury in patients with mild TBI or sports-related concussion.

Imaging and clinical exams do not always reveal these injuries, Dr. O’Phelan added. “Having a biomarker that you can easily test in the blood would be extremely helpful,” she said.

The most exciting part of this study is that it indicates the potential to develop a point-of-care test for use on the athletic field or the battlefield for early detection of mild TBI, she added.

The fact that the test for von Willebrand factor has already been developed is an advantage, said Dr. O’Phelan. The normal and abnormal values of the test are clearly understood. “I do think that they will still need to calibrate it for head injury, because that’s not usually what the test is used for,” said Dr. O’Phelan.

One of the study’s strengths is that the investigators compared patients with TBI with control persons who had exercised, she added, because such a comparison helps clarify the biomarker’s relationship to the injury. Another strength is the application of the test to injuries of various types and of different degrees of severity.

But the biomarker will need to be tested in a larger population, said Dr. O’Phelan. In addition, there is a need to identify the right patient population for this test, as well as the best time frame for its application and potential factors that could confound the test results.

“I do worry a little bit about using early biomarkers for prognosis, particularly in severe TBI, because there’s so many variables that go into outcome,” said Dr. O’Phelan. This test likely would be administered in the first hours after injury, but many factors might affect patients’ outcomes, she added.

One influential factor is age. “If you have a von Willebrand factor of whatever number, that might have different importance in a 30-year-old than in an 80-year-old,” said Dr. O’Phelan. “We need to understand how to interpret those findings better.”

The study was supported by the National Institute for Neurological Disorders and Stroke, the U.S. Department of Defense, and the Pennsylvania Department of Health. Dr. Thomas and Dr. O’Phelan have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

In its third voluntary recall in the past year, Acella Pharmaceuticals has announced a nationwide recall of specific lots of its popular hypothyroid treatment NP Thyroid tablets USP, this time after routine testing found the pills to be subpotent.

Specifically, the affected lots were found to contain less than 90% of the drug’s two labeled ingredients to treat hypothyroidism: liothyronine (LT3) and/or levothyroxine (LT4).

The affected lots include 15-mg, 30-mg, 60-mg, 90-mg and 120-mg formulations of NP Thyroid tablets, packed in 100-count and 7-count bottles.

The list of the specific recalled lots is published on the Food and Drug Administration website.

Acella reports that, so far, 43 reports of serious adverse events that could be related to the recall have been received.

Symptoms suggesting patients may have received a subpotent batch include the common signs of hypothyroidism, such as fatigue, increased sensitivity to cold, constipation, dry skin, puffy face, hair loss, slow heart rate, depression, swelling of the thyroid gland and/or unexplained weight gain or difficulty losing weight, Acella reports.

“There is reasonable risk of serious injury in newborn infants or pregnant women with hypothyroidism including early miscarriage, fetal hyperthyroidism, and/or impairments to fetal neural and skeletal development,” the company cautions in the recall statement.

Acella adds that toxic cardiac manifestations of hyperthyroidism, including cardiac pain, palpitations or cardiac arrhythmia may occur in elderly patients and patients with underlying cardiac disease.

While Acella is notifying affected parties to discontinue distribution of the recalled products, it advises that patients who are currently taking NP Thyroid from the lots being recalled “should not discontinue use without contacting their healthcare provider for further guidance and/or a replacement prescription.”

In November 2020, a recall of NP Thyroid was issued after FDA testing found subpotent levels, as low as 87% of the labeled amount, of LT4 in some lots.

And earlier, in May 2020, the company recalled 13 lots of the tablets due to excessive potency, with FDA testing showing some tablets contained up to 115% of the labeled amount of LT3.

NP Thyroid is a type of desiccated animal thyroid product that was long the standard of care for hypothyroidism prior to the advent of the synthetic hypothyroidism drug, Synthroid (levothyroxine sodium), now the most commonly used hypothyroidism treatment.

On its website, Acella refers to NP Thyroid as a “natural choice for thyroid therapy,” as desiccated thyroid is commonly referred to.

However, one of the most common concerns about desiccated thyroid is a tendency to have unreliable concentrations of active ingredients, as discussed in American Thyroid Association recommendations.

The “amounts of both T4 and T3 can vary in every batch of desiccated thyroid, making it harder to keep blood levels right,” the ATA states.

“Finally, even desiccated thyroid pills have chemicals (binders) in them to hold the pill together, so they are not completely ‘natural.’ ”

Consumers with questions about the recall are advised to email Acella Pharmaceuticals at [email protected] or call 1-888-424-4341, Monday through Friday from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm ET.
 

In its third voluntary recall in the past year, Acella Pharmaceuticals has announced a nationwide recall of specific lots of its popular hypothyroid treatment NP Thyroid tablets USP, this time after routine testing found the pills to be subpotent.

Specifically, the affected lots were found to contain less than 90% of the drug’s two labeled ingredients to treat hypothyroidism: liothyronine (LT3) and/or levothyroxine (LT4).

The affected lots include 15-mg, 30-mg, 60-mg, 90-mg and 120-mg formulations of NP Thyroid tablets, packed in 100-count and 7-count bottles.

The list of the specific recalled lots is published on the Food and Drug Administration website.

Acella reports that, so far, 43 reports of serious adverse events that could be related to the recall have been received.

Symptoms suggesting patients may have received a subpotent batch include the common signs of hypothyroidism, such as fatigue, increased sensitivity to cold, constipation, dry skin, puffy face, hair loss, slow heart rate, depression, swelling of the thyroid gland and/or unexplained weight gain or difficulty losing weight, Acella reports.

“There is reasonable risk of serious injury in newborn infants or pregnant women with hypothyroidism including early miscarriage, fetal hyperthyroidism, and/or impairments to fetal neural and skeletal development,” the company cautions in the recall statement.

Acella adds that toxic cardiac manifestations of hyperthyroidism, including cardiac pain, palpitations or cardiac arrhythmia may occur in elderly patients and patients with underlying cardiac disease.

While Acella is notifying affected parties to discontinue distribution of the recalled products, it advises that patients who are currently taking NP Thyroid from the lots being recalled “should not discontinue use without contacting their healthcare provider for further guidance and/or a replacement prescription.”

In November 2020, a recall of NP Thyroid was issued after FDA testing found subpotent levels, as low as 87% of the labeled amount, of LT4 in some lots.

And earlier, in May 2020, the company recalled 13 lots of the tablets due to excessive potency, with FDA testing showing some tablets contained up to 115% of the labeled amount of LT3.

NP Thyroid is a type of desiccated animal thyroid product that was long the standard of care for hypothyroidism prior to the advent of the synthetic hypothyroidism drug, Synthroid (levothyroxine sodium), now the most commonly used hypothyroidism treatment.

On its website, Acella refers to NP Thyroid as a “natural choice for thyroid therapy,” as desiccated thyroid is commonly referred to.

However, one of the most common concerns about desiccated thyroid is a tendency to have unreliable concentrations of active ingredients, as discussed in American Thyroid Association recommendations.

The “amounts of both T4 and T3 can vary in every batch of desiccated thyroid, making it harder to keep blood levels right,” the ATA states.

“Finally, even desiccated thyroid pills have chemicals (binders) in them to hold the pill together, so they are not completely ‘natural.’ ”

Consumers with questions about the recall are advised to email Acella Pharmaceuticals at [email protected] or call 1-888-424-4341, Monday through Friday from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm ET.
 

In its third voluntary recall in the past year, Acella Pharmaceuticals has announced a nationwide recall of specific lots of its popular hypothyroid treatment NP Thyroid tablets USP, this time after routine testing found the pills to be subpotent.

Specifically, the affected lots were found to contain less than 90% of the drug’s two labeled ingredients to treat hypothyroidism: liothyronine (LT3) and/or levothyroxine (LT4).

The affected lots include 15-mg, 30-mg, 60-mg, 90-mg and 120-mg formulations of NP Thyroid tablets, packed in 100-count and 7-count bottles.

The list of the specific recalled lots is published on the Food and Drug Administration website.

Acella reports that, so far, 43 reports of serious adverse events that could be related to the recall have been received.

Symptoms suggesting patients may have received a subpotent batch include the common signs of hypothyroidism, such as fatigue, increased sensitivity to cold, constipation, dry skin, puffy face, hair loss, slow heart rate, depression, swelling of the thyroid gland and/or unexplained weight gain or difficulty losing weight, Acella reports.

“There is reasonable risk of serious injury in newborn infants or pregnant women with hypothyroidism including early miscarriage, fetal hyperthyroidism, and/or impairments to fetal neural and skeletal development,” the company cautions in the recall statement.

Acella adds that toxic cardiac manifestations of hyperthyroidism, including cardiac pain, palpitations or cardiac arrhythmia may occur in elderly patients and patients with underlying cardiac disease.

While Acella is notifying affected parties to discontinue distribution of the recalled products, it advises that patients who are currently taking NP Thyroid from the lots being recalled “should not discontinue use without contacting their healthcare provider for further guidance and/or a replacement prescription.”

In November 2020, a recall of NP Thyroid was issued after FDA testing found subpotent levels, as low as 87% of the labeled amount, of LT4 in some lots.

And earlier, in May 2020, the company recalled 13 lots of the tablets due to excessive potency, with FDA testing showing some tablets contained up to 115% of the labeled amount of LT3.

NP Thyroid is a type of desiccated animal thyroid product that was long the standard of care for hypothyroidism prior to the advent of the synthetic hypothyroidism drug, Synthroid (levothyroxine sodium), now the most commonly used hypothyroidism treatment.

On its website, Acella refers to NP Thyroid as a “natural choice for thyroid therapy,” as desiccated thyroid is commonly referred to.

However, one of the most common concerns about desiccated thyroid is a tendency to have unreliable concentrations of active ingredients, as discussed in American Thyroid Association recommendations.

The “amounts of both T4 and T3 can vary in every batch of desiccated thyroid, making it harder to keep blood levels right,” the ATA states.

“Finally, even desiccated thyroid pills have chemicals (binders) in them to hold the pill together, so they are not completely ‘natural.’ ”

Consumers with questions about the recall are advised to email Acella Pharmaceuticals at [email protected] or call 1-888-424-4341, Monday through Friday from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm ET.
 

Inequities in the initial growth of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) programs in American hospitals has led to less use of the transformative procedure in poorer communities, a new cross-sectional study suggests.

Using Medicare claims data, investigators identified 554 new TAVR programs created between January 2012 and December 2018.

Of these, 98% were established in metropolitan areas (>50,000 residents) and 53% were started in areas with preexisting TAVR programs, “thereby increasing the number of programs but not necessarily increasing the geographic availability of the procedure,” said study author Ashwin Nathan, MD, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Only 11 programs were started in nonmetropolitan areas over the study period, he noted during the featured clinical research presentation at the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) 2021 annual scientific sessions, held virtually this year.

Hospitals that established TAVR programs, compared with those that did not, cared for patients with higher median household incomes (difference, $1,305; P = .03) and from areas with better economic well-being based on the Distressed Communities Index (difference, –3.15 units; P < .01), and cared for fewer patients with dual eligibility for Medicaid (difference, –3.15%; P < .01).

When the investigators looked at rates of TAVR between the core-based statistical areas, there were fewer TAVR procedures per 100,000 Medicare beneficiaries in areas with more Medicaid dual-eligible patients (difference, –1.19% per 1% increase), lower average median household incomes (difference, –0.62% per $1,000 decrease), and more average community distress (difference, –0.35% per 1 unit increase; P < .01 for all).

“What we can conclude is that the increased number of TAVR programs that we found during the study period did not necessarily translate to increased access to TAVR ... Wealthy, more privileged patients had more access to TAVR by virtue of the hospitals that serve them,” Dr. Nathan said.

Future steps, he said, are to identify the role of race and ethnicity in inequitable access to TAVR, identify system- and patient-level barriers to access, and to develop and test solutions to address inequitable care.

Elaborating on the latter point during a discussion of the results, study coauthor Jay S. Giri, MD, MPH, also from the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, observed that although the data showed rural areas are left behind, not every part of an urban area acts like the area more generally.

As a result, they’re delving into the 25 largest urban areas and trying to disaggregate, based on both socioeconomic status and race within the area, whether inequities exist, he said. “Believe it or not, in some urban areas where there clearly is access – there might even be a dozen TAVR programs within a 25 mile radius – do some of those areas still act like rural areas that don’t have access? So more to come on that.”

Session comoderator Steven Yakubov, MD, MidWest Cardiology Research Foundation in Columbus, Ohio, said the results show TAVR programs tend to be developed in well-served areas but asked whether some of the responsibility falls on patients to seek medical attention. “Do we just not give enough education to patients on how to access care?”

Dr. Giri responded by highlighting the complexity of navigating from even being diagnosed with aortic stenosis to making it through a multidisciplinary TAVR evaluation.

“Individuals with increased health literacy and more means are more likely to make it through that gauntlet. But from a public health perspective, obviously, I’d argue that the onus is probably more on the medical community at large to figure out how to roll these programs out more widespread,” he said.

“It looked to us like market forces overwhelmingly seemed to drive the development of new TAVR programs over access to care considerations,” Dr. Giri added. “And just to point out, those market forces aren’t at the level of the device manufacturers, who are often maligned for cost. This is really about the market forces at the level of hospitals and health systems.”

Session comoderator Megan Coylewright, MD, MPH, Erlanger Heart and Lung Institute, Chattanooga, Tenn., said, “I think that’s really well stated,” and noted that physicians may bear some responsibility as well.

“From a physician responsibility, especially for structural heart, we tended to all aggregate together, all of us that have structural heart training or that have trained in certain institutions,” she said. “It’s certainly on us to continue to spread out and go to the communities in need to ensure access. I think, as Dr. Giri said, there are a lot of solutions and that needs to be the focus for the next couple of years.”

Dr. Nathan reported having no relevant disclosures. Dr. Giri reported serving as a principal investigator for a research study for Boston Scientific, Inari Medical, Abbott, and Recor Medical; consulting for Boston Scientific; and serving on an advisory board for Inari Medical.

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

Inequities in the initial growth of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) programs in American hospitals has led to less use of the transformative procedure in poorer communities, a new cross-sectional study suggests.

Using Medicare claims data, investigators identified 554 new TAVR programs created between January 2012 and December 2018.

Of these, 98% were established in metropolitan areas (>50,000 residents) and 53% were started in areas with preexisting TAVR programs, “thereby increasing the number of programs but not necessarily increasing the geographic availability of the procedure,” said study author Ashwin Nathan, MD, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Only 11 programs were started in nonmetropolitan areas over the study period, he noted during the featured clinical research presentation at the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) 2021 annual scientific sessions, held virtually this year.

Hospitals that established TAVR programs, compared with those that did not, cared for patients with higher median household incomes (difference, $1,305; P = .03) and from areas with better economic well-being based on the Distressed Communities Index (difference, –3.15 units; P < .01), and cared for fewer patients with dual eligibility for Medicaid (difference, –3.15%; P < .01).

When the investigators looked at rates of TAVR between the core-based statistical areas, there were fewer TAVR procedures per 100,000 Medicare beneficiaries in areas with more Medicaid dual-eligible patients (difference, –1.19% per 1% increase), lower average median household incomes (difference, –0.62% per $1,000 decrease), and more average community distress (difference, –0.35% per 1 unit increase; P < .01 for all).

“What we can conclude is that the increased number of TAVR programs that we found during the study period did not necessarily translate to increased access to TAVR ... Wealthy, more privileged patients had more access to TAVR by virtue of the hospitals that serve them,” Dr. Nathan said.

Future steps, he said, are to identify the role of race and ethnicity in inequitable access to TAVR, identify system- and patient-level barriers to access, and to develop and test solutions to address inequitable care.

Elaborating on the latter point during a discussion of the results, study coauthor Jay S. Giri, MD, MPH, also from the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, observed that although the data showed rural areas are left behind, not every part of an urban area acts like the area more generally.

As a result, they’re delving into the 25 largest urban areas and trying to disaggregate, based on both socioeconomic status and race within the area, whether inequities exist, he said. “Believe it or not, in some urban areas where there clearly is access – there might even be a dozen TAVR programs within a 25 mile radius – do some of those areas still act like rural areas that don’t have access? So more to come on that.”

Session comoderator Steven Yakubov, MD, MidWest Cardiology Research Foundation in Columbus, Ohio, said the results show TAVR programs tend to be developed in well-served areas but asked whether some of the responsibility falls on patients to seek medical attention. “Do we just not give enough education to patients on how to access care?”

Dr. Giri responded by highlighting the complexity of navigating from even being diagnosed with aortic stenosis to making it through a multidisciplinary TAVR evaluation.

“Individuals with increased health literacy and more means are more likely to make it through that gauntlet. But from a public health perspective, obviously, I’d argue that the onus is probably more on the medical community at large to figure out how to roll these programs out more widespread,” he said.

“It looked to us like market forces overwhelmingly seemed to drive the development of new TAVR programs over access to care considerations,” Dr. Giri added. “And just to point out, those market forces aren’t at the level of the device manufacturers, who are often maligned for cost. This is really about the market forces at the level of hospitals and health systems.”

Session comoderator Megan Coylewright, MD, MPH, Erlanger Heart and Lung Institute, Chattanooga, Tenn., said, “I think that’s really well stated,” and noted that physicians may bear some responsibility as well.

“From a physician responsibility, especially for structural heart, we tended to all aggregate together, all of us that have structural heart training or that have trained in certain institutions,” she said. “It’s certainly on us to continue to spread out and go to the communities in need to ensure access. I think, as Dr. Giri said, there are a lot of solutions and that needs to be the focus for the next couple of years.”

Dr. Nathan reported having no relevant disclosures. Dr. Giri reported serving as a principal investigator for a research study for Boston Scientific, Inari Medical, Abbott, and Recor Medical; consulting for Boston Scientific; and serving on an advisory board for Inari Medical.

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

Inequities in the initial growth of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) programs in American hospitals has led to less use of the transformative procedure in poorer communities, a new cross-sectional study suggests.

Using Medicare claims data, investigators identified 554 new TAVR programs created between January 2012 and December 2018.

Of these, 98% were established in metropolitan areas (>50,000 residents) and 53% were started in areas with preexisting TAVR programs, “thereby increasing the number of programs but not necessarily increasing the geographic availability of the procedure,” said study author Ashwin Nathan, MD, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Only 11 programs were started in nonmetropolitan areas over the study period, he noted during the featured clinical research presentation at the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) 2021 annual scientific sessions, held virtually this year.

Hospitals that established TAVR programs, compared with those that did not, cared for patients with higher median household incomes (difference, $1,305; P = .03) and from areas with better economic well-being based on the Distressed Communities Index (difference, –3.15 units; P < .01), and cared for fewer patients with dual eligibility for Medicaid (difference, –3.15%; P < .01).

When the investigators looked at rates of TAVR between the core-based statistical areas, there were fewer TAVR procedures per 100,000 Medicare beneficiaries in areas with more Medicaid dual-eligible patients (difference, –1.19% per 1% increase), lower average median household incomes (difference, –0.62% per $1,000 decrease), and more average community distress (difference, –0.35% per 1 unit increase; P < .01 for all).

“What we can conclude is that the increased number of TAVR programs that we found during the study period did not necessarily translate to increased access to TAVR ... Wealthy, more privileged patients had more access to TAVR by virtue of the hospitals that serve them,” Dr. Nathan said.

Future steps, he said, are to identify the role of race and ethnicity in inequitable access to TAVR, identify system- and patient-level barriers to access, and to develop and test solutions to address inequitable care.

Elaborating on the latter point during a discussion of the results, study coauthor Jay S. Giri, MD, MPH, also from the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, observed that although the data showed rural areas are left behind, not every part of an urban area acts like the area more generally.

As a result, they’re delving into the 25 largest urban areas and trying to disaggregate, based on both socioeconomic status and race within the area, whether inequities exist, he said. “Believe it or not, in some urban areas where there clearly is access – there might even be a dozen TAVR programs within a 25 mile radius – do some of those areas still act like rural areas that don’t have access? So more to come on that.”

Session comoderator Steven Yakubov, MD, MidWest Cardiology Research Foundation in Columbus, Ohio, said the results show TAVR programs tend to be developed in well-served areas but asked whether some of the responsibility falls on patients to seek medical attention. “Do we just not give enough education to patients on how to access care?”

Dr. Giri responded by highlighting the complexity of navigating from even being diagnosed with aortic stenosis to making it through a multidisciplinary TAVR evaluation.

“Individuals with increased health literacy and more means are more likely to make it through that gauntlet. But from a public health perspective, obviously, I’d argue that the onus is probably more on the medical community at large to figure out how to roll these programs out more widespread,” he said.

“It looked to us like market forces overwhelmingly seemed to drive the development of new TAVR programs over access to care considerations,” Dr. Giri added. “And just to point out, those market forces aren’t at the level of the device manufacturers, who are often maligned for cost. This is really about the market forces at the level of hospitals and health systems.”

Session comoderator Megan Coylewright, MD, MPH, Erlanger Heart and Lung Institute, Chattanooga, Tenn., said, “I think that’s really well stated,” and noted that physicians may bear some responsibility as well.

“From a physician responsibility, especially for structural heart, we tended to all aggregate together, all of us that have structural heart training or that have trained in certain institutions,” she said. “It’s certainly on us to continue to spread out and go to the communities in need to ensure access. I think, as Dr. Giri said, there are a lot of solutions and that needs to be the focus for the next couple of years.”

Dr. Nathan reported having no relevant disclosures. Dr. Giri reported serving as a principal investigator for a research study for Boston Scientific, Inari Medical, Abbott, and Recor Medical; consulting for Boston Scientific; and serving on an advisory board for Inari Medical.

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