MDedge Emergency Medicine

Intake of salt is a biological necessity, inextricably woven into physiologic systems. However, excessive salt intake is associated with high blood pressure. Hypertension is linked to increased cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, and it is estimated that excessive salt intake causes approximately 5 million deaths per year worldwide. Reducing salt intake lowers blood pressure, but processed foods contain “hidden” salt, which makes dietary control of salt difficult. This problem is compounded by growing inequalities in food systems, which present another hurdle to sustaining individual dietary control of salt intake.

Krisana Antharith / EyeEm / Getty Images

Of the 87 risk factors included in the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study 2019, high systolic blood pressure was identified as the leading risk factor for disease burden at the global level and for its effect on human health. A range of strategies, including primary care management and reduction in sodium intake, are known to reduce the burden of this critical risk factor. Two questions remain unanswered: “What is the relationship between mortality and adding salt to foods?” and “How much does a reduction in salt intake influence people’s health?”
 

Cardiovascular disease and death

Because dietary sodium intake has been identified as a risk factor for cardiovascular disease and premature death, high sodium intake can be expected to curtail life span. A study tested this hypothesis by analyzing the relationship between sodium intake and life expectancy and survival in 181 countries. Sodium intake correlated positively with life expectancy and inversely with all-cause mortality worldwide and in high-income countries, which argues against dietary sodium intake curtailing life span or a being risk factor for premature death. These results help fuel a scientific debate about sodium intake, life expectancy, and mortality. The debate requires interpreting composite data of positive linear, J-shaped, or inverse linear correlations, which underscores the uncertainty regarding this issue.

In a prospective study of 501,379 participants from the UK Biobank, researchers found that higher frequency of adding salt to foods was significantly associated with a higher risk of premature mortality and lower life expectancy independently of diet, lifestyle, socioeconomic level, and preexisting diseases. They found that the positive association appeared to be attenuated with increasing intake of high-potassium foods (vegetables and fruits).

In addition, the researchers made the following observations:

• For cause-specific premature mortality, they found that higher frequency of adding salt to foods was significantly associated with a higher risk of cardiovascular disease mortality and cancer mortality (P-trend < .001 and P-trend < .001, respectively).
• Always adding salt to foods was associated with the lower life expectancy at the age of 50 years by 1.50 (95% confidence interval, 0.72-2.30) and 2.28 (95% CI, 1.66-2.90) years for women and men, respectively, compared with participants who never or rarely added salt to foods.

The researchers noted that adding salt to foods (usually at the table) is common and is directly related to an individual’s long-term preference for salty foods and habitual salt intake. Indeed, in the Western diet, adding salt at the table accounts for 6%-20% of total salt intake. In addition, commonly used table salt contains 97%-99% sodium chloride, minimizing the potential confounding effects of other dietary factors, including potassium. Therefore, adding salt to foods provides a way to evaluate the association between habitual sodium intake and mortality – something that is relevant, given that it has been estimated that in 2010, a total of 1.65 million deaths from cardiovascular causes were attributable to consumption of more than 2.0 g of sodium per day.
 

Salt sensitivity

Current evidence supports a recommendation for moderate sodium intake in the general population (3-5 g/day). Persons with hypertension should consume salt at the lower end of that range. Some dietary guidelines recommend consuming less than 2,300 mg dietary sodium per day for persons aged 14 years or older and less for persons aged 2-13 years. Although low sodium intake (< 2.0 g/day) has been achieved in short-term clinical trials, sustained low sodium intake has not been achieved in any of the longer-term clinical trials (duration > 6 months).

The controversy continues as to the relationship between low sodium intake and blood pressure or cardiovascular diseases. Most studies show that both in individuals with hypertension and those without, blood pressure is reduced by consuming less sodium. However, it is not necessarily lowered by reducing sodium intake (< 3-5 g/day). With a sodium-rich diet, most normotensive individuals experienced a minimal change in mean arterial pressure; for many individuals with hypertension, the values increased by about 4 mm Hg. In addition, among individuals with hypertension who are “salt sensitive,” arterial pressure can increase by > 10 mm Hg in response to high sodium intake.
 

The effect of potassium

Replacing some of the sodium chloride in regular salt with potassium chloride may mitigate some of salt’s harmful cardiovascular effects. Indeed, salt substitutes that have reduced sodium levels and increased potassium levels have been shown to lower blood pressure.

In one trial, researchers enrolled over 20,000 persons from 600 villages in rural China and compared the use of regular salt (100% sodium chloride) with the use of a salt substitute (75% sodium chloride and 25% potassium chloride by mass).

The participants were at high risk for stroke, cardiovascular events, and death. The mean duration of follow-up was 4.74 years. The results were surprising. The rate of stroke was lower with the salt substitute than with regular salt (29.14 events vs. 33.65 events per 1,000 person-years; rate ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.77-0.96; P = .006), as were the rates of major cardiovascular events and death from any cause. The rate of serious adverse events attributed to hyperkalemia was not significantly higher with the salt substitute than with regular salt.

Although there is an ongoing debate about the extent of salt’s effects on the cardiovascular system, there is no doubt that in most places in the world, people are consuming more salt than the body needs.

A lot depends upon the kind of diet consumed by a particular population. Processed food is rarely used in rural areas, such as those involved in the above-mentioned trial, with dietary sodium chloride being added while preparing food at home. This is a determining factor with regard to cardiovascular outcomes, but it cannot be generalized to other social-environmental settings.

In much of the world, commercial food preservation introduces a lot of sodium chloride into the diet, and most salt intake could not be fully attributed to the use of salt substitutes. Indeed, by comparing the sodium content of cereal-based products currently sold on the Italian market with the respective benchmarks proposed by the World Health Organization, researchers found that for most items, the sodium content is much higher than the benchmarks, especially with flatbreads, leavened breads, and crackers/savory biscuits. This shows that there is work to be done to achieve the World Health Organization/United Nations objective of a 30% global reduction in sodium intake by 2025.

This article was translated from Univadis Italy. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Intake of salt is a biological necessity, inextricably woven into physiologic systems. However, excessive salt intake is associated with high blood pressure. Hypertension is linked to increased cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, and it is estimated that excessive salt intake causes approximately 5 million deaths per year worldwide. Reducing salt intake lowers blood pressure, but processed foods contain “hidden” salt, which makes dietary control of salt difficult. This problem is compounded by growing inequalities in food systems, which present another hurdle to sustaining individual dietary control of salt intake.

Krisana Antharith / EyeEm / Getty Images

Of the 87 risk factors included in the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study 2019, high systolic blood pressure was identified as the leading risk factor for disease burden at the global level and for its effect on human health. A range of strategies, including primary care management and reduction in sodium intake, are known to reduce the burden of this critical risk factor. Two questions remain unanswered: “What is the relationship between mortality and adding salt to foods?” and “How much does a reduction in salt intake influence people’s health?”
 

Cardiovascular disease and death

Because dietary sodium intake has been identified as a risk factor for cardiovascular disease and premature death, high sodium intake can be expected to curtail life span. A study tested this hypothesis by analyzing the relationship between sodium intake and life expectancy and survival in 181 countries. Sodium intake correlated positively with life expectancy and inversely with all-cause mortality worldwide and in high-income countries, which argues against dietary sodium intake curtailing life span or a being risk factor for premature death. These results help fuel a scientific debate about sodium intake, life expectancy, and mortality. The debate requires interpreting composite data of positive linear, J-shaped, or inverse linear correlations, which underscores the uncertainty regarding this issue.

In a prospective study of 501,379 participants from the UK Biobank, researchers found that higher frequency of adding salt to foods was significantly associated with a higher risk of premature mortality and lower life expectancy independently of diet, lifestyle, socioeconomic level, and preexisting diseases. They found that the positive association appeared to be attenuated with increasing intake of high-potassium foods (vegetables and fruits).

In addition, the researchers made the following observations:

• For cause-specific premature mortality, they found that higher frequency of adding salt to foods was significantly associated with a higher risk of cardiovascular disease mortality and cancer mortality (P-trend < .001 and P-trend < .001, respectively).
• Always adding salt to foods was associated with the lower life expectancy at the age of 50 years by 1.50 (95% confidence interval, 0.72-2.30) and 2.28 (95% CI, 1.66-2.90) years for women and men, respectively, compared with participants who never or rarely added salt to foods.

The researchers noted that adding salt to foods (usually at the table) is common and is directly related to an individual’s long-term preference for salty foods and habitual salt intake. Indeed, in the Western diet, adding salt at the table accounts for 6%-20% of total salt intake. In addition, commonly used table salt contains 97%-99% sodium chloride, minimizing the potential confounding effects of other dietary factors, including potassium. Therefore, adding salt to foods provides a way to evaluate the association between habitual sodium intake and mortality – something that is relevant, given that it has been estimated that in 2010, a total of 1.65 million deaths from cardiovascular causes were attributable to consumption of more than 2.0 g of sodium per day.
 

Salt sensitivity

Current evidence supports a recommendation for moderate sodium intake in the general population (3-5 g/day). Persons with hypertension should consume salt at the lower end of that range. Some dietary guidelines recommend consuming less than 2,300 mg dietary sodium per day for persons aged 14 years or older and less for persons aged 2-13 years. Although low sodium intake (< 2.0 g/day) has been achieved in short-term clinical trials, sustained low sodium intake has not been achieved in any of the longer-term clinical trials (duration > 6 months).

The controversy continues as to the relationship between low sodium intake and blood pressure or cardiovascular diseases. Most studies show that both in individuals with hypertension and those without, blood pressure is reduced by consuming less sodium. However, it is not necessarily lowered by reducing sodium intake (< 3-5 g/day). With a sodium-rich diet, most normotensive individuals experienced a minimal change in mean arterial pressure; for many individuals with hypertension, the values increased by about 4 mm Hg. In addition, among individuals with hypertension who are “salt sensitive,” arterial pressure can increase by > 10 mm Hg in response to high sodium intake.
 

The effect of potassium

Replacing some of the sodium chloride in regular salt with potassium chloride may mitigate some of salt’s harmful cardiovascular effects. Indeed, salt substitutes that have reduced sodium levels and increased potassium levels have been shown to lower blood pressure.

In one trial, researchers enrolled over 20,000 persons from 600 villages in rural China and compared the use of regular salt (100% sodium chloride) with the use of a salt substitute (75% sodium chloride and 25% potassium chloride by mass).

The participants were at high risk for stroke, cardiovascular events, and death. The mean duration of follow-up was 4.74 years. The results were surprising. The rate of stroke was lower with the salt substitute than with regular salt (29.14 events vs. 33.65 events per 1,000 person-years; rate ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.77-0.96; P = .006), as were the rates of major cardiovascular events and death from any cause. The rate of serious adverse events attributed to hyperkalemia was not significantly higher with the salt substitute than with regular salt.

Although there is an ongoing debate about the extent of salt’s effects on the cardiovascular system, there is no doubt that in most places in the world, people are consuming more salt than the body needs.

A lot depends upon the kind of diet consumed by a particular population. Processed food is rarely used in rural areas, such as those involved in the above-mentioned trial, with dietary sodium chloride being added while preparing food at home. This is a determining factor with regard to cardiovascular outcomes, but it cannot be generalized to other social-environmental settings.

In much of the world, commercial food preservation introduces a lot of sodium chloride into the diet, and most salt intake could not be fully attributed to the use of salt substitutes. Indeed, by comparing the sodium content of cereal-based products currently sold on the Italian market with the respective benchmarks proposed by the World Health Organization, researchers found that for most items, the sodium content is much higher than the benchmarks, especially with flatbreads, leavened breads, and crackers/savory biscuits. This shows that there is work to be done to achieve the World Health Organization/United Nations objective of a 30% global reduction in sodium intake by 2025.

This article was translated from Univadis Italy. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Intake of salt is a biological necessity, inextricably woven into physiologic systems. However, excessive salt intake is associated with high blood pressure. Hypertension is linked to increased cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, and it is estimated that excessive salt intake causes approximately 5 million deaths per year worldwide. Reducing salt intake lowers blood pressure, but processed foods contain “hidden” salt, which makes dietary control of salt difficult. This problem is compounded by growing inequalities in food systems, which present another hurdle to sustaining individual dietary control of salt intake.

Krisana Antharith / EyeEm / Getty Images

Of the 87 risk factors included in the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study 2019, high systolic blood pressure was identified as the leading risk factor for disease burden at the global level and for its effect on human health. A range of strategies, including primary care management and reduction in sodium intake, are known to reduce the burden of this critical risk factor. Two questions remain unanswered: “What is the relationship between mortality and adding salt to foods?” and “How much does a reduction in salt intake influence people’s health?”
 

Cardiovascular disease and death

Because dietary sodium intake has been identified as a risk factor for cardiovascular disease and premature death, high sodium intake can be expected to curtail life span. A study tested this hypothesis by analyzing the relationship between sodium intake and life expectancy and survival in 181 countries. Sodium intake correlated positively with life expectancy and inversely with all-cause mortality worldwide and in high-income countries, which argues against dietary sodium intake curtailing life span or a being risk factor for premature death. These results help fuel a scientific debate about sodium intake, life expectancy, and mortality. The debate requires interpreting composite data of positive linear, J-shaped, or inverse linear correlations, which underscores the uncertainty regarding this issue.

In a prospective study of 501,379 participants from the UK Biobank, researchers found that higher frequency of adding salt to foods was significantly associated with a higher risk of premature mortality and lower life expectancy independently of diet, lifestyle, socioeconomic level, and preexisting diseases. They found that the positive association appeared to be attenuated with increasing intake of high-potassium foods (vegetables and fruits).

In addition, the researchers made the following observations:

• For cause-specific premature mortality, they found that higher frequency of adding salt to foods was significantly associated with a higher risk of cardiovascular disease mortality and cancer mortality (P-trend < .001 and P-trend < .001, respectively).
• Always adding salt to foods was associated with the lower life expectancy at the age of 50 years by 1.50 (95% confidence interval, 0.72-2.30) and 2.28 (95% CI, 1.66-2.90) years for women and men, respectively, compared with participants who never or rarely added salt to foods.

The researchers noted that adding salt to foods (usually at the table) is common and is directly related to an individual’s long-term preference for salty foods and habitual salt intake. Indeed, in the Western diet, adding salt at the table accounts for 6%-20% of total salt intake. In addition, commonly used table salt contains 97%-99% sodium chloride, minimizing the potential confounding effects of other dietary factors, including potassium. Therefore, adding salt to foods provides a way to evaluate the association between habitual sodium intake and mortality – something that is relevant, given that it has been estimated that in 2010, a total of 1.65 million deaths from cardiovascular causes were attributable to consumption of more than 2.0 g of sodium per day.
 

Salt sensitivity

Current evidence supports a recommendation for moderate sodium intake in the general population (3-5 g/day). Persons with hypertension should consume salt at the lower end of that range. Some dietary guidelines recommend consuming less than 2,300 mg dietary sodium per day for persons aged 14 years or older and less for persons aged 2-13 years. Although low sodium intake (< 2.0 g/day) has been achieved in short-term clinical trials, sustained low sodium intake has not been achieved in any of the longer-term clinical trials (duration > 6 months).

The controversy continues as to the relationship between low sodium intake and blood pressure or cardiovascular diseases. Most studies show that both in individuals with hypertension and those without, blood pressure is reduced by consuming less sodium. However, it is not necessarily lowered by reducing sodium intake (< 3-5 g/day). With a sodium-rich diet, most normotensive individuals experienced a minimal change in mean arterial pressure; for many individuals with hypertension, the values increased by about 4 mm Hg. In addition, among individuals with hypertension who are “salt sensitive,” arterial pressure can increase by > 10 mm Hg in response to high sodium intake.
 

The effect of potassium

Replacing some of the sodium chloride in regular salt with potassium chloride may mitigate some of salt’s harmful cardiovascular effects. Indeed, salt substitutes that have reduced sodium levels and increased potassium levels have been shown to lower blood pressure.

In one trial, researchers enrolled over 20,000 persons from 600 villages in rural China and compared the use of regular salt (100% sodium chloride) with the use of a salt substitute (75% sodium chloride and 25% potassium chloride by mass).

The participants were at high risk for stroke, cardiovascular events, and death. The mean duration of follow-up was 4.74 years. The results were surprising. The rate of stroke was lower with the salt substitute than with regular salt (29.14 events vs. 33.65 events per 1,000 person-years; rate ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.77-0.96; P = .006), as were the rates of major cardiovascular events and death from any cause. The rate of serious adverse events attributed to hyperkalemia was not significantly higher with the salt substitute than with regular salt.

Although there is an ongoing debate about the extent of salt’s effects on the cardiovascular system, there is no doubt that in most places in the world, people are consuming more salt than the body needs.

A lot depends upon the kind of diet consumed by a particular population. Processed food is rarely used in rural areas, such as those involved in the above-mentioned trial, with dietary sodium chloride being added while preparing food at home. This is a determining factor with regard to cardiovascular outcomes, but it cannot be generalized to other social-environmental settings.

In much of the world, commercial food preservation introduces a lot of sodium chloride into the diet, and most salt intake could not be fully attributed to the use of salt substitutes. Indeed, by comparing the sodium content of cereal-based products currently sold on the Italian market with the respective benchmarks proposed by the World Health Organization, researchers found that for most items, the sodium content is much higher than the benchmarks, especially with flatbreads, leavened breads, and crackers/savory biscuits. This shows that there is work to be done to achieve the World Health Organization/United Nations objective of a 30% global reduction in sodium intake by 2025.

This article was translated from Univadis Italy. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

During a medical malpractice trial in New Jersey, jurors waited nearly 4 hours for the physician defendant to show up. When he did arrive, the body-building surgeon was sporting two thick gold chains and a diamond pinky ring, and had the top buttons of his shirt open enough to reveal his chest hair.

“This trial was in a very rural, farming community,” recalls medical liability defense attorney Catherine Flynn, of Flynn Watts LLC, based in Parsippany, N.J. “Many of the jurors were wearing flannel shirts and jeans. The doctor’s wife walked in wearing a five-carat diamond ring and other jewelry.”

Ms. Flynn took the couple aside and asked them to remove the jewelry. She explained that the opulent accessories could damage the jury’s view of the physician. The surgeon and his wife, however, refused to remove their jewelry, she said. They didn’t think it was a big deal.

The case against the surgeon involved intraoperative damage to a patient when the physician inadvertently removed a portion of nerve in the area of the procedure. After repair of the nerve, the patient had a positive result. However, the patient alleged the surgeon’s negligence resulted in permanent damage despite the successful repair.

Jurors ultimately found the physician negligent in the case and awarded the plaintiff $1.2 million. Ms. Flynn believes that physician’s flamboyant attire and arrogant nature tainted the jury’s decision.

“In certain counties in New Jersey, his attire would not have been a problem,” she said. “In this rural, farming county, it was a huge problem. You have to know your audience. There are a lot of other things that come into play in a medical malpractice case, but when it comes to damages in a case, you don’t want to be sending the message that supports what somebody’s bias may already be telling them about a doctor.”

The surgeon appealed the verdict, and the case ultimately settled for a lesser amount, according to Ms. Flynn.

An over-the-top wardrobe is just one way that physicians can negatively influence jurors during legal trials. From subtle facial expressions to sudden outbursts to downright rudeness, attorneys have witnessed countless examples of physicians sabotaging their own trials. Legal experts say the cringeworthy experiences are good reminders that jurors are often judging more than just evidence.  

“The minute you enter the courthouse, jurors or potential jurors are sizing you up,” says health law attorney Michael Clark, of Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP, based in Houston. “The same phenomenon occurs in a deposition. Awareness of how you are being assessed at all times, and the image that is needed, is important since a negative impression by jurors can have a detrimental effect on a physician’s case.”
 

Juror: We didn’t like the doctor’s shoes

In another case, attorneys warned a physician defendant against dressing in his signature wardrobe during his trial. Against their advice, the doctor showed up daily to his trial in bright pastel, monochromatic suits with matching Gucci-brand shoes, said medical liability defense attorney Meredith C. Lander, of Kaufman Borgeest & Ryan LLP, based in Connecticut. On the witness stand, the doctor was long-winded and wasn’t “terribly likable,” Ms. Lander said.

However, the evidence weighed in the physician’s favor, and there was strong testimony by defense experts. The physician won the case, Ms. Lander said, but after the verdict, the jury foreperson approached the trial attorney and made some disparaging remarks about the defendant.

“The foreperson said the jury didn’t like the doctor or his ‘Gucci suits and shoes,’ but they believed the experts,” Ms. Lander said.

Disruptive behavior can also harm jurors’ perception of physicians, Ms. Flynn adds. During one instance, a surgeon insisted on sitting next to Ms. Flynn, although she generally requests clients sit in the first row so that jurors are not so focused on their reactions during testimony. The surgeon loudly peppered Ms. Flynn with questions as witnesses testified, prompting a reprimand from the judge.

“The judge admonished the doctor several times and said, ‘Doctor, you’re raising your voice. You’ll get a chance to speak with your attorney during the break,’ ” Ms. Flynn recalled. “The doctor refused to stop talking, and the judge told him in front of the jury to go sit in the back of the courtroom. His reaction was, ‘Why do I have to move?! I need to sit here!’ ”

The surgeon eventually moved to the back of the courtroom and a sheriff’s deputy stood next to him. Testimony continued until a note in the form of a paper airplane landed on the table in front of Ms. Flynn. She carefully crumpled the note and tossed it in the wastebasket. Luckily, this drew a laugh from jurors, she said. 

But things got worse when the surgeon testified. Rather than answer the questions, he interrupted and started telling jurors his own version of events.

“The judge finally said, ‘Doctor, if you don’t listen to your attorney and answer her questions, I’m going to make you get off the stand,’ ” Ms. Flynn said. “That was the most unbelievable, egregious self-sabotage trial moment I’ve ever experienced.”

Fortunately, the physician’s legal case was strong, and the experts who testified drove the defense’s side home, Ms. Flynn said. The surgeon won the case.
 

Attorney: Watch what you say in the elevator

Other, more subtle behaviors – while often unintentional – can also be damaging.

Physicians often let their guard down while outside the courtroom and can unknowingly wind up next to a juror in an elevator or standing in a hallway, said Laura Postilion, a partner at Quintairos, Prieto, Wood & Boyer, P.A., based in Chicago.

“For instance, a doctor is in an elevator and feels that some witness on the stand was lying,” Ms. Postilion said. “They might be very upset about it and start ranting about a witness lying, not realizing there is a juror is in the elevator with you.”

Physicians should also be cautious when speaking on the phone to their family or friends during a trial break.

“At the Daley Center in downtown Chicago, there are these long corridors and long line of windows; a lot of people will stand there during breaks. A doctor may be talking to his or her spouse and saying, ‘Yeah, this juror is sleeping!’ Jurors are [often] looking for drama. They’re looking for somebody letting their guard down. Hearing a doctor speak badly about them would certainly give them a reason to dislike the physician.”

Ms. Postilion warns against talking about jurors in or outside of the courtroom. This includes parking structures, she said.

Physicians can take additional steps to save themselves from negative judgment from jurors, attorneys say. Even before the trial starts, Ms. Postilion advises clients to make their social media accounts private. Some curious jurors may look up a physician’s social media accounts to learn more about their personal life, political leanings, or social beliefs, which could prejudice them against the doctor, she said.

Once on the stand, the words and tone used are key. The last thing a physician defendant wants is to come across as arrogant or condescending to jurors, said medical liability defense attorney Michael Moroney, of Flynn Watts LLC.

“For instance, a defendant might say, ‘Well, let me make this simple for you,’ as if they’re talking to a bunch of schoolchildren,” he said. “You don’t know who’s on the jury. That type of language can be offensive.”

Ms. Lander counsels her clients to refrain from using the common phrase, “honestly,” before answering questions on the stand.

“Everything you’re saying on the stand is presumed to be honest,” she said. “When you start an answer with, ‘Honestly…’ out of habit, it really does undercut everything that follows and everything else that’s already been said. It suggests that you were not being honest in your other answers.”
 

Attitude, body language speak volumes

Keep in mind that plaintiffs’ attorneys will try their best to rattle physicians on the stand and get them to appear unlikeable, says Mr. Clark, the Houston-based health law attorney. Physicians who lose their cool and begin arguing with attorneys play into their strategy.

“Plaintiffs’ attorneys have been trained in ways to get under their skin,” he said. “Righteous indignation and annoyance are best left for a rare occasion. Think about how you feel in a social setting when people are bickering in front of you. It’s uncomfortable at best. That’s how a jury feels too.”

Body language is also important, Mr. Clark notes. Physicians should avoid crossed arms, leaning back and rocking, or putting a hand on their mouth while testifying, he said. Many attorneys have practice sessions with their clients and record the interaction so that doctors can watch it and see how they look.

“Know your strengths and weaknesses,” he said. “Get help from your lawyer and perhaps consultants about how to improve these skills. Practice and preparation are important.”

Ms. Postilion goes over courtroom clothing with physician clients before trial. Anything “too flashy, too high-end, or too dumpy” should be avoided, she said. Getting accustomed to the courtroom and practicing in an empty courtroom are good ways to ensure that a physician’s voice is loud enough and projecting far enough in the courtroom, she adds.

“The doctor should try to be the best version of him- or herself to jurors,” she said. “A jury can pick up someone who’s trying to be something they’re not. A good attorney can help the doctor find the best version of themselves and capitalize on it. What is it that you want the jury to know about your care of the patient? Take that overall feeling and make sure it’s clearly expressed to the jury.”

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

During a medical malpractice trial in New Jersey, jurors waited nearly 4 hours for the physician defendant to show up. When he did arrive, the body-building surgeon was sporting two thick gold chains and a diamond pinky ring, and had the top buttons of his shirt open enough to reveal his chest hair.

“This trial was in a very rural, farming community,” recalls medical liability defense attorney Catherine Flynn, of Flynn Watts LLC, based in Parsippany, N.J. “Many of the jurors were wearing flannel shirts and jeans. The doctor’s wife walked in wearing a five-carat diamond ring and other jewelry.”

Ms. Flynn took the couple aside and asked them to remove the jewelry. She explained that the opulent accessories could damage the jury’s view of the physician. The surgeon and his wife, however, refused to remove their jewelry, she said. They didn’t think it was a big deal.

The case against the surgeon involved intraoperative damage to a patient when the physician inadvertently removed a portion of nerve in the area of the procedure. After repair of the nerve, the patient had a positive result. However, the patient alleged the surgeon’s negligence resulted in permanent damage despite the successful repair.

Jurors ultimately found the physician negligent in the case and awarded the plaintiff $1.2 million. Ms. Flynn believes that physician’s flamboyant attire and arrogant nature tainted the jury’s decision.

“In certain counties in New Jersey, his attire would not have been a problem,” she said. “In this rural, farming county, it was a huge problem. You have to know your audience. There are a lot of other things that come into play in a medical malpractice case, but when it comes to damages in a case, you don’t want to be sending the message that supports what somebody’s bias may already be telling them about a doctor.”

The surgeon appealed the verdict, and the case ultimately settled for a lesser amount, according to Ms. Flynn.

An over-the-top wardrobe is just one way that physicians can negatively influence jurors during legal trials. From subtle facial expressions to sudden outbursts to downright rudeness, attorneys have witnessed countless examples of physicians sabotaging their own trials. Legal experts say the cringeworthy experiences are good reminders that jurors are often judging more than just evidence.  

“The minute you enter the courthouse, jurors or potential jurors are sizing you up,” says health law attorney Michael Clark, of Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP, based in Houston. “The same phenomenon occurs in a deposition. Awareness of how you are being assessed at all times, and the image that is needed, is important since a negative impression by jurors can have a detrimental effect on a physician’s case.”
 

Juror: We didn’t like the doctor’s shoes

In another case, attorneys warned a physician defendant against dressing in his signature wardrobe during his trial. Against their advice, the doctor showed up daily to his trial in bright pastel, monochromatic suits with matching Gucci-brand shoes, said medical liability defense attorney Meredith C. Lander, of Kaufman Borgeest & Ryan LLP, based in Connecticut. On the witness stand, the doctor was long-winded and wasn’t “terribly likable,” Ms. Lander said.

However, the evidence weighed in the physician’s favor, and there was strong testimony by defense experts. The physician won the case, Ms. Lander said, but after the verdict, the jury foreperson approached the trial attorney and made some disparaging remarks about the defendant.

“The foreperson said the jury didn’t like the doctor or his ‘Gucci suits and shoes,’ but they believed the experts,” Ms. Lander said.

Disruptive behavior can also harm jurors’ perception of physicians, Ms. Flynn adds. During one instance, a surgeon insisted on sitting next to Ms. Flynn, although she generally requests clients sit in the first row so that jurors are not so focused on their reactions during testimony. The surgeon loudly peppered Ms. Flynn with questions as witnesses testified, prompting a reprimand from the judge.

“The judge admonished the doctor several times and said, ‘Doctor, you’re raising your voice. You’ll get a chance to speak with your attorney during the break,’ ” Ms. Flynn recalled. “The doctor refused to stop talking, and the judge told him in front of the jury to go sit in the back of the courtroom. His reaction was, ‘Why do I have to move?! I need to sit here!’ ”

The surgeon eventually moved to the back of the courtroom and a sheriff’s deputy stood next to him. Testimony continued until a note in the form of a paper airplane landed on the table in front of Ms. Flynn. She carefully crumpled the note and tossed it in the wastebasket. Luckily, this drew a laugh from jurors, she said. 

But things got worse when the surgeon testified. Rather than answer the questions, he interrupted and started telling jurors his own version of events.

“The judge finally said, ‘Doctor, if you don’t listen to your attorney and answer her questions, I’m going to make you get off the stand,’ ” Ms. Flynn said. “That was the most unbelievable, egregious self-sabotage trial moment I’ve ever experienced.”

Fortunately, the physician’s legal case was strong, and the experts who testified drove the defense’s side home, Ms. Flynn said. The surgeon won the case.
 

Attorney: Watch what you say in the elevator

Other, more subtle behaviors – while often unintentional – can also be damaging.

Physicians often let their guard down while outside the courtroom and can unknowingly wind up next to a juror in an elevator or standing in a hallway, said Laura Postilion, a partner at Quintairos, Prieto, Wood & Boyer, P.A., based in Chicago.

“For instance, a doctor is in an elevator and feels that some witness on the stand was lying,” Ms. Postilion said. “They might be very upset about it and start ranting about a witness lying, not realizing there is a juror is in the elevator with you.”

Physicians should also be cautious when speaking on the phone to their family or friends during a trial break.

“At the Daley Center in downtown Chicago, there are these long corridors and long line of windows; a lot of people will stand there during breaks. A doctor may be talking to his or her spouse and saying, ‘Yeah, this juror is sleeping!’ Jurors are [often] looking for drama. They’re looking for somebody letting their guard down. Hearing a doctor speak badly about them would certainly give them a reason to dislike the physician.”

Ms. Postilion warns against talking about jurors in or outside of the courtroom. This includes parking structures, she said.

Physicians can take additional steps to save themselves from negative judgment from jurors, attorneys say. Even before the trial starts, Ms. Postilion advises clients to make their social media accounts private. Some curious jurors may look up a physician’s social media accounts to learn more about their personal life, political leanings, or social beliefs, which could prejudice them against the doctor, she said.

Once on the stand, the words and tone used are key. The last thing a physician defendant wants is to come across as arrogant or condescending to jurors, said medical liability defense attorney Michael Moroney, of Flynn Watts LLC.

“For instance, a defendant might say, ‘Well, let me make this simple for you,’ as if they’re talking to a bunch of schoolchildren,” he said. “You don’t know who’s on the jury. That type of language can be offensive.”

Ms. Lander counsels her clients to refrain from using the common phrase, “honestly,” before answering questions on the stand.

“Everything you’re saying on the stand is presumed to be honest,” she said. “When you start an answer with, ‘Honestly…’ out of habit, it really does undercut everything that follows and everything else that’s already been said. It suggests that you were not being honest in your other answers.”
 

Attitude, body language speak volumes

Keep in mind that plaintiffs’ attorneys will try their best to rattle physicians on the stand and get them to appear unlikeable, says Mr. Clark, the Houston-based health law attorney. Physicians who lose their cool and begin arguing with attorneys play into their strategy.

“Plaintiffs’ attorneys have been trained in ways to get under their skin,” he said. “Righteous indignation and annoyance are best left for a rare occasion. Think about how you feel in a social setting when people are bickering in front of you. It’s uncomfortable at best. That’s how a jury feels too.”

Body language is also important, Mr. Clark notes. Physicians should avoid crossed arms, leaning back and rocking, or putting a hand on their mouth while testifying, he said. Many attorneys have practice sessions with their clients and record the interaction so that doctors can watch it and see how they look.

“Know your strengths and weaknesses,” he said. “Get help from your lawyer and perhaps consultants about how to improve these skills. Practice and preparation are important.”

Ms. Postilion goes over courtroom clothing with physician clients before trial. Anything “too flashy, too high-end, or too dumpy” should be avoided, she said. Getting accustomed to the courtroom and practicing in an empty courtroom are good ways to ensure that a physician’s voice is loud enough and projecting far enough in the courtroom, she adds.

“The doctor should try to be the best version of him- or herself to jurors,” she said. “A jury can pick up someone who’s trying to be something they’re not. A good attorney can help the doctor find the best version of themselves and capitalize on it. What is it that you want the jury to know about your care of the patient? Take that overall feeling and make sure it’s clearly expressed to the jury.”

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

During a medical malpractice trial in New Jersey, jurors waited nearly 4 hours for the physician defendant to show up. When he did arrive, the body-building surgeon was sporting two thick gold chains and a diamond pinky ring, and had the top buttons of his shirt open enough to reveal his chest hair.

“This trial was in a very rural, farming community,” recalls medical liability defense attorney Catherine Flynn, of Flynn Watts LLC, based in Parsippany, N.J. “Many of the jurors were wearing flannel shirts and jeans. The doctor’s wife walked in wearing a five-carat diamond ring and other jewelry.”

Ms. Flynn took the couple aside and asked them to remove the jewelry. She explained that the opulent accessories could damage the jury’s view of the physician. The surgeon and his wife, however, refused to remove their jewelry, she said. They didn’t think it was a big deal.

The case against the surgeon involved intraoperative damage to a patient when the physician inadvertently removed a portion of nerve in the area of the procedure. After repair of the nerve, the patient had a positive result. However, the patient alleged the surgeon’s negligence resulted in permanent damage despite the successful repair.

Jurors ultimately found the physician negligent in the case and awarded the plaintiff $1.2 million. Ms. Flynn believes that physician’s flamboyant attire and arrogant nature tainted the jury’s decision.

“In certain counties in New Jersey, his attire would not have been a problem,” she said. “In this rural, farming county, it was a huge problem. You have to know your audience. There are a lot of other things that come into play in a medical malpractice case, but when it comes to damages in a case, you don’t want to be sending the message that supports what somebody’s bias may already be telling them about a doctor.”

The surgeon appealed the verdict, and the case ultimately settled for a lesser amount, according to Ms. Flynn.

An over-the-top wardrobe is just one way that physicians can negatively influence jurors during legal trials. From subtle facial expressions to sudden outbursts to downright rudeness, attorneys have witnessed countless examples of physicians sabotaging their own trials. Legal experts say the cringeworthy experiences are good reminders that jurors are often judging more than just evidence.  

“The minute you enter the courthouse, jurors or potential jurors are sizing you up,” says health law attorney Michael Clark, of Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP, based in Houston. “The same phenomenon occurs in a deposition. Awareness of how you are being assessed at all times, and the image that is needed, is important since a negative impression by jurors can have a detrimental effect on a physician’s case.”
 

Juror: We didn’t like the doctor’s shoes

In another case, attorneys warned a physician defendant against dressing in his signature wardrobe during his trial. Against their advice, the doctor showed up daily to his trial in bright pastel, monochromatic suits with matching Gucci-brand shoes, said medical liability defense attorney Meredith C. Lander, of Kaufman Borgeest & Ryan LLP, based in Connecticut. On the witness stand, the doctor was long-winded and wasn’t “terribly likable,” Ms. Lander said.

However, the evidence weighed in the physician’s favor, and there was strong testimony by defense experts. The physician won the case, Ms. Lander said, but after the verdict, the jury foreperson approached the trial attorney and made some disparaging remarks about the defendant.

“The foreperson said the jury didn’t like the doctor or his ‘Gucci suits and shoes,’ but they believed the experts,” Ms. Lander said.

Disruptive behavior can also harm jurors’ perception of physicians, Ms. Flynn adds. During one instance, a surgeon insisted on sitting next to Ms. Flynn, although she generally requests clients sit in the first row so that jurors are not so focused on their reactions during testimony. The surgeon loudly peppered Ms. Flynn with questions as witnesses testified, prompting a reprimand from the judge.

“The judge admonished the doctor several times and said, ‘Doctor, you’re raising your voice. You’ll get a chance to speak with your attorney during the break,’ ” Ms. Flynn recalled. “The doctor refused to stop talking, and the judge told him in front of the jury to go sit in the back of the courtroom. His reaction was, ‘Why do I have to move?! I need to sit here!’ ”

The surgeon eventually moved to the back of the courtroom and a sheriff’s deputy stood next to him. Testimony continued until a note in the form of a paper airplane landed on the table in front of Ms. Flynn. She carefully crumpled the note and tossed it in the wastebasket. Luckily, this drew a laugh from jurors, she said. 

But things got worse when the surgeon testified. Rather than answer the questions, he interrupted and started telling jurors his own version of events.

“The judge finally said, ‘Doctor, if you don’t listen to your attorney and answer her questions, I’m going to make you get off the stand,’ ” Ms. Flynn said. “That was the most unbelievable, egregious self-sabotage trial moment I’ve ever experienced.”

Fortunately, the physician’s legal case was strong, and the experts who testified drove the defense’s side home, Ms. Flynn said. The surgeon won the case.
 

Attorney: Watch what you say in the elevator

Other, more subtle behaviors – while often unintentional – can also be damaging.

Physicians often let their guard down while outside the courtroom and can unknowingly wind up next to a juror in an elevator or standing in a hallway, said Laura Postilion, a partner at Quintairos, Prieto, Wood & Boyer, P.A., based in Chicago.

“For instance, a doctor is in an elevator and feels that some witness on the stand was lying,” Ms. Postilion said. “They might be very upset about it and start ranting about a witness lying, not realizing there is a juror is in the elevator with you.”

Physicians should also be cautious when speaking on the phone to their family or friends during a trial break.

“At the Daley Center in downtown Chicago, there are these long corridors and long line of windows; a lot of people will stand there during breaks. A doctor may be talking to his or her spouse and saying, ‘Yeah, this juror is sleeping!’ Jurors are [often] looking for drama. They’re looking for somebody letting their guard down. Hearing a doctor speak badly about them would certainly give them a reason to dislike the physician.”

Ms. Postilion warns against talking about jurors in or outside of the courtroom. This includes parking structures, she said.

Physicians can take additional steps to save themselves from negative judgment from jurors, attorneys say. Even before the trial starts, Ms. Postilion advises clients to make their social media accounts private. Some curious jurors may look up a physician’s social media accounts to learn more about their personal life, political leanings, or social beliefs, which could prejudice them against the doctor, she said.

Once on the stand, the words and tone used are key. The last thing a physician defendant wants is to come across as arrogant or condescending to jurors, said medical liability defense attorney Michael Moroney, of Flynn Watts LLC.

“For instance, a defendant might say, ‘Well, let me make this simple for you,’ as if they’re talking to a bunch of schoolchildren,” he said. “You don’t know who’s on the jury. That type of language can be offensive.”

Ms. Lander counsels her clients to refrain from using the common phrase, “honestly,” before answering questions on the stand.

“Everything you’re saying on the stand is presumed to be honest,” she said. “When you start an answer with, ‘Honestly…’ out of habit, it really does undercut everything that follows and everything else that’s already been said. It suggests that you were not being honest in your other answers.”
 

Attitude, body language speak volumes

Keep in mind that plaintiffs’ attorneys will try their best to rattle physicians on the stand and get them to appear unlikeable, says Mr. Clark, the Houston-based health law attorney. Physicians who lose their cool and begin arguing with attorneys play into their strategy.

“Plaintiffs’ attorneys have been trained in ways to get under their skin,” he said. “Righteous indignation and annoyance are best left for a rare occasion. Think about how you feel in a social setting when people are bickering in front of you. It’s uncomfortable at best. That’s how a jury feels too.”

Body language is also important, Mr. Clark notes. Physicians should avoid crossed arms, leaning back and rocking, or putting a hand on their mouth while testifying, he said. Many attorneys have practice sessions with their clients and record the interaction so that doctors can watch it and see how they look.

“Know your strengths and weaknesses,” he said. “Get help from your lawyer and perhaps consultants about how to improve these skills. Practice and preparation are important.”

Ms. Postilion goes over courtroom clothing with physician clients before trial. Anything “too flashy, too high-end, or too dumpy” should be avoided, she said. Getting accustomed to the courtroom and practicing in an empty courtroom are good ways to ensure that a physician’s voice is loud enough and projecting far enough in the courtroom, she adds.

“The doctor should try to be the best version of him- or herself to jurors,” she said. “A jury can pick up someone who’s trying to be something they’re not. A good attorney can help the doctor find the best version of themselves and capitalize on it. What is it that you want the jury to know about your care of the patient? Take that overall feeling and make sure it’s clearly expressed to the jury.”

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

BARCELONA – Hospitalized patients in the ICU because of an acute COVID-19 infection had significantly fewer thrombotic events and complications when treated with full-dose anticoagulation, compared with patients who received standard-dose anticoagulation prophylaxis, but full-dose anticoagulation also triggered an excess of moderate and severe bleeding events, randomized trial results show.

The new findings from the COVID-PACT trial in an exclusively U.S.-based cohort of 382 on-treatment patients in the ICU with COVID-19 infection may lead to a change in existing guidelines, which currently recommend standard-dose prophylaxis based on results from prior head-to-head comparisons, such as guidelines posted March 2022 from the American Society of Hematology.

The new findings suggest “full-dose anticoagulation should be considered to prevent thrombotic complications in selected critically ill patients with COVID-19” after weighing an individual patient’s risk for both thrombotic events and bleeding, David D. Berg, MD, said at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology. Simultaneous with his report at the congress, the results also appeared online in the journal Circulation.

“What the results tell us is that full-dose anticoagulation in critically ill patients with COVID-19 is highly effective for reducing thrombotic complications,” said Dr. Berg, a cardiologist and critical care physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.

The report’s designated discussant agreed with Dr. Berg’s conclusions.
 

‘Need to replace the guidelines’

“We probably need to replace the guidelines,” said Eduardo Ramacciotti, MD, PhD, MPH, a professor of vascular surgery at Santa Casa School of Medicine, São Paulo. Dr. Ramacciotti praised the study’s design, the endpoints, and the fact that the design excluded patients at high risk for bleeding complications, particularly those with a fibrinogen level below 200 mg/dL (2 g/L).

But other experts questioned the significance of the COVID-PACT results given that the outcomes did not show that full-dose anticoagulation produced incremental improvement in patient survival.

“We should abandon the thought that intensified anticoagulation should be routine, because it did not overall increase the number of patients discharged from the hospital alive,” commented John W. Eikelboom, MBBS, a professor of hematology and thromboembolism at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.

“Preventing venous thrombosis is a good thing, but the money is in saving lives and stopping need for ventilation, and we haven’t been successful doing that with an antithrombotic strategy,” said Dr. Eikelboom. “It is useful to prevent venous thrombosis, but we need to look elsewhere to improve the outcomes of [critically ill] patients with COVID-19.”
 

Reducing thromboembolism is a ‘valid goal’

Dr. Berg took a different view. “It’s a valid goal to try to reduce venous thromboembolism complications,” the major benefit seen in his study, he said. “There is clinical significance to reducing thrombotic events in terms of how people feel, their functional status, and their complications. There are a lot of clinically relevant consequences of thrombosis beyond mortality.”

COVID-PACT ran at 34 U.S. centers from August 2020 to March 2022 but stopped short of its enrollment goal of 750 patients because of waning numbers of patients with COVID-19 admitted to ICUs. In addition to randomly assigning patients within 96 hours of their ICU admission to full-dose anticoagulation or to standard-dose antithrombotic prophylaxis, the study included a second, concurrent randomization to the antiplatelet agent clopidogrel (Plavix) or to no antiplatelet drug. Both randomizations used an open-label design.

The results failed to show a discernable effect from adding clopidogrel on both the primary efficacy and primary safety endpoints, adding to accumulated evidence that treatment with an antiplatelet agent, including aspirin, confers no antithrombotic benefit in patients with COVID-19.

The trial’s participants averaged 61 years old, 68% were obese, 59% had hypertension, and 32% had diabetes. The median time after ICU admission when randomized treatment began was 2.1 days, and researchers followed patients for a median of 13 days, including a median time on anticoagulation of 10.6 days.

The trial design allowed clinicians to use either low molecular weight heparin or unfractionated heparin for anticoagulation, and 82% of patients received low molecular weight heparin as their initial treatment. The prespecified design called for an on-treatment analysis because of an anticipated high crossover rate. During the trial, 34% of patients who started on the prophylactic dose switched to full dose, and 17% had the reverse crossover.
 

95% increased win ratio with full dose

The study’s primary efficacy endpoint used a win-ratio analysis that included seven different adverse outcomes that ranged from death from venous or arterial thrombosis to clinically silent deep vein thrombosis. Treatment with full-dose anticoagulation led to a significant 95% increase in win ratio.

Researchers also applied a more conventional time-to-first-event secondary efficacy analysis, which showed that full-dose anticoagulation cut the incidence of an adverse outcome by a significant 44% relative to prophylactic dosing.

The two study groups showed no difference in all-cause death rates. The efficacy advantage of the full-dose regimen was driven by reduced rates of venous thrombotic events, especially a reduction in clinically evident deep vein thrombotic events.

The primary safety endpoint was the rate of fatal or life-threatening bleeding episodes, and while life-threatening bleeds were numerically more common among the full-dose recipients (four events, compared with one event on prophylaxis dosing) the difference was not significant, and no patients died from a bleeding event.
 

More secondary safety bleeds

The safety difference showed up in a secondary measure of bleeding severity, the rate of GUSTO moderate or severe bleeds. These occurred in 15 of the full-dose recipients, compared with 1 patient on the prophylactic dose.

Dr. Berg highlighted that several prior studies have assessed various anticoagulation regimens in critically ill (ICU-admitted and on respiratory or cardiovascular support) patients with COVID-19. For example, two influential reports published in 2021 by the same team of investigators in the New England Journal of Medicine had sharply divergent results.

One multicenter study, which tested full-dose heparin against prophylactic treatment in more than 1,000 critically ill patients, was stopped prematurely because it had not shown a significant difference between the treatment arms. The second study, in more than 2,000 multicenter patients with COVID-19 who did not require critical-level organ support, showed clear superiority of the full-dose heparin regimen.

Notably, both previous studies used a different primary efficacy endpoint than the COVID-PACT study. The earlier reports both measured efficacy in terms of patients being alive and off organ support by 21 days from randomization.
 

Patients to exclude

Although Dr. Berg stressed the clear positive result, he also cautioned that they should not apply to patients excluded from the study: those with severe coagulopathies, those with severe thrombocytopenia, and patients already maintained on dual antiplatelet therapy. He also cautioned against using the full-dose strategy in elderly patients, because in COVID-PACT, those who developed bleeding complications tended to be older.

Dr. Berg also noted that heparin prophylaxis is a well-established intervention for ICU-admitted patients without COVID-19 for the purpose of preventing venous thromboembolisms without evidence that this approach reduces deaths or organ failure.

But he conceded that “the priority of treatment depends on whether it saves lives, so anticoagulation is probably not as high a priority as other effective treatments” that reduce mortality. “Preventing venous thromboembolism has rarely been shown to have a mortality benefit,” Dr. Berg noted.

COVID-PACT received no direct commercial funding. Dr. Berg has been a consultant to AstraZeneca, Mobility Bio, and Youngene Therapeutics, and he participated in a trial sponsored by Kowa. Dr. Ramacciotti has been a consultant to or speaker on behalf of Aspen, Bayer, Daiichi Sankyo, Mylan, Pfizer, and Sanofi, and he has received research support from Bayer, Esperon, Novartis, and Pfizer. Dr. Eikelboom has received honoraria and research support from Bayer.

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

BARCELONA – Hospitalized patients in the ICU because of an acute COVID-19 infection had significantly fewer thrombotic events and complications when treated with full-dose anticoagulation, compared with patients who received standard-dose anticoagulation prophylaxis, but full-dose anticoagulation also triggered an excess of moderate and severe bleeding events, randomized trial results show.

The new findings from the COVID-PACT trial in an exclusively U.S.-based cohort of 382 on-treatment patients in the ICU with COVID-19 infection may lead to a change in existing guidelines, which currently recommend standard-dose prophylaxis based on results from prior head-to-head comparisons, such as guidelines posted March 2022 from the American Society of Hematology.

The new findings suggest “full-dose anticoagulation should be considered to prevent thrombotic complications in selected critically ill patients with COVID-19” after weighing an individual patient’s risk for both thrombotic events and bleeding, David D. Berg, MD, said at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology. Simultaneous with his report at the congress, the results also appeared online in the journal Circulation.

“What the results tell us is that full-dose anticoagulation in critically ill patients with COVID-19 is highly effective for reducing thrombotic complications,” said Dr. Berg, a cardiologist and critical care physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.

The report’s designated discussant agreed with Dr. Berg’s conclusions.
 

‘Need to replace the guidelines’

“We probably need to replace the guidelines,” said Eduardo Ramacciotti, MD, PhD, MPH, a professor of vascular surgery at Santa Casa School of Medicine, São Paulo. Dr. Ramacciotti praised the study’s design, the endpoints, and the fact that the design excluded patients at high risk for bleeding complications, particularly those with a fibrinogen level below 200 mg/dL (2 g/L).

But other experts questioned the significance of the COVID-PACT results given that the outcomes did not show that full-dose anticoagulation produced incremental improvement in patient survival.

“We should abandon the thought that intensified anticoagulation should be routine, because it did not overall increase the number of patients discharged from the hospital alive,” commented John W. Eikelboom, MBBS, a professor of hematology and thromboembolism at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.

“Preventing venous thrombosis is a good thing, but the money is in saving lives and stopping need for ventilation, and we haven’t been successful doing that with an antithrombotic strategy,” said Dr. Eikelboom. “It is useful to prevent venous thrombosis, but we need to look elsewhere to improve the outcomes of [critically ill] patients with COVID-19.”
 

Reducing thromboembolism is a ‘valid goal’

Dr. Berg took a different view. “It’s a valid goal to try to reduce venous thromboembolism complications,” the major benefit seen in his study, he said. “There is clinical significance to reducing thrombotic events in terms of how people feel, their functional status, and their complications. There are a lot of clinically relevant consequences of thrombosis beyond mortality.”

COVID-PACT ran at 34 U.S. centers from August 2020 to March 2022 but stopped short of its enrollment goal of 750 patients because of waning numbers of patients with COVID-19 admitted to ICUs. In addition to randomly assigning patients within 96 hours of their ICU admission to full-dose anticoagulation or to standard-dose antithrombotic prophylaxis, the study included a second, concurrent randomization to the antiplatelet agent clopidogrel (Plavix) or to no antiplatelet drug. Both randomizations used an open-label design.

The results failed to show a discernable effect from adding clopidogrel on both the primary efficacy and primary safety endpoints, adding to accumulated evidence that treatment with an antiplatelet agent, including aspirin, confers no antithrombotic benefit in patients with COVID-19.

The trial’s participants averaged 61 years old, 68% were obese, 59% had hypertension, and 32% had diabetes. The median time after ICU admission when randomized treatment began was 2.1 days, and researchers followed patients for a median of 13 days, including a median time on anticoagulation of 10.6 days.

The trial design allowed clinicians to use either low molecular weight heparin or unfractionated heparin for anticoagulation, and 82% of patients received low molecular weight heparin as their initial treatment. The prespecified design called for an on-treatment analysis because of an anticipated high crossover rate. During the trial, 34% of patients who started on the prophylactic dose switched to full dose, and 17% had the reverse crossover.
 

95% increased win ratio with full dose

The study’s primary efficacy endpoint used a win-ratio analysis that included seven different adverse outcomes that ranged from death from venous or arterial thrombosis to clinically silent deep vein thrombosis. Treatment with full-dose anticoagulation led to a significant 95% increase in win ratio.

Researchers also applied a more conventional time-to-first-event secondary efficacy analysis, which showed that full-dose anticoagulation cut the incidence of an adverse outcome by a significant 44% relative to prophylactic dosing.

The two study groups showed no difference in all-cause death rates. The efficacy advantage of the full-dose regimen was driven by reduced rates of venous thrombotic events, especially a reduction in clinically evident deep vein thrombotic events.

The primary safety endpoint was the rate of fatal or life-threatening bleeding episodes, and while life-threatening bleeds were numerically more common among the full-dose recipients (four events, compared with one event on prophylaxis dosing) the difference was not significant, and no patients died from a bleeding event.
 

More secondary safety bleeds

The safety difference showed up in a secondary measure of bleeding severity, the rate of GUSTO moderate or severe bleeds. These occurred in 15 of the full-dose recipients, compared with 1 patient on the prophylactic dose.

Dr. Berg highlighted that several prior studies have assessed various anticoagulation regimens in critically ill (ICU-admitted and on respiratory or cardiovascular support) patients with COVID-19. For example, two influential reports published in 2021 by the same team of investigators in the New England Journal of Medicine had sharply divergent results.

One multicenter study, which tested full-dose heparin against prophylactic treatment in more than 1,000 critically ill patients, was stopped prematurely because it had not shown a significant difference between the treatment arms. The second study, in more than 2,000 multicenter patients with COVID-19 who did not require critical-level organ support, showed clear superiority of the full-dose heparin regimen.

Notably, both previous studies used a different primary efficacy endpoint than the COVID-PACT study. The earlier reports both measured efficacy in terms of patients being alive and off organ support by 21 days from randomization.
 

Patients to exclude

Although Dr. Berg stressed the clear positive result, he also cautioned that they should not apply to patients excluded from the study: those with severe coagulopathies, those with severe thrombocytopenia, and patients already maintained on dual antiplatelet therapy. He also cautioned against using the full-dose strategy in elderly patients, because in COVID-PACT, those who developed bleeding complications tended to be older.

Dr. Berg also noted that heparin prophylaxis is a well-established intervention for ICU-admitted patients without COVID-19 for the purpose of preventing venous thromboembolisms without evidence that this approach reduces deaths or organ failure.

But he conceded that “the priority of treatment depends on whether it saves lives, so anticoagulation is probably not as high a priority as other effective treatments” that reduce mortality. “Preventing venous thromboembolism has rarely been shown to have a mortality benefit,” Dr. Berg noted.

COVID-PACT received no direct commercial funding. Dr. Berg has been a consultant to AstraZeneca, Mobility Bio, and Youngene Therapeutics, and he participated in a trial sponsored by Kowa. Dr. Ramacciotti has been a consultant to or speaker on behalf of Aspen, Bayer, Daiichi Sankyo, Mylan, Pfizer, and Sanofi, and he has received research support from Bayer, Esperon, Novartis, and Pfizer. Dr. Eikelboom has received honoraria and research support from Bayer.

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

BARCELONA – Hospitalized patients in the ICU because of an acute COVID-19 infection had significantly fewer thrombotic events and complications when treated with full-dose anticoagulation, compared with patients who received standard-dose anticoagulation prophylaxis, but full-dose anticoagulation also triggered an excess of moderate and severe bleeding events, randomized trial results show.

The new findings from the COVID-PACT trial in an exclusively U.S.-based cohort of 382 on-treatment patients in the ICU with COVID-19 infection may lead to a change in existing guidelines, which currently recommend standard-dose prophylaxis based on results from prior head-to-head comparisons, such as guidelines posted March 2022 from the American Society of Hematology.

The new findings suggest “full-dose anticoagulation should be considered to prevent thrombotic complications in selected critically ill patients with COVID-19” after weighing an individual patient’s risk for both thrombotic events and bleeding, David D. Berg, MD, said at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology. Simultaneous with his report at the congress, the results also appeared online in the journal Circulation.

“What the results tell us is that full-dose anticoagulation in critically ill patients with COVID-19 is highly effective for reducing thrombotic complications,” said Dr. Berg, a cardiologist and critical care physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.

The report’s designated discussant agreed with Dr. Berg’s conclusions.
 

‘Need to replace the guidelines’

“We probably need to replace the guidelines,” said Eduardo Ramacciotti, MD, PhD, MPH, a professor of vascular surgery at Santa Casa School of Medicine, São Paulo. Dr. Ramacciotti praised the study’s design, the endpoints, and the fact that the design excluded patients at high risk for bleeding complications, particularly those with a fibrinogen level below 200 mg/dL (2 g/L).

But other experts questioned the significance of the COVID-PACT results given that the outcomes did not show that full-dose anticoagulation produced incremental improvement in patient survival.

“We should abandon the thought that intensified anticoagulation should be routine, because it did not overall increase the number of patients discharged from the hospital alive,” commented John W. Eikelboom, MBBS, a professor of hematology and thromboembolism at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.

“Preventing venous thrombosis is a good thing, but the money is in saving lives and stopping need for ventilation, and we haven’t been successful doing that with an antithrombotic strategy,” said Dr. Eikelboom. “It is useful to prevent venous thrombosis, but we need to look elsewhere to improve the outcomes of [critically ill] patients with COVID-19.”
 

Reducing thromboembolism is a ‘valid goal’

Dr. Berg took a different view. “It’s a valid goal to try to reduce venous thromboembolism complications,” the major benefit seen in his study, he said. “There is clinical significance to reducing thrombotic events in terms of how people feel, their functional status, and their complications. There are a lot of clinically relevant consequences of thrombosis beyond mortality.”

COVID-PACT ran at 34 U.S. centers from August 2020 to March 2022 but stopped short of its enrollment goal of 750 patients because of waning numbers of patients with COVID-19 admitted to ICUs. In addition to randomly assigning patients within 96 hours of their ICU admission to full-dose anticoagulation or to standard-dose antithrombotic prophylaxis, the study included a second, concurrent randomization to the antiplatelet agent clopidogrel (Plavix) or to no antiplatelet drug. Both randomizations used an open-label design.

The results failed to show a discernable effect from adding clopidogrel on both the primary efficacy and primary safety endpoints, adding to accumulated evidence that treatment with an antiplatelet agent, including aspirin, confers no antithrombotic benefit in patients with COVID-19.

The trial’s participants averaged 61 years old, 68% were obese, 59% had hypertension, and 32% had diabetes. The median time after ICU admission when randomized treatment began was 2.1 days, and researchers followed patients for a median of 13 days, including a median time on anticoagulation of 10.6 days.

The trial design allowed clinicians to use either low molecular weight heparin or unfractionated heparin for anticoagulation, and 82% of patients received low molecular weight heparin as their initial treatment. The prespecified design called for an on-treatment analysis because of an anticipated high crossover rate. During the trial, 34% of patients who started on the prophylactic dose switched to full dose, and 17% had the reverse crossover.
 

95% increased win ratio with full dose

The study’s primary efficacy endpoint used a win-ratio analysis that included seven different adverse outcomes that ranged from death from venous or arterial thrombosis to clinically silent deep vein thrombosis. Treatment with full-dose anticoagulation led to a significant 95% increase in win ratio.

Researchers also applied a more conventional time-to-first-event secondary efficacy analysis, which showed that full-dose anticoagulation cut the incidence of an adverse outcome by a significant 44% relative to prophylactic dosing.

The two study groups showed no difference in all-cause death rates. The efficacy advantage of the full-dose regimen was driven by reduced rates of venous thrombotic events, especially a reduction in clinically evident deep vein thrombotic events.

The primary safety endpoint was the rate of fatal or life-threatening bleeding episodes, and while life-threatening bleeds were numerically more common among the full-dose recipients (four events, compared with one event on prophylaxis dosing) the difference was not significant, and no patients died from a bleeding event.
 

More secondary safety bleeds

The safety difference showed up in a secondary measure of bleeding severity, the rate of GUSTO moderate or severe bleeds. These occurred in 15 of the full-dose recipients, compared with 1 patient on the prophylactic dose.

Dr. Berg highlighted that several prior studies have assessed various anticoagulation regimens in critically ill (ICU-admitted and on respiratory or cardiovascular support) patients with COVID-19. For example, two influential reports published in 2021 by the same team of investigators in the New England Journal of Medicine had sharply divergent results.

One multicenter study, which tested full-dose heparin against prophylactic treatment in more than 1,000 critically ill patients, was stopped prematurely because it had not shown a significant difference between the treatment arms. The second study, in more than 2,000 multicenter patients with COVID-19 who did not require critical-level organ support, showed clear superiority of the full-dose heparin regimen.

Notably, both previous studies used a different primary efficacy endpoint than the COVID-PACT study. The earlier reports both measured efficacy in terms of patients being alive and off organ support by 21 days from randomization.
 

Patients to exclude

Although Dr. Berg stressed the clear positive result, he also cautioned that they should not apply to patients excluded from the study: those with severe coagulopathies, those with severe thrombocytopenia, and patients already maintained on dual antiplatelet therapy. He also cautioned against using the full-dose strategy in elderly patients, because in COVID-PACT, those who developed bleeding complications tended to be older.

Dr. Berg also noted that heparin prophylaxis is a well-established intervention for ICU-admitted patients without COVID-19 for the purpose of preventing venous thromboembolisms without evidence that this approach reduces deaths or organ failure.

But he conceded that “the priority of treatment depends on whether it saves lives, so anticoagulation is probably not as high a priority as other effective treatments” that reduce mortality. “Preventing venous thromboembolism has rarely been shown to have a mortality benefit,” Dr. Berg noted.

COVID-PACT received no direct commercial funding. Dr. Berg has been a consultant to AstraZeneca, Mobility Bio, and Youngene Therapeutics, and he participated in a trial sponsored by Kowa. Dr. Ramacciotti has been a consultant to or speaker on behalf of Aspen, Bayer, Daiichi Sankyo, Mylan, Pfizer, and Sanofi, and he has received research support from Bayer, Esperon, Novartis, and Pfizer. Dr. Eikelboom has received honoraria and research support from Bayer.

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

A trip to the cath lab for possible revascularization after a positive stress test, compared with a wait-and-see approach backed by optimal medications, did not improve 5-year survival for patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) in the ISCHEMIA-CKD trial’s extension study, ISCHEMIA-CKD EXTEND.

The long-term results, from the same 777 patients followed for an average of 2.2 years in the main trial, are consistent with the overall findings of no survival advantage with an initially invasive strategy, compared with one that is initially conservative. The finding applies to patients like those in the trial who had moderate to severe ischemia at stress testing and whose CKD put them in an especially high-risk and little-studied coronary artery disease (CAD) category.

Indeed, in a reflection of that high-risk status, 5-year all-cause mortality reached about 40% and cardiovascular (CV) mortality approached 30%, with no significant differences between patients in the invasive- and conservative-strategy groups.

MDedge News/Mitchel L. Zoler

Those numbers arguably put CKD’s effect on CAD survival in about the same league as an ejection fraction (EF) of 35% or less. For context, all-cause mortality over 3-4 years was about 32% in the REVIVED-BCIS2 trial of such patients with ischemic reduced-EF cardiomyopathy, whether or not they were revascularized, observed Sripal Bangalore, MD, MHA.

Yet in ISCHEMIA-CKD EXTEND, “you’re seeing in a group of patients, with largely preserved EF but advanced CKD, a mortality rate close to 40% at 5 years,” said Dr. Bangalore of New York University.

Although the study doesn’t show benefit from the initially invasive approach in CKD patients with stable CAD, for those with acute coronary syndromes (ACS), it seems to suggest that “at least the invasive strategy is safe,” Dr. Bangalore said during a press conference preceding his presentation of the study Aug. 29 at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology, held in Barcelona.

REVIVED-BCIS2 was also presented at the ESC sessions on Aug. 27, as reported by this news organization.

ISCHEMIA-CKD EXTEND “is a large trial and a very well-done trial. The results are robust, and they should influence clinical practice,” Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, MPH, Brigham and Women’s Hospital Heart & Vascular Center, Boston, said as the invited discussant after Dr. Bangalore’s presentation.

“The main message here, really, is don’t just go looking for ischemia, at least with the modalities used in this trial, in your CKD patients as a routine practice, and then try to stomp out that ischemia with revascularization,” Dr. Bhatt said. “The right thing to do in these high-risk patients is to focus on lifestyle modification and intensive medical therapy.”

A caveat, he said, is that the trial’s results don’t apply to the types of patients excluded from it, including those with recent ACS and those who are highly symptomatic or have an EF of less than 35%.

“Those CKD patients likely benefit from an invasive strategy with anatomically appropriate revascularization,” whether percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary bypass surgery, Dr. Bhatt said.

At a median follow-up of 5 years in the extension study, the rates of death from any cause were 40.6% for patients in the invasive-strategy group and 37.4% for those in the conservative-strategy group. That yielded a hazard ratio of 1.12 (95% confidence interval, 0.89-1.41; P = .32) after adjustment for age, sex, diabetes status, EF, dialysis status, and – for patients not on dialysis – baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate.

The rates of CV death were 29% for patients managed invasively and 27% for those initially managed conservatively, for a similarly adjusted HR of 1.04 (95% CI, 0.80-1.37; P = .75).

In subgroup analyses, Dr. Bangalore reported, there were no significant differences in all-cause or CV mortality by diabetes status, by severity of baseline ischemia, or by whether the patient had recently experienced new or more frequent angina at study entry, was on guideline-directed medical therapy at baseline, or was on dialysis.

Among the contributions of ISCHEMIA-CKD and its 5-year extension study, Dr. Bangalore told this news organization, is that the relative safety of revascularization they showed may help to counter “renalism,” that is, the aversion to invasive intervention in patients with advanced CKD in clinical practice.

For example, if a patient with advanced CKD presents with an acute myocardial infarction, “people are hesitant to take them to the cath lab,” Dr. Bangalore said. But “if you follow protocols, if you follow strategies to minimize the risk, you can safely go ahead and do it.”

But in patients with stable CAD, as the ISCHEMIA-CKD studies show, “routinely revascularizing them may not have significant benefits.”

ISCHEMIC-CKD and its extension study were funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Bangalore discloses receiving research grants from NHLBI and serving as a consultant for Abbott Vascular, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Amgen, Pfizer, Merck, and Reata. Dr. Bhatt has disclosed grants and/or personal fees from many companies; personal fees from WebMD and other publications or organizations; and having other relationships with Medscape Cardiology and other publications or organizations.

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

A trip to the cath lab for possible revascularization after a positive stress test, compared with a wait-and-see approach backed by optimal medications, did not improve 5-year survival for patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) in the ISCHEMIA-CKD trial’s extension study, ISCHEMIA-CKD EXTEND.

The long-term results, from the same 777 patients followed for an average of 2.2 years in the main trial, are consistent with the overall findings of no survival advantage with an initially invasive strategy, compared with one that is initially conservative. The finding applies to patients like those in the trial who had moderate to severe ischemia at stress testing and whose CKD put them in an especially high-risk and little-studied coronary artery disease (CAD) category.

Indeed, in a reflection of that high-risk status, 5-year all-cause mortality reached about 40% and cardiovascular (CV) mortality approached 30%, with no significant differences between patients in the invasive- and conservative-strategy groups.

MDedge News/Mitchel L. Zoler

Those numbers arguably put CKD’s effect on CAD survival in about the same league as an ejection fraction (EF) of 35% or less. For context, all-cause mortality over 3-4 years was about 32% in the REVIVED-BCIS2 trial of such patients with ischemic reduced-EF cardiomyopathy, whether or not they were revascularized, observed Sripal Bangalore, MD, MHA.

Yet in ISCHEMIA-CKD EXTEND, “you’re seeing in a group of patients, with largely preserved EF but advanced CKD, a mortality rate close to 40% at 5 years,” said Dr. Bangalore of New York University.

Although the study doesn’t show benefit from the initially invasive approach in CKD patients with stable CAD, for those with acute coronary syndromes (ACS), it seems to suggest that “at least the invasive strategy is safe,” Dr. Bangalore said during a press conference preceding his presentation of the study Aug. 29 at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology, held in Barcelona.

REVIVED-BCIS2 was also presented at the ESC sessions on Aug. 27, as reported by this news organization.

ISCHEMIA-CKD EXTEND “is a large trial and a very well-done trial. The results are robust, and they should influence clinical practice,” Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, MPH, Brigham and Women’s Hospital Heart & Vascular Center, Boston, said as the invited discussant after Dr. Bangalore’s presentation.

“The main message here, really, is don’t just go looking for ischemia, at least with the modalities used in this trial, in your CKD patients as a routine practice, and then try to stomp out that ischemia with revascularization,” Dr. Bhatt said. “The right thing to do in these high-risk patients is to focus on lifestyle modification and intensive medical therapy.”

A caveat, he said, is that the trial’s results don’t apply to the types of patients excluded from it, including those with recent ACS and those who are highly symptomatic or have an EF of less than 35%.

“Those CKD patients likely benefit from an invasive strategy with anatomically appropriate revascularization,” whether percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary bypass surgery, Dr. Bhatt said.

At a median follow-up of 5 years in the extension study, the rates of death from any cause were 40.6% for patients in the invasive-strategy group and 37.4% for those in the conservative-strategy group. That yielded a hazard ratio of 1.12 (95% confidence interval, 0.89-1.41; P = .32) after adjustment for age, sex, diabetes status, EF, dialysis status, and – for patients not on dialysis – baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate.

The rates of CV death were 29% for patients managed invasively and 27% for those initially managed conservatively, for a similarly adjusted HR of 1.04 (95% CI, 0.80-1.37; P = .75).

In subgroup analyses, Dr. Bangalore reported, there were no significant differences in all-cause or CV mortality by diabetes status, by severity of baseline ischemia, or by whether the patient had recently experienced new or more frequent angina at study entry, was on guideline-directed medical therapy at baseline, or was on dialysis.

Among the contributions of ISCHEMIA-CKD and its 5-year extension study, Dr. Bangalore told this news organization, is that the relative safety of revascularization they showed may help to counter “renalism,” that is, the aversion to invasive intervention in patients with advanced CKD in clinical practice.

For example, if a patient with advanced CKD presents with an acute myocardial infarction, “people are hesitant to take them to the cath lab,” Dr. Bangalore said. But “if you follow protocols, if you follow strategies to minimize the risk, you can safely go ahead and do it.”

But in patients with stable CAD, as the ISCHEMIA-CKD studies show, “routinely revascularizing them may not have significant benefits.”

ISCHEMIC-CKD and its extension study were funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Bangalore discloses receiving research grants from NHLBI and serving as a consultant for Abbott Vascular, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Amgen, Pfizer, Merck, and Reata. Dr. Bhatt has disclosed grants and/or personal fees from many companies; personal fees from WebMD and other publications or organizations; and having other relationships with Medscape Cardiology and other publications or organizations.

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

A trip to the cath lab for possible revascularization after a positive stress test, compared with a wait-and-see approach backed by optimal medications, did not improve 5-year survival for patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) in the ISCHEMIA-CKD trial’s extension study, ISCHEMIA-CKD EXTEND.

The long-term results, from the same 777 patients followed for an average of 2.2 years in the main trial, are consistent with the overall findings of no survival advantage with an initially invasive strategy, compared with one that is initially conservative. The finding applies to patients like those in the trial who had moderate to severe ischemia at stress testing and whose CKD put them in an especially high-risk and little-studied coronary artery disease (CAD) category.

Indeed, in a reflection of that high-risk status, 5-year all-cause mortality reached about 40% and cardiovascular (CV) mortality approached 30%, with no significant differences between patients in the invasive- and conservative-strategy groups.

MDedge News/Mitchel L. Zoler

Those numbers arguably put CKD’s effect on CAD survival in about the same league as an ejection fraction (EF) of 35% or less. For context, all-cause mortality over 3-4 years was about 32% in the REVIVED-BCIS2 trial of such patients with ischemic reduced-EF cardiomyopathy, whether or not they were revascularized, observed Sripal Bangalore, MD, MHA.

Yet in ISCHEMIA-CKD EXTEND, “you’re seeing in a group of patients, with largely preserved EF but advanced CKD, a mortality rate close to 40% at 5 years,” said Dr. Bangalore of New York University.

Although the study doesn’t show benefit from the initially invasive approach in CKD patients with stable CAD, for those with acute coronary syndromes (ACS), it seems to suggest that “at least the invasive strategy is safe,” Dr. Bangalore said during a press conference preceding his presentation of the study Aug. 29 at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology, held in Barcelona.

REVIVED-BCIS2 was also presented at the ESC sessions on Aug. 27, as reported by this news organization.

ISCHEMIA-CKD EXTEND “is a large trial and a very well-done trial. The results are robust, and they should influence clinical practice,” Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, MPH, Brigham and Women’s Hospital Heart & Vascular Center, Boston, said as the invited discussant after Dr. Bangalore’s presentation.

“The main message here, really, is don’t just go looking for ischemia, at least with the modalities used in this trial, in your CKD patients as a routine practice, and then try to stomp out that ischemia with revascularization,” Dr. Bhatt said. “The right thing to do in these high-risk patients is to focus on lifestyle modification and intensive medical therapy.”

A caveat, he said, is that the trial’s results don’t apply to the types of patients excluded from it, including those with recent ACS and those who are highly symptomatic or have an EF of less than 35%.

“Those CKD patients likely benefit from an invasive strategy with anatomically appropriate revascularization,” whether percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary bypass surgery, Dr. Bhatt said.

At a median follow-up of 5 years in the extension study, the rates of death from any cause were 40.6% for patients in the invasive-strategy group and 37.4% for those in the conservative-strategy group. That yielded a hazard ratio of 1.12 (95% confidence interval, 0.89-1.41; P = .32) after adjustment for age, sex, diabetes status, EF, dialysis status, and – for patients not on dialysis – baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate.

The rates of CV death were 29% for patients managed invasively and 27% for those initially managed conservatively, for a similarly adjusted HR of 1.04 (95% CI, 0.80-1.37; P = .75).

In subgroup analyses, Dr. Bangalore reported, there were no significant differences in all-cause or CV mortality by diabetes status, by severity of baseline ischemia, or by whether the patient had recently experienced new or more frequent angina at study entry, was on guideline-directed medical therapy at baseline, or was on dialysis.

Among the contributions of ISCHEMIA-CKD and its 5-year extension study, Dr. Bangalore told this news organization, is that the relative safety of revascularization they showed may help to counter “renalism,” that is, the aversion to invasive intervention in patients with advanced CKD in clinical practice.

For example, if a patient with advanced CKD presents with an acute myocardial infarction, “people are hesitant to take them to the cath lab,” Dr. Bangalore said. But “if you follow protocols, if you follow strategies to minimize the risk, you can safely go ahead and do it.”

But in patients with stable CAD, as the ISCHEMIA-CKD studies show, “routinely revascularizing them may not have significant benefits.”

ISCHEMIC-CKD and its extension study were funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Bangalore discloses receiving research grants from NHLBI and serving as a consultant for Abbott Vascular, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Amgen, Pfizer, Merck, and Reata. Dr. Bhatt has disclosed grants and/or personal fees from many companies; personal fees from WebMD and other publications or organizations; and having other relationships with Medscape Cardiology and other publications or organizations.

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

The American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association have issued a set of data standards for chest pain and acute myocardial infarction to accompany the 2021 guidelines for evaluation and diagnosis of chest pain.

In October 2021, the AHA/ACC issued a joint clinical practice guideline encouraging clinicians to use standardized risk assessments, clinical pathways, and tools to evaluate and communicate with patients who present with chest pain, as reported by this news organization.

The writing group underscored the need to reach a consensus for the definitions of chest pain. The new document standardizes related data elements for consistent reporting on chest pain syndromes.

“This is an appendix to the guidelines and a planned effort to try to harmonize and bring uniformity to the language applied,” writing committee chair H.V. “Skip” Anderson, MD, with UT Health Science Center, Houston, told this news organization.

“You want heart attack to mean the same thing in Miami Beach as in Western Pennsylvania, as in Oregon and Washington and every place in between,” Dr. Anderson explained. “You want everybody to be using the same language, so that’s what these data standards are meant to do.”

In the document, data elements are grouped into three broad categories: chest pain, myocardial injury, and MI.

“We deliberately followed the plans contained in the new guideline and focused on potentially serious cardiovascular causes of chest pain as might be encountered in emergency departments,” the writing group notes in the document.

The terms “typical” and “atypical” as descriptors of chest pain or anginal syndromes are not used in the new document, in line with the 2021 guidance to abandon these terms.

Instead, the new document divides chest pain syndromes into three categories: “cardiac,” “possible cardiac,” and “noncardiac” – again, in keeping with the chest pain guideline.

The document also includes data elements for risk stratification scoring according to several common risk scoring algorithms and for procedure-related myocardial injury and procedure-related MI.

Each year, chest pain sends more than 7 million adults to the emergency department in the United States. Although noncardiac causes of chest pain make up a large majority of these cases, there are several life-threatening causes of chest pain that must be identified and treated promptly.

Distinguishing between serious and nonserious causes of chest pain is an urgent imperative, the writing group says.

Overall, they say this new clinical lexicon and set of data standards should be “broadly applicable” in various settings, including clinical trials and observational studies, patient care, electronic health records (EHRs), quality and performance improvement initiatives, registries, and public reporting programs.

The 2022 ACC/AHA Key Data Elements and Definitions for Chest Pain and Acute Myocardial Infarction was simultaneously published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology and Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes.

It was developed in collaboration with the American College of Emergency Physicians and the Society for Cardiac Angiography and Interventions and endorsed by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.

Dr. Anderson noted that “almost all of the guidelines that come out now, certainly in the last few years, have been followed after a certain interval by a set of data standards applicable to the guidelines.”

“It would be really great if it could actually be attached as an appendix, but the nature of the development of these things is such that there will always be a bit of a time lag between the writing group that develops the guidelines and the work group that develops the data standards; you can’t really have them working in parallel at the same time,” Dr. Anderson said in an interview.

This research had no commercial funding. The authors have no relevant disclosures.

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

The American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association have issued a set of data standards for chest pain and acute myocardial infarction to accompany the 2021 guidelines for evaluation and diagnosis of chest pain.

In October 2021, the AHA/ACC issued a joint clinical practice guideline encouraging clinicians to use standardized risk assessments, clinical pathways, and tools to evaluate and communicate with patients who present with chest pain, as reported by this news organization.

The writing group underscored the need to reach a consensus for the definitions of chest pain. The new document standardizes related data elements for consistent reporting on chest pain syndromes.

“This is an appendix to the guidelines and a planned effort to try to harmonize and bring uniformity to the language applied,” writing committee chair H.V. “Skip” Anderson, MD, with UT Health Science Center, Houston, told this news organization.

“You want heart attack to mean the same thing in Miami Beach as in Western Pennsylvania, as in Oregon and Washington and every place in between,” Dr. Anderson explained. “You want everybody to be using the same language, so that’s what these data standards are meant to do.”

In the document, data elements are grouped into three broad categories: chest pain, myocardial injury, and MI.

“We deliberately followed the plans contained in the new guideline and focused on potentially serious cardiovascular causes of chest pain as might be encountered in emergency departments,” the writing group notes in the document.

The terms “typical” and “atypical” as descriptors of chest pain or anginal syndromes are not used in the new document, in line with the 2021 guidance to abandon these terms.

Instead, the new document divides chest pain syndromes into three categories: “cardiac,” “possible cardiac,” and “noncardiac” – again, in keeping with the chest pain guideline.

The document also includes data elements for risk stratification scoring according to several common risk scoring algorithms and for procedure-related myocardial injury and procedure-related MI.

Each year, chest pain sends more than 7 million adults to the emergency department in the United States. Although noncardiac causes of chest pain make up a large majority of these cases, there are several life-threatening causes of chest pain that must be identified and treated promptly.

Distinguishing between serious and nonserious causes of chest pain is an urgent imperative, the writing group says.

Overall, they say this new clinical lexicon and set of data standards should be “broadly applicable” in various settings, including clinical trials and observational studies, patient care, electronic health records (EHRs), quality and performance improvement initiatives, registries, and public reporting programs.

The 2022 ACC/AHA Key Data Elements and Definitions for Chest Pain and Acute Myocardial Infarction was simultaneously published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology and Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes.

It was developed in collaboration with the American College of Emergency Physicians and the Society for Cardiac Angiography and Interventions and endorsed by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.

Dr. Anderson noted that “almost all of the guidelines that come out now, certainly in the last few years, have been followed after a certain interval by a set of data standards applicable to the guidelines.”

“It would be really great if it could actually be attached as an appendix, but the nature of the development of these things is such that there will always be a bit of a time lag between the writing group that develops the guidelines and the work group that develops the data standards; you can’t really have them working in parallel at the same time,” Dr. Anderson said in an interview.

This research had no commercial funding. The authors have no relevant disclosures.

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

The American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association have issued a set of data standards for chest pain and acute myocardial infarction to accompany the 2021 guidelines for evaluation and diagnosis of chest pain.

In October 2021, the AHA/ACC issued a joint clinical practice guideline encouraging clinicians to use standardized risk assessments, clinical pathways, and tools to evaluate and communicate with patients who present with chest pain, as reported by this news organization.

The writing group underscored the need to reach a consensus for the definitions of chest pain. The new document standardizes related data elements for consistent reporting on chest pain syndromes.

“This is an appendix to the guidelines and a planned effort to try to harmonize and bring uniformity to the language applied,” writing committee chair H.V. “Skip” Anderson, MD, with UT Health Science Center, Houston, told this news organization.

“You want heart attack to mean the same thing in Miami Beach as in Western Pennsylvania, as in Oregon and Washington and every place in between,” Dr. Anderson explained. “You want everybody to be using the same language, so that’s what these data standards are meant to do.”

In the document, data elements are grouped into three broad categories: chest pain, myocardial injury, and MI.

“We deliberately followed the plans contained in the new guideline and focused on potentially serious cardiovascular causes of chest pain as might be encountered in emergency departments,” the writing group notes in the document.

The terms “typical” and “atypical” as descriptors of chest pain or anginal syndromes are not used in the new document, in line with the 2021 guidance to abandon these terms.

Instead, the new document divides chest pain syndromes into three categories: “cardiac,” “possible cardiac,” and “noncardiac” – again, in keeping with the chest pain guideline.

The document also includes data elements for risk stratification scoring according to several common risk scoring algorithms and for procedure-related myocardial injury and procedure-related MI.

Each year, chest pain sends more than 7 million adults to the emergency department in the United States. Although noncardiac causes of chest pain make up a large majority of these cases, there are several life-threatening causes of chest pain that must be identified and treated promptly.

Distinguishing between serious and nonserious causes of chest pain is an urgent imperative, the writing group says.

Overall, they say this new clinical lexicon and set of data standards should be “broadly applicable” in various settings, including clinical trials and observational studies, patient care, electronic health records (EHRs), quality and performance improvement initiatives, registries, and public reporting programs.

The 2022 ACC/AHA Key Data Elements and Definitions for Chest Pain and Acute Myocardial Infarction was simultaneously published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology and Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes.

It was developed in collaboration with the American College of Emergency Physicians and the Society for Cardiac Angiography and Interventions and endorsed by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.

Dr. Anderson noted that “almost all of the guidelines that come out now, certainly in the last few years, have been followed after a certain interval by a set of data standards applicable to the guidelines.”

“It would be really great if it could actually be attached as an appendix, but the nature of the development of these things is such that there will always be a bit of a time lag between the writing group that develops the guidelines and the work group that develops the data standards; you can’t really have them working in parallel at the same time,” Dr. Anderson said in an interview.

This research had no commercial funding. The authors have no relevant disclosures.

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

The number of doctors of osteopathic medicine (DOs) is enjoying a significant growth pattern. This year alone, 7,300 osteopathic physicians are entering the workforce, and they make up more than 25% of the medical student population. The pipeline of future DOs is at an all-time high of 36,500 students, according to the American Osteopathic Association.

All 50 states plus Washington, D.C., have DO practices, and Florida ranks third in terms of states with the most practicing DOs, topped by California in the No. 1 spot and Pennsylvania in second. New York and Michigan round out the top 5.

The pipeline to the profession is in a growth mode, too. For the upcoming academic year, the AOA’s Commission on Osteopathic College Accreditation will accredit 38 colleges of osteopathic medicine in about 60 different locations.

Although DOs have existed for more than 100 years, historically they have sat somewhat in the shadow of their MD peers. That tide has turned, for a variety of reasons – one of which is recognition via several high-profile DOs. Look no further than the White House, for instance, where President Biden’s physician is Kevin O’Connor, DO – the second DO to hold the position.

“The misrepresentation of osteopathic physicians has been a recent issue outside the nation’s health care delivery system,” says the American Medical Association’s Robert Mills. “To combat this mischaracterization, the AMA and the AOA issued a joint statement [in 2020] highlighting the fact that DOs are licensed physicians who practice in every specialty area and have equivalent training and practice rights to their MD peers.”
 

Attraction to the DO philosophy

For many DOs, the path to osteopathic medicine was always a clear one. “I wanted to go into osteopathic medicine from the age of 17,” says Nehal Gheewala, DO, national director of growth at ChenMed, a national primary care medical center.

Dr. Gheewala, who graduated from medical school in 2014, says he first spent time learning about the DO’s holistic philosophy, which appealed to him. “I liked how they were invested in their patient’s care, and that they first tried to treat musculoskeletal pain with manipulation. The result were quick, sometimes on the spot.”

While in medical school, Dr. Gheewala was joined by 250 peers seeking a DO rather than an MD. “I never felt like I was in the minority,” he says, “and today, as a practicing physician in Florida, we have a good number of DOs.”

Like Dr. Gheewala, Samuel Werner, a New Jersey–based DO, was inspired by his father, a DO who has served as a small-town general practitioner. “Growing up, I saw how well-respected my dad was in the community and watched his connection with patients,” Dr. Werner says. “He had the ability to pick up on small details others didn’t.”

Today, Dr. Werner sees the recognition and respect of DOs growing beyond where it was several decades ago.

One factor that is helping raise the DO profile is that residencies fall under the same umbrella for matching. In most states, medical licensing is the same, as well. Choosing to pursue a DO career requires additional training in wellness and manipulation. “In every specialty of medicine, DO students train alongside MD students,” Dr. Werner says. “In practice, most patients are unaware if they’re treated by a DO or an MD.”

That has sometimes been Dr. Gheewala’s experience. “Plenty of patients don’t ask whether I’m an MD or a DO,” he says, “and it doesn’t matter. We’re all board-certified doctors and as long as we’re taking care of, and spending time with, our patients, that’s what they want.”

Joseph A. Giaimo, a DO in Florida who has practiced for more than 30 years and is a past president of the AOA, says that some patients will seek out a DO instead of an MD. “Many patients see me because they specifically want to work with a DO; many of them are snowbirds who come to Florida during the winter,” he explains.

In his long career as a DO, Dr. Giaimo has witnessed the profession’s growth alongside a fading stigma that it’s somehow less “authentic” than allopathic medicine. “There are still people who need to be educated on osteopathic medicine, but much of that has simply been a lack of understanding,” he says. “That’s changing, and it’s our role to continue to educate people on what we’re about.”

Dr. Giaimo says that osteopathic medicine is striking the right tone in the moment, which is helpful to recognition and growth. “Coming out of the pandemic, people are more focused on staying healthy, and osteopathy offers an appealing approach,” he says. “There’s no better time for the two houses of medicine to come together, and it’s a great time to be in osteopathy.”
 

Moving forward

One of the biggest places the physician shortage is problematic is in rural America. The federal government estimates that by 2025, there will be a physician shortage of 25,000 primary care doctors in these areas. This is another way in which the growing osteopathic field is having an impact.

“We have a number of schools in underserved areas, such as Oklahoma and on indigenous lands,” says Dr. Giaimo. “There is a concerted effort to reach these communities, and we’re getting some recognition for those efforts, too.”

Dr. Gheewala also sees a greater emphasis on primary care physicians today, something that he believes has led more people to explore becoming or seeing a DO instead of an MD.

A full 57% of DOs focus on primary care, such as family practice, pediatrics, and internal medicine, with the others in specialized care. If those focused on primary care can fill some of the physician shortages, Dr. Gheewala says, it can help keep patients out of hospitals for their first line of care, reducing health care costs.

The tides are turning in the medical profession, as well, when it comes to respecting the osteopathy field. Students who graduate from osteopathic programs also have a high acceptance rate into residencies, which Dr. Giaimo credits to several factors.

He also doesn’t discount the fact that DOs are talking more about their practice approaches these days. “It hits the right note for modern medicine, and it’s also what the consumer is looking for today,” he adds.
 

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

The number of doctors of osteopathic medicine (DOs) is enjoying a significant growth pattern. This year alone, 7,300 osteopathic physicians are entering the workforce, and they make up more than 25% of the medical student population. The pipeline of future DOs is at an all-time high of 36,500 students, according to the American Osteopathic Association.

All 50 states plus Washington, D.C., have DO practices, and Florida ranks third in terms of states with the most practicing DOs, topped by California in the No. 1 spot and Pennsylvania in second. New York and Michigan round out the top 5.

The pipeline to the profession is in a growth mode, too. For the upcoming academic year, the AOA’s Commission on Osteopathic College Accreditation will accredit 38 colleges of osteopathic medicine in about 60 different locations.

Although DOs have existed for more than 100 years, historically they have sat somewhat in the shadow of their MD peers. That tide has turned, for a variety of reasons – one of which is recognition via several high-profile DOs. Look no further than the White House, for instance, where President Biden’s physician is Kevin O’Connor, DO – the second DO to hold the position.

“The misrepresentation of osteopathic physicians has been a recent issue outside the nation’s health care delivery system,” says the American Medical Association’s Robert Mills. “To combat this mischaracterization, the AMA and the AOA issued a joint statement [in 2020] highlighting the fact that DOs are licensed physicians who practice in every specialty area and have equivalent training and practice rights to their MD peers.”
 

Attraction to the DO philosophy

For many DOs, the path to osteopathic medicine was always a clear one. “I wanted to go into osteopathic medicine from the age of 17,” says Nehal Gheewala, DO, national director of growth at ChenMed, a national primary care medical center.

Dr. Gheewala, who graduated from medical school in 2014, says he first spent time learning about the DO’s holistic philosophy, which appealed to him. “I liked how they were invested in their patient’s care, and that they first tried to treat musculoskeletal pain with manipulation. The result were quick, sometimes on the spot.”

While in medical school, Dr. Gheewala was joined by 250 peers seeking a DO rather than an MD. “I never felt like I was in the minority,” he says, “and today, as a practicing physician in Florida, we have a good number of DOs.”

Like Dr. Gheewala, Samuel Werner, a New Jersey–based DO, was inspired by his father, a DO who has served as a small-town general practitioner. “Growing up, I saw how well-respected my dad was in the community and watched his connection with patients,” Dr. Werner says. “He had the ability to pick up on small details others didn’t.”

Today, Dr. Werner sees the recognition and respect of DOs growing beyond where it was several decades ago.

One factor that is helping raise the DO profile is that residencies fall under the same umbrella for matching. In most states, medical licensing is the same, as well. Choosing to pursue a DO career requires additional training in wellness and manipulation. “In every specialty of medicine, DO students train alongside MD students,” Dr. Werner says. “In practice, most patients are unaware if they’re treated by a DO or an MD.”

That has sometimes been Dr. Gheewala’s experience. “Plenty of patients don’t ask whether I’m an MD or a DO,” he says, “and it doesn’t matter. We’re all board-certified doctors and as long as we’re taking care of, and spending time with, our patients, that’s what they want.”

Joseph A. Giaimo, a DO in Florida who has practiced for more than 30 years and is a past president of the AOA, says that some patients will seek out a DO instead of an MD. “Many patients see me because they specifically want to work with a DO; many of them are snowbirds who come to Florida during the winter,” he explains.

In his long career as a DO, Dr. Giaimo has witnessed the profession’s growth alongside a fading stigma that it’s somehow less “authentic” than allopathic medicine. “There are still people who need to be educated on osteopathic medicine, but much of that has simply been a lack of understanding,” he says. “That’s changing, and it’s our role to continue to educate people on what we’re about.”

Dr. Giaimo says that osteopathic medicine is striking the right tone in the moment, which is helpful to recognition and growth. “Coming out of the pandemic, people are more focused on staying healthy, and osteopathy offers an appealing approach,” he says. “There’s no better time for the two houses of medicine to come together, and it’s a great time to be in osteopathy.”
 

Moving forward

One of the biggest places the physician shortage is problematic is in rural America. The federal government estimates that by 2025, there will be a physician shortage of 25,000 primary care doctors in these areas. This is another way in which the growing osteopathic field is having an impact.

“We have a number of schools in underserved areas, such as Oklahoma and on indigenous lands,” says Dr. Giaimo. “There is a concerted effort to reach these communities, and we’re getting some recognition for those efforts, too.”

Dr. Gheewala also sees a greater emphasis on primary care physicians today, something that he believes has led more people to explore becoming or seeing a DO instead of an MD.

A full 57% of DOs focus on primary care, such as family practice, pediatrics, and internal medicine, with the others in specialized care. If those focused on primary care can fill some of the physician shortages, Dr. Gheewala says, it can help keep patients out of hospitals for their first line of care, reducing health care costs.

The tides are turning in the medical profession, as well, when it comes to respecting the osteopathy field. Students who graduate from osteopathic programs also have a high acceptance rate into residencies, which Dr. Giaimo credits to several factors.

He also doesn’t discount the fact that DOs are talking more about their practice approaches these days. “It hits the right note for modern medicine, and it’s also what the consumer is looking for today,” he adds.
 

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

The number of doctors of osteopathic medicine (DOs) is enjoying a significant growth pattern. This year alone, 7,300 osteopathic physicians are entering the workforce, and they make up more than 25% of the medical student population. The pipeline of future DOs is at an all-time high of 36,500 students, according to the American Osteopathic Association.

All 50 states plus Washington, D.C., have DO practices, and Florida ranks third in terms of states with the most practicing DOs, topped by California in the No. 1 spot and Pennsylvania in second. New York and Michigan round out the top 5.

The pipeline to the profession is in a growth mode, too. For the upcoming academic year, the AOA’s Commission on Osteopathic College Accreditation will accredit 38 colleges of osteopathic medicine in about 60 different locations.

Although DOs have existed for more than 100 years, historically they have sat somewhat in the shadow of their MD peers. That tide has turned, for a variety of reasons – one of which is recognition via several high-profile DOs. Look no further than the White House, for instance, where President Biden’s physician is Kevin O’Connor, DO – the second DO to hold the position.

“The misrepresentation of osteopathic physicians has been a recent issue outside the nation’s health care delivery system,” says the American Medical Association’s Robert Mills. “To combat this mischaracterization, the AMA and the AOA issued a joint statement [in 2020] highlighting the fact that DOs are licensed physicians who practice in every specialty area and have equivalent training and practice rights to their MD peers.”
 

Attraction to the DO philosophy

For many DOs, the path to osteopathic medicine was always a clear one. “I wanted to go into osteopathic medicine from the age of 17,” says Nehal Gheewala, DO, national director of growth at ChenMed, a national primary care medical center.

Dr. Gheewala, who graduated from medical school in 2014, says he first spent time learning about the DO’s holistic philosophy, which appealed to him. “I liked how they were invested in their patient’s care, and that they first tried to treat musculoskeletal pain with manipulation. The result were quick, sometimes on the spot.”

While in medical school, Dr. Gheewala was joined by 250 peers seeking a DO rather than an MD. “I never felt like I was in the minority,” he says, “and today, as a practicing physician in Florida, we have a good number of DOs.”

Like Dr. Gheewala, Samuel Werner, a New Jersey–based DO, was inspired by his father, a DO who has served as a small-town general practitioner. “Growing up, I saw how well-respected my dad was in the community and watched his connection with patients,” Dr. Werner says. “He had the ability to pick up on small details others didn’t.”

Today, Dr. Werner sees the recognition and respect of DOs growing beyond where it was several decades ago.

One factor that is helping raise the DO profile is that residencies fall under the same umbrella for matching. In most states, medical licensing is the same, as well. Choosing to pursue a DO career requires additional training in wellness and manipulation. “In every specialty of medicine, DO students train alongside MD students,” Dr. Werner says. “In practice, most patients are unaware if they’re treated by a DO or an MD.”

That has sometimes been Dr. Gheewala’s experience. “Plenty of patients don’t ask whether I’m an MD or a DO,” he says, “and it doesn’t matter. We’re all board-certified doctors and as long as we’re taking care of, and spending time with, our patients, that’s what they want.”

Joseph A. Giaimo, a DO in Florida who has practiced for more than 30 years and is a past president of the AOA, says that some patients will seek out a DO instead of an MD. “Many patients see me because they specifically want to work with a DO; many of them are snowbirds who come to Florida during the winter,” he explains.

In his long career as a DO, Dr. Giaimo has witnessed the profession’s growth alongside a fading stigma that it’s somehow less “authentic” than allopathic medicine. “There are still people who need to be educated on osteopathic medicine, but much of that has simply been a lack of understanding,” he says. “That’s changing, and it’s our role to continue to educate people on what we’re about.”

Dr. Giaimo says that osteopathic medicine is striking the right tone in the moment, which is helpful to recognition and growth. “Coming out of the pandemic, people are more focused on staying healthy, and osteopathy offers an appealing approach,” he says. “There’s no better time for the two houses of medicine to come together, and it’s a great time to be in osteopathy.”
 

Moving forward

One of the biggest places the physician shortage is problematic is in rural America. The federal government estimates that by 2025, there will be a physician shortage of 25,000 primary care doctors in these areas. This is another way in which the growing osteopathic field is having an impact.

“We have a number of schools in underserved areas, such as Oklahoma and on indigenous lands,” says Dr. Giaimo. “There is a concerted effort to reach these communities, and we’re getting some recognition for those efforts, too.”

Dr. Gheewala also sees a greater emphasis on primary care physicians today, something that he believes has led more people to explore becoming or seeing a DO instead of an MD.

A full 57% of DOs focus on primary care, such as family practice, pediatrics, and internal medicine, with the others in specialized care. If those focused on primary care can fill some of the physician shortages, Dr. Gheewala says, it can help keep patients out of hospitals for their first line of care, reducing health care costs.

The tides are turning in the medical profession, as well, when it comes to respecting the osteopathy field. Students who graduate from osteopathic programs also have a high acceptance rate into residencies, which Dr. Giaimo credits to several factors.

He also doesn’t discount the fact that DOs are talking more about their practice approaches these days. “It hits the right note for modern medicine, and it’s also what the consumer is looking for today,” he adds.
 

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

The Food and Drug Administration is alerting health care providers about the potential for clip lock malfunctions with Abbott’s MitraClip’s delivery system.

“These events appear to occur in approximately 1.3% of MitraClip procedures and have been observed with all device models,” the FDA says in a letter posted on its website.

The MitraClip device was approved in 2013 for patients with symptomatic, degenerative mitral regurgitation (MR) deemed high risk for mitral-valve surgery.

In its own “urgent medical device correction letter” to providers, Abbott reports a recent increase in reports of the clips failing to “establish final arm angle (EFAA)” and of “clip opening while locked (COWL)” events.

During device preparation and prior to clip deployment, the operator intentionally attempts to open a locked clip to verify that the locking mechanism is engaged.

COWL describes when the clip arm angle increases postdeployment. “In these cases, users observe a slippage in the lock, resulting in an arm angle greater than 10 degrees from the angle observed at deployment,” which can be identified through fluoroscopy, Abbott says.

From February 2021 to January 2022, the EFAA failure rate was 0.51% and COWL rate 0.28%, increasing to 0.80% and 0.50%, respectively, from February 2022 to July 2022, according to the company.

Despite the increase in reports, the acute procedural success rate remains consistent with historical data, according to Abbott. “Further, EFAA failure or COWL most often results in no adverse patient outcomes. COWL may lead to less MR reduction, which is often treated with the use of one or more additional clips.”

Abbott says there is also a “low incidence” of required additional interventions. No immediate open surgical conversions have occurred as a result of EFAA/COWL events, whereas 0.53% of such events have resulted in nonurgent surgical conversions.

“In any case where significant residual MR is observed after clip deployment, a second clip should be considered and implanted in accordance with the IFU [instructions for use],” it advises.

Abbott says that a “change in the material properties of one of the clip locking components” has been identified as a contributing cause of EFAA/COWL events. It is working on producing new lots with updated manufacturing processing and raw material to mitigate the risk.

Certain use conditions can also contribute to EFAA/COWL events, and are referenced in the IFU, Appendix A, it notes.

The FDA is working with Abbott and recommends that health care providers do the following:

• Review the recall notice from Abbott for all MitraClip Clip Delivery Systems.
• Be aware of the potential for clip lock malfunctions before or after deployment with this device.
• Read and carefully follow the instructions for use and the recommendations provided in the recall notice to help minimize the chance of the clip failing to lock. These include recommendations about procedural steps for implant positioning, locking sequences, establishing clip arm angle, preparation for clip release, and avoiding excessive force and manipulation when unlocking the clip during device preparation and during the procedure.

Health care professionals can also report adverse reactions or quality problems they experience using these devices to the FDA’s MedWatch program.

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

The Food and Drug Administration is alerting health care providers about the potential for clip lock malfunctions with Abbott’s MitraClip’s delivery system.

“These events appear to occur in approximately 1.3% of MitraClip procedures and have been observed with all device models,” the FDA says in a letter posted on its website.

The MitraClip device was approved in 2013 for patients with symptomatic, degenerative mitral regurgitation (MR) deemed high risk for mitral-valve surgery.

In its own “urgent medical device correction letter” to providers, Abbott reports a recent increase in reports of the clips failing to “establish final arm angle (EFAA)” and of “clip opening while locked (COWL)” events.

During device preparation and prior to clip deployment, the operator intentionally attempts to open a locked clip to verify that the locking mechanism is engaged.

COWL describes when the clip arm angle increases postdeployment. “In these cases, users observe a slippage in the lock, resulting in an arm angle greater than 10 degrees from the angle observed at deployment,” which can be identified through fluoroscopy, Abbott says.

From February 2021 to January 2022, the EFAA failure rate was 0.51% and COWL rate 0.28%, increasing to 0.80% and 0.50%, respectively, from February 2022 to July 2022, according to the company.

Despite the increase in reports, the acute procedural success rate remains consistent with historical data, according to Abbott. “Further, EFAA failure or COWL most often results in no adverse patient outcomes. COWL may lead to less MR reduction, which is often treated with the use of one or more additional clips.”

Abbott says there is also a “low incidence” of required additional interventions. No immediate open surgical conversions have occurred as a result of EFAA/COWL events, whereas 0.53% of such events have resulted in nonurgent surgical conversions.

“In any case where significant residual MR is observed after clip deployment, a second clip should be considered and implanted in accordance with the IFU [instructions for use],” it advises.

Abbott says that a “change in the material properties of one of the clip locking components” has been identified as a contributing cause of EFAA/COWL events. It is working on producing new lots with updated manufacturing processing and raw material to mitigate the risk.

Certain use conditions can also contribute to EFAA/COWL events, and are referenced in the IFU, Appendix A, it notes.

The FDA is working with Abbott and recommends that health care providers do the following:

• Review the recall notice from Abbott for all MitraClip Clip Delivery Systems.
• Be aware of the potential for clip lock malfunctions before or after deployment with this device.
• Read and carefully follow the instructions for use and the recommendations provided in the recall notice to help minimize the chance of the clip failing to lock. These include recommendations about procedural steps for implant positioning, locking sequences, establishing clip arm angle, preparation for clip release, and avoiding excessive force and manipulation when unlocking the clip during device preparation and during the procedure.

Health care professionals can also report adverse reactions or quality problems they experience using these devices to the FDA’s MedWatch program.

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

The Food and Drug Administration is alerting health care providers about the potential for clip lock malfunctions with Abbott’s MitraClip’s delivery system.

“These events appear to occur in approximately 1.3% of MitraClip procedures and have been observed with all device models,” the FDA says in a letter posted on its website.

The MitraClip device was approved in 2013 for patients with symptomatic, degenerative mitral regurgitation (MR) deemed high risk for mitral-valve surgery.

In its own “urgent medical device correction letter” to providers, Abbott reports a recent increase in reports of the clips failing to “establish final arm angle (EFAA)” and of “clip opening while locked (COWL)” events.

During device preparation and prior to clip deployment, the operator intentionally attempts to open a locked clip to verify that the locking mechanism is engaged.

COWL describes when the clip arm angle increases postdeployment. “In these cases, users observe a slippage in the lock, resulting in an arm angle greater than 10 degrees from the angle observed at deployment,” which can be identified through fluoroscopy, Abbott says.

From February 2021 to January 2022, the EFAA failure rate was 0.51% and COWL rate 0.28%, increasing to 0.80% and 0.50%, respectively, from February 2022 to July 2022, according to the company.

Despite the increase in reports, the acute procedural success rate remains consistent with historical data, according to Abbott. “Further, EFAA failure or COWL most often results in no adverse patient outcomes. COWL may lead to less MR reduction, which is often treated with the use of one or more additional clips.”

Abbott says there is also a “low incidence” of required additional interventions. No immediate open surgical conversions have occurred as a result of EFAA/COWL events, whereas 0.53% of such events have resulted in nonurgent surgical conversions.

“In any case where significant residual MR is observed after clip deployment, a second clip should be considered and implanted in accordance with the IFU [instructions for use],” it advises.

Abbott says that a “change in the material properties of one of the clip locking components” has been identified as a contributing cause of EFAA/COWL events. It is working on producing new lots with updated manufacturing processing and raw material to mitigate the risk.

Certain use conditions can also contribute to EFAA/COWL events, and are referenced in the IFU, Appendix A, it notes.

The FDA is working with Abbott and recommends that health care providers do the following:

• Review the recall notice from Abbott for all MitraClip Clip Delivery Systems.
• Be aware of the potential for clip lock malfunctions before or after deployment with this device.
• Read and carefully follow the instructions for use and the recommendations provided in the recall notice to help minimize the chance of the clip failing to lock. These include recommendations about procedural steps for implant positioning, locking sequences, establishing clip arm angle, preparation for clip release, and avoiding excessive force and manipulation when unlocking the clip during device preparation and during the procedure.

Health care professionals can also report adverse reactions or quality problems they experience using these devices to the FDA’s MedWatch program.

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

Health concerns about the consumption of artificial sweeteners could be strengthened with the publication of a new study linking their intake to increased risk of heart disease and stroke events.

In this latest large-scale, prospective study of French adults, total artificial sweetener intake from all sources was associated with increased risk overall of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease.

The study was published online in the BMJ.

The current study differs from those done previously in that it includes artificial sweetener intake from both food and drinks, whereas previous studies have focused mainly on artificial sweetener content of beverages alone.

“Here we have quantified for the first time the global exposure to artificial sweeteners. This is not just beverages but includes the use of tabletop sweeteners, and other foods that include artificial sweeteners such as yogurts and desserts. This is the first time this information has been correlated to risk of heart disease,” senior author Mathilde Touvier, MD, Sorbonne Paris Nord University, told this news organization.

Just over half of the artificial sweetener intake in the study came from drinks, with the rest coming from tabletop sweeteners and foods.

“We included hard cardio- and cerebrovascular clinical endpoints such as a heart attack or stroke, and our results suggest that the amount of artificial sweetener in less than one can of soda could increase the risk of such events,” Dr. Touvier noted.

“This is an important and statistically significant association which shows robustness in all models after adjusting for many other possible confounding factors,” she said.

“There is now mounting evidence correlating artificial sweeteners to weight gain and heart disease,” she concluded. “My advice would be that we all need to try to limit sugar intake, but we should not consider artificial sweeteners as safe alternatives. Rather, we need to try to reduce our need for a sugary taste in our diet.”

But another leading researcher in the field urges caution in interpreting these results.

John Sievenpiper, MD, departments of nutritional sciences and medicine, University of Toronto, commented: “This paper shows the same relationship seen by many other large prospective cohorts which model the intake of artificial sweeteners as baseline or prevalent exposures.

“These observations are well recognized to be at high risk of residual confounding from behavior clustering and reverse causality in which being at risk for cardiovascular disease causes people to consume artificial sweeteners as a strategy to mitigate this risk as opposed to the other way around.”
 

Risk increased by 9%

The current study included 103,388 French adults from the NutriNet-Sante cohort, of whom 37.1% reported consumption of artificial sweeteners. The sweeteners assessed were mainly aspartame (58% of sweetener intake), acesulfame potassium (29%), and sucralose (10%), with the other 3% made up of various other sweeteners including cyclamates and saccharin.

Results showed that over an average 9 years of follow-up, artificial sweetener intake was associated with a 9% increased risk of cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events, including myocardial infarction, acute coronary syndrome, angioplasty, angina, stroke, or transient ischemic attack, with a hazard ratio of 1.09 (95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.18; P = .03).

The average intake of artificial sweeteners among those who reported consuming them was 42.46 mg/day, which corresponds to approximately one individual packet of tabletop sweetener or 100 mL of diet soda.

“We don’t have enough evidence to work out an amount of artificial sweetener that is harmful, but we did show a dose-effect association, with a higher risk of cardiovascular events with higher consumption,” Dr. Touvier said.

“Higher consumption in this study was a mean of 77 mg/day artificial sweetener, which is about 200 mL of soda – just a bit less than one standard can of soda,” she added.

The absolute incidence rate of cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events in higher consumers was 346 per 100,000 person-years vs. 314 per 100,000 person-years in nonconsumers.

Further analysis suggested that aspartame intake was particularly associated with increased risk of cerebrovascular events, while acesulfame potassium and sucralose were associated with increased coronary heart disease risk.
 

Study strengths

Dr. Touvier acknowledged that dietary studies, which generally rely on individuals self-reporting food and drink intake, are always hard to interpret. But she said this study used a more reliable method of dietary assessment, with repeated 24-hour dietary records, which were validated by interviews with a trained dietitian and against blood and urinary biomarkers.

And whereas residual confounding cannot be totally excluded, she pointed out that models were adjusted for a wide range of potential sociodemographic, anthropometric, dietary, and lifestyle confounders.

Dr. Touvier also noted that cases of cardiovascular disease in the first 2 years of follow-up were excluded to minimize the bias caused by individuals who maybe have switched to artificial sweeteners because of a cardiovascular issue.

“While this study has many strengths, it cannot on its own prove a causal relationship between artificial sweetener and increased cardiovascular risk,” she added. “We need health agencies to examine all the literature in the field. This is however another important piece of evidence.”

Dr. Touvier says that although observational studies have their issues, they will form the basis of the evidence on the effects of artificial sweeteners on health.

“Randomized studies in this area can only really look at short-term outcomes such as weight gain or biomarker changes. So, we will have to use observational studies together with experimental research to build the evidence. This is what happened with cigarette smoking and lung cancer. That link was not established by randomized trials, but by the accumulation of observational and experimental data.”
 

Different artificial sweeteners may be better?

Commenting on the study, Kim Williams Sr., MD, University of Louisville (Ky.), pointed out that this study included artificial sweeteners that increase insulin or decrease insulin sensitivity, and that insulin spikes increase obesity, insulin resistance, hypertension, and atherosclerosis.

“There are some safer artificial sweeteners that do not increase insulin much or at all, such as erythritol, yacon root/yacon syrup, stevia root, but they weren’t included in the analysis,” Dr. Williams added.

Dr. Sievenpiper explained that most studies on artificial sweeteners look at their consumption in isolation without considering how they compare to the intake of the sugars that they are intended to replace.

“The comparator matters as no food is consumed in a vacuum,” he said.

To address this, Dr. Sievenpiper and colleagues have recently published a systematic review and meta-analysis of the prospective cohort study evidence that shows if exposure to artificially sweetened beverages is modeled in substitution for sugar-sweetened beverages, then they are associated with less coronary heart disease, cardiovascular mortality, and all-cause mortality.

On the other hand, if exposure to artificially sweetened beverages is compared with water, then no difference in these outcomes was seen.

“These observations are more biologically plausible, robust, and reproducible and agree with the evidence for the effect of artificial sweeteners on intermediate risk factors in randomized trials,” Dr. Sievenpiper notes.

His group has also recently published a review of randomized studies showing that when compared with sugar-sweetened beverages, intake of artificially sweetened beverages was associated with small improvements in body weight and cardiometabolic risk factors without evidence of harm.

“I think the context provided by these studies is important, and taken together, the totality of the evidence suggests that artificial sweeteners are likely to be a useful tool in sugar reduction strategies,” Dr. Sievenpiper concludes.

The current study was funded by the European Research Council under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program, French National Cancer Institute, French Ministry of Health, IdEx Université de Paris Cité, Bettencourt-Schueller Foundation Research Prize 2021. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Health concerns about the consumption of artificial sweeteners could be strengthened with the publication of a new study linking their intake to increased risk of heart disease and stroke events.

In this latest large-scale, prospective study of French adults, total artificial sweetener intake from all sources was associated with increased risk overall of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease.

The study was published online in the BMJ.

The current study differs from those done previously in that it includes artificial sweetener intake from both food and drinks, whereas previous studies have focused mainly on artificial sweetener content of beverages alone.

“Here we have quantified for the first time the global exposure to artificial sweeteners. This is not just beverages but includes the use of tabletop sweeteners, and other foods that include artificial sweeteners such as yogurts and desserts. This is the first time this information has been correlated to risk of heart disease,” senior author Mathilde Touvier, MD, Sorbonne Paris Nord University, told this news organization.

Just over half of the artificial sweetener intake in the study came from drinks, with the rest coming from tabletop sweeteners and foods.

“We included hard cardio- and cerebrovascular clinical endpoints such as a heart attack or stroke, and our results suggest that the amount of artificial sweetener in less than one can of soda could increase the risk of such events,” Dr. Touvier noted.

“This is an important and statistically significant association which shows robustness in all models after adjusting for many other possible confounding factors,” she said.

“There is now mounting evidence correlating artificial sweeteners to weight gain and heart disease,” she concluded. “My advice would be that we all need to try to limit sugar intake, but we should not consider artificial sweeteners as safe alternatives. Rather, we need to try to reduce our need for a sugary taste in our diet.”

But another leading researcher in the field urges caution in interpreting these results.

John Sievenpiper, MD, departments of nutritional sciences and medicine, University of Toronto, commented: “This paper shows the same relationship seen by many other large prospective cohorts which model the intake of artificial sweeteners as baseline or prevalent exposures.

“These observations are well recognized to be at high risk of residual confounding from behavior clustering and reverse causality in which being at risk for cardiovascular disease causes people to consume artificial sweeteners as a strategy to mitigate this risk as opposed to the other way around.”
 

Risk increased by 9%

The current study included 103,388 French adults from the NutriNet-Sante cohort, of whom 37.1% reported consumption of artificial sweeteners. The sweeteners assessed were mainly aspartame (58% of sweetener intake), acesulfame potassium (29%), and sucralose (10%), with the other 3% made up of various other sweeteners including cyclamates and saccharin.

Results showed that over an average 9 years of follow-up, artificial sweetener intake was associated with a 9% increased risk of cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events, including myocardial infarction, acute coronary syndrome, angioplasty, angina, stroke, or transient ischemic attack, with a hazard ratio of 1.09 (95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.18; P = .03).

The average intake of artificial sweeteners among those who reported consuming them was 42.46 mg/day, which corresponds to approximately one individual packet of tabletop sweetener or 100 mL of diet soda.

“We don’t have enough evidence to work out an amount of artificial sweetener that is harmful, but we did show a dose-effect association, with a higher risk of cardiovascular events with higher consumption,” Dr. Touvier said.

“Higher consumption in this study was a mean of 77 mg/day artificial sweetener, which is about 200 mL of soda – just a bit less than one standard can of soda,” she added.

The absolute incidence rate of cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events in higher consumers was 346 per 100,000 person-years vs. 314 per 100,000 person-years in nonconsumers.

Further analysis suggested that aspartame intake was particularly associated with increased risk of cerebrovascular events, while acesulfame potassium and sucralose were associated with increased coronary heart disease risk.
 

Study strengths

Dr. Touvier acknowledged that dietary studies, which generally rely on individuals self-reporting food and drink intake, are always hard to interpret. But she said this study used a more reliable method of dietary assessment, with repeated 24-hour dietary records, which were validated by interviews with a trained dietitian and against blood and urinary biomarkers.

And whereas residual confounding cannot be totally excluded, she pointed out that models were adjusted for a wide range of potential sociodemographic, anthropometric, dietary, and lifestyle confounders.

Dr. Touvier also noted that cases of cardiovascular disease in the first 2 years of follow-up were excluded to minimize the bias caused by individuals who maybe have switched to artificial sweeteners because of a cardiovascular issue.

“While this study has many strengths, it cannot on its own prove a causal relationship between artificial sweetener and increased cardiovascular risk,” she added. “We need health agencies to examine all the literature in the field. This is however another important piece of evidence.”

Dr. Touvier says that although observational studies have their issues, they will form the basis of the evidence on the effects of artificial sweeteners on health.

“Randomized studies in this area can only really look at short-term outcomes such as weight gain or biomarker changes. So, we will have to use observational studies together with experimental research to build the evidence. This is what happened with cigarette smoking and lung cancer. That link was not established by randomized trials, but by the accumulation of observational and experimental data.”
 

Different artificial sweeteners may be better?

Commenting on the study, Kim Williams Sr., MD, University of Louisville (Ky.), pointed out that this study included artificial sweeteners that increase insulin or decrease insulin sensitivity, and that insulin spikes increase obesity, insulin resistance, hypertension, and atherosclerosis.

“There are some safer artificial sweeteners that do not increase insulin much or at all, such as erythritol, yacon root/yacon syrup, stevia root, but they weren’t included in the analysis,” Dr. Williams added.

Dr. Sievenpiper explained that most studies on artificial sweeteners look at their consumption in isolation without considering how they compare to the intake of the sugars that they are intended to replace.

“The comparator matters as no food is consumed in a vacuum,” he said.

To address this, Dr. Sievenpiper and colleagues have recently published a systematic review and meta-analysis of the prospective cohort study evidence that shows if exposure to artificially sweetened beverages is modeled in substitution for sugar-sweetened beverages, then they are associated with less coronary heart disease, cardiovascular mortality, and all-cause mortality.

On the other hand, if exposure to artificially sweetened beverages is compared with water, then no difference in these outcomes was seen.

“These observations are more biologically plausible, robust, and reproducible and agree with the evidence for the effect of artificial sweeteners on intermediate risk factors in randomized trials,” Dr. Sievenpiper notes.

His group has also recently published a review of randomized studies showing that when compared with sugar-sweetened beverages, intake of artificially sweetened beverages was associated with small improvements in body weight and cardiometabolic risk factors without evidence of harm.

“I think the context provided by these studies is important, and taken together, the totality of the evidence suggests that artificial sweeteners are likely to be a useful tool in sugar reduction strategies,” Dr. Sievenpiper concludes.

The current study was funded by the European Research Council under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program, French National Cancer Institute, French Ministry of Health, IdEx Université de Paris Cité, Bettencourt-Schueller Foundation Research Prize 2021. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Health concerns about the consumption of artificial sweeteners could be strengthened with the publication of a new study linking their intake to increased risk of heart disease and stroke events.

In this latest large-scale, prospective study of French adults, total artificial sweetener intake from all sources was associated with increased risk overall of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease.

The study was published online in the BMJ.

The current study differs from those done previously in that it includes artificial sweetener intake from both food and drinks, whereas previous studies have focused mainly on artificial sweetener content of beverages alone.

“Here we have quantified for the first time the global exposure to artificial sweeteners. This is not just beverages but includes the use of tabletop sweeteners, and other foods that include artificial sweeteners such as yogurts and desserts. This is the first time this information has been correlated to risk of heart disease,” senior author Mathilde Touvier, MD, Sorbonne Paris Nord University, told this news organization.

Just over half of the artificial sweetener intake in the study came from drinks, with the rest coming from tabletop sweeteners and foods.

“We included hard cardio- and cerebrovascular clinical endpoints such as a heart attack or stroke, and our results suggest that the amount of artificial sweetener in less than one can of soda could increase the risk of such events,” Dr. Touvier noted.

“This is an important and statistically significant association which shows robustness in all models after adjusting for many other possible confounding factors,” she said.

“There is now mounting evidence correlating artificial sweeteners to weight gain and heart disease,” she concluded. “My advice would be that we all need to try to limit sugar intake, but we should not consider artificial sweeteners as safe alternatives. Rather, we need to try to reduce our need for a sugary taste in our diet.”

But another leading researcher in the field urges caution in interpreting these results.

John Sievenpiper, MD, departments of nutritional sciences and medicine, University of Toronto, commented: “This paper shows the same relationship seen by many other large prospective cohorts which model the intake of artificial sweeteners as baseline or prevalent exposures.

“These observations are well recognized to be at high risk of residual confounding from behavior clustering and reverse causality in which being at risk for cardiovascular disease causes people to consume artificial sweeteners as a strategy to mitigate this risk as opposed to the other way around.”
 

Risk increased by 9%

The current study included 103,388 French adults from the NutriNet-Sante cohort, of whom 37.1% reported consumption of artificial sweeteners. The sweeteners assessed were mainly aspartame (58% of sweetener intake), acesulfame potassium (29%), and sucralose (10%), with the other 3% made up of various other sweeteners including cyclamates and saccharin.

Results showed that over an average 9 years of follow-up, artificial sweetener intake was associated with a 9% increased risk of cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events, including myocardial infarction, acute coronary syndrome, angioplasty, angina, stroke, or transient ischemic attack, with a hazard ratio of 1.09 (95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.18; P = .03).

The average intake of artificial sweeteners among those who reported consuming them was 42.46 mg/day, which corresponds to approximately one individual packet of tabletop sweetener or 100 mL of diet soda.

“We don’t have enough evidence to work out an amount of artificial sweetener that is harmful, but we did show a dose-effect association, with a higher risk of cardiovascular events with higher consumption,” Dr. Touvier said.

“Higher consumption in this study was a mean of 77 mg/day artificial sweetener, which is about 200 mL of soda – just a bit less than one standard can of soda,” she added.

The absolute incidence rate of cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events in higher consumers was 346 per 100,000 person-years vs. 314 per 100,000 person-years in nonconsumers.

Further analysis suggested that aspartame intake was particularly associated with increased risk of cerebrovascular events, while acesulfame potassium and sucralose were associated with increased coronary heart disease risk.
 

Study strengths

Dr. Touvier acknowledged that dietary studies, which generally rely on individuals self-reporting food and drink intake, are always hard to interpret. But she said this study used a more reliable method of dietary assessment, with repeated 24-hour dietary records, which were validated by interviews with a trained dietitian and against blood and urinary biomarkers.

And whereas residual confounding cannot be totally excluded, she pointed out that models were adjusted for a wide range of potential sociodemographic, anthropometric, dietary, and lifestyle confounders.

Dr. Touvier also noted that cases of cardiovascular disease in the first 2 years of follow-up were excluded to minimize the bias caused by individuals who maybe have switched to artificial sweeteners because of a cardiovascular issue.

“While this study has many strengths, it cannot on its own prove a causal relationship between artificial sweetener and increased cardiovascular risk,” she added. “We need health agencies to examine all the literature in the field. This is however another important piece of evidence.”

Dr. Touvier says that although observational studies have their issues, they will form the basis of the evidence on the effects of artificial sweeteners on health.

“Randomized studies in this area can only really look at short-term outcomes such as weight gain or biomarker changes. So, we will have to use observational studies together with experimental research to build the evidence. This is what happened with cigarette smoking and lung cancer. That link was not established by randomized trials, but by the accumulation of observational and experimental data.”
 

Different artificial sweeteners may be better?

Commenting on the study, Kim Williams Sr., MD, University of Louisville (Ky.), pointed out that this study included artificial sweeteners that increase insulin or decrease insulin sensitivity, and that insulin spikes increase obesity, insulin resistance, hypertension, and atherosclerosis.

“There are some safer artificial sweeteners that do not increase insulin much or at all, such as erythritol, yacon root/yacon syrup, stevia root, but they weren’t included in the analysis,” Dr. Williams added.

Dr. Sievenpiper explained that most studies on artificial sweeteners look at their consumption in isolation without considering how they compare to the intake of the sugars that they are intended to replace.

“The comparator matters as no food is consumed in a vacuum,” he said.

To address this, Dr. Sievenpiper and colleagues have recently published a systematic review and meta-analysis of the prospective cohort study evidence that shows if exposure to artificially sweetened beverages is modeled in substitution for sugar-sweetened beverages, then they are associated with less coronary heart disease, cardiovascular mortality, and all-cause mortality.

On the other hand, if exposure to artificially sweetened beverages is compared with water, then no difference in these outcomes was seen.

“These observations are more biologically plausible, robust, and reproducible and agree with the evidence for the effect of artificial sweeteners on intermediate risk factors in randomized trials,” Dr. Sievenpiper notes.

His group has also recently published a review of randomized studies showing that when compared with sugar-sweetened beverages, intake of artificially sweetened beverages was associated with small improvements in body weight and cardiometabolic risk factors without evidence of harm.

“I think the context provided by these studies is important, and taken together, the totality of the evidence suggests that artificial sweeteners are likely to be a useful tool in sugar reduction strategies,” Dr. Sievenpiper concludes.

The current study was funded by the European Research Council under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program, French National Cancer Institute, French Ministry of Health, IdEx Université de Paris Cité, Bettencourt-Schueller Foundation Research Prize 2021. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Two large studies out of the United Kingdom and Norway show vitamin D supplementation has no benefit – as low dose, high dose, or in the form of cod liver oil supplementation – in preventing COVID-19 or acute respiratory tract infections, regardless of whether individuals are deficient or not.

copyright Joss/Fotolia.com

The studies, published in the BMJ, underscore that “vaccination is still the most effective way to protect people from COVID-19, and vitamin D and cod liver oil supplementation should not be offered to healthy people with normal vitamin D levels,” writes Peter Bergman, MD, of the Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, in an editorial published alongside the studies.

Suboptimal levels of vitamin D are known to be associated with an increased risk of acute respiratory infections, and some observational studies have linked low 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) with more severe COVID-19; however, data on a possible protective effect of vitamin D supplementation in preventing infection have been inconsistent.
 

U.K. study compares doses

To further investigate the relationship with infections, including COVID-19, in a large cohort, the authors of the first of the two BMJ studies, a phase 3 open-label trial, enrolled 6,200 people in the United Kingdom aged 16 and older between December 2020 and June 2021 who were not taking vitamin D supplements at baseline.

Half of participants were offered a finger-prick blood test, and of the 2,674 who accepted, 86.3% were found to have low concentrations of 25(OH)D (< 75 nmol/L). These participants were provided with vitamin D supplementation at a lower (800 IU/day; n = 1328) or higher dose (3,200 IU/day; n = 1,346) for 6 months. The other half of the group received no tests or supplements.

The results showed minimal differences between groups in terms of rates of developing at least one acute respiratory infection, which occurred in 5% of those in the lower-dose group, 5.7% in the higher-dose group, and 4.6% of participants not offered supplementation.

Similarly, there were no significant differences in the development of real-time PCR-confirmed COVID-19, with rates of 3.6% in the lower-dose group, 3.0% in the higher-dose group, and 2.6% in the group not offered supplementation.

The study is “the first phase 3 randomized controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness of a test-and-treat approach for correction of suboptimal vitamin D status to prevent acute respiratory tract infections,” report the authors, led by Adrian R. Martineau, MD, PhD, of Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London.

While uptake and supplementation in the study were favorable, “no statistically significant effect of either dose was seen on the primary outcome of swab test, doctor-confirmed acute respiratory tract infection, or on the major secondary outcome of swab test-confirmed COVID-19,” they conclude.
 

Traditional use of cod liver oil of benefit?

In the second study, researchers in Norway, led by Arne Soraas, MD, PhD, of the department of microbiology, Oslo University Hospital, evaluated whether that country’s long-held tradition of consuming cod liver oil during the winter to prevent vitamin D deficiency could affect the development of COVID-19 or outcomes.

For the Cod Liver Oil for COVID-19 Prevention Study (CLOC), a large cohort of 34,601 adults with a mean age of 44.9 years who were not taking daily vitamin D supplements were randomized to receive 5 mL/day of cod liver oil, representing a surrogate dose of 400 IU/day of vitamin D (n = 17,278), or placebo (n = 17,323) for up to 6 months.

In contrast with the first study, the vast majority of patients in the CLOC study (86%) had adequate vitamin D levels, defined as greater than 50 nmol/L, at baseline.

Again, however, the results showed no association between increased vitamin D supplementation with cod liver oil and PCR-confirmed COVID-19 or acute respiratory infections, with approximately 1.3% in each group testing positive for COVID-19 over a median of 164 days.

Supplementation with cod liver oil was also not associated with a reduced risk of any of the coprimary endpoints, including other acute respiratory infections.

“Daily supplementation with cod liver oil, a low-dose vitamin D, eicosapentaenoic acid, and docosahexaenoic acid supplement, for 6 months during the SARS-CoV-2pandemic among Norwegian adults did not reduce the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection, serious COVID-19, or other acute respiratory infections,” the authors report.
 

Key study limitations

In his editorial, Dr. Bergman underscores the limitations of two studies – also acknowledged by the authors – including the key confounding role of vaccines that emerged during the studies.

“The null findings of the studies should be interpreted in the context of a highly effective vaccine rolled out during both studies,” Dr. Bergman writes.

In the U.K. study, for instance, whereas only 1.2% of participants were vaccinated at baseline, the rate soared to 89.1% having received at least one dose by study end, potentially masking any effect of vitamin D, he says.

Additionally, for the Norway study, Dr. Bergman notes that cod liver oil also contains a substantial amount of vitamin A, which can be a potent immunomodulator.

“Excessive intake of vitamin A can cause adverse effects and may also interfere with vitamin D-mediated effects on the immune system,” he writes.

With two recent large meta-analyses showing benefits of vitamin D supplementation to be specifically among people who are vitamin D deficient, “a pragmatic approach for the clinician could be to focus on risk groups” for supplementation, Dr. Bergman writes.

“[These include] those who could be tested before supplementation, including people with dark skin, or skin that is rarely exposed to the sun, pregnant women, and elderly people with chronic diseases.”

The U.K. trial was supported by Barts Charity, Pharma Nord, the Fischer Family Foundation, DSM Nutritional Products, the Exilarch’s Foundation, the Karl R. Pfleger Foundation, the AIM Foundation, Synergy Biologics, Cytoplan, the Clinical Research Network of the U.K. National Institute for Health and Care Research, the HDR UK BREATHE Hub, the U.K. Research and Innovation Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund, Thornton & Ross, Warburtons, Hyphens Pharma, and philanthropist Matthew Isaacs.

The CLOC trial was funded by Orkla Health, the manufacturer of the cod liver oil used in the trial. Dr. Bergman has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Two large studies out of the United Kingdom and Norway show vitamin D supplementation has no benefit – as low dose, high dose, or in the form of cod liver oil supplementation – in preventing COVID-19 or acute respiratory tract infections, regardless of whether individuals are deficient or not.

copyright Joss/Fotolia.com

The studies, published in the BMJ, underscore that “vaccination is still the most effective way to protect people from COVID-19, and vitamin D and cod liver oil supplementation should not be offered to healthy people with normal vitamin D levels,” writes Peter Bergman, MD, of the Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, in an editorial published alongside the studies.

Suboptimal levels of vitamin D are known to be associated with an increased risk of acute respiratory infections, and some observational studies have linked low 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) with more severe COVID-19; however, data on a possible protective effect of vitamin D supplementation in preventing infection have been inconsistent.
 

U.K. study compares doses

To further investigate the relationship with infections, including COVID-19, in a large cohort, the authors of the first of the two BMJ studies, a phase 3 open-label trial, enrolled 6,200 people in the United Kingdom aged 16 and older between December 2020 and June 2021 who were not taking vitamin D supplements at baseline.

Half of participants were offered a finger-prick blood test, and of the 2,674 who accepted, 86.3% were found to have low concentrations of 25(OH)D (< 75 nmol/L). These participants were provided with vitamin D supplementation at a lower (800 IU/day; n = 1328) or higher dose (3,200 IU/day; n = 1,346) for 6 months. The other half of the group received no tests or supplements.

The results showed minimal differences between groups in terms of rates of developing at least one acute respiratory infection, which occurred in 5% of those in the lower-dose group, 5.7% in the higher-dose group, and 4.6% of participants not offered supplementation.

Similarly, there were no significant differences in the development of real-time PCR-confirmed COVID-19, with rates of 3.6% in the lower-dose group, 3.0% in the higher-dose group, and 2.6% in the group not offered supplementation.

The study is “the first phase 3 randomized controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness of a test-and-treat approach for correction of suboptimal vitamin D status to prevent acute respiratory tract infections,” report the authors, led by Adrian R. Martineau, MD, PhD, of Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London.

While uptake and supplementation in the study were favorable, “no statistically significant effect of either dose was seen on the primary outcome of swab test, doctor-confirmed acute respiratory tract infection, or on the major secondary outcome of swab test-confirmed COVID-19,” they conclude.
 

Traditional use of cod liver oil of benefit?

In the second study, researchers in Norway, led by Arne Soraas, MD, PhD, of the department of microbiology, Oslo University Hospital, evaluated whether that country’s long-held tradition of consuming cod liver oil during the winter to prevent vitamin D deficiency could affect the development of COVID-19 or outcomes.

For the Cod Liver Oil for COVID-19 Prevention Study (CLOC), a large cohort of 34,601 adults with a mean age of 44.9 years who were not taking daily vitamin D supplements were randomized to receive 5 mL/day of cod liver oil, representing a surrogate dose of 400 IU/day of vitamin D (n = 17,278), or placebo (n = 17,323) for up to 6 months.

In contrast with the first study, the vast majority of patients in the CLOC study (86%) had adequate vitamin D levels, defined as greater than 50 nmol/L, at baseline.

Again, however, the results showed no association between increased vitamin D supplementation with cod liver oil and PCR-confirmed COVID-19 or acute respiratory infections, with approximately 1.3% in each group testing positive for COVID-19 over a median of 164 days.

Supplementation with cod liver oil was also not associated with a reduced risk of any of the coprimary endpoints, including other acute respiratory infections.

“Daily supplementation with cod liver oil, a low-dose vitamin D, eicosapentaenoic acid, and docosahexaenoic acid supplement, for 6 months during the SARS-CoV-2pandemic among Norwegian adults did not reduce the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection, serious COVID-19, or other acute respiratory infections,” the authors report.
 

Key study limitations

In his editorial, Dr. Bergman underscores the limitations of two studies – also acknowledged by the authors – including the key confounding role of vaccines that emerged during the studies.

“The null findings of the studies should be interpreted in the context of a highly effective vaccine rolled out during both studies,” Dr. Bergman writes.

In the U.K. study, for instance, whereas only 1.2% of participants were vaccinated at baseline, the rate soared to 89.1% having received at least one dose by study end, potentially masking any effect of vitamin D, he says.

Additionally, for the Norway study, Dr. Bergman notes that cod liver oil also contains a substantial amount of vitamin A, which can be a potent immunomodulator.

“Excessive intake of vitamin A can cause adverse effects and may also interfere with vitamin D-mediated effects on the immune system,” he writes.

With two recent large meta-analyses showing benefits of vitamin D supplementation to be specifically among people who are vitamin D deficient, “a pragmatic approach for the clinician could be to focus on risk groups” for supplementation, Dr. Bergman writes.

“[These include] those who could be tested before supplementation, including people with dark skin, or skin that is rarely exposed to the sun, pregnant women, and elderly people with chronic diseases.”

The U.K. trial was supported by Barts Charity, Pharma Nord, the Fischer Family Foundation, DSM Nutritional Products, the Exilarch’s Foundation, the Karl R. Pfleger Foundation, the AIM Foundation, Synergy Biologics, Cytoplan, the Clinical Research Network of the U.K. National Institute for Health and Care Research, the HDR UK BREATHE Hub, the U.K. Research and Innovation Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund, Thornton & Ross, Warburtons, Hyphens Pharma, and philanthropist Matthew Isaacs.

The CLOC trial was funded by Orkla Health, the manufacturer of the cod liver oil used in the trial. Dr. Bergman has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Two large studies out of the United Kingdom and Norway show vitamin D supplementation has no benefit – as low dose, high dose, or in the form of cod liver oil supplementation – in preventing COVID-19 or acute respiratory tract infections, regardless of whether individuals are deficient or not.

copyright Joss/Fotolia.com

The studies, published in the BMJ, underscore that “vaccination is still the most effective way to protect people from COVID-19, and vitamin D and cod liver oil supplementation should not be offered to healthy people with normal vitamin D levels,” writes Peter Bergman, MD, of the Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, in an editorial published alongside the studies.

Suboptimal levels of vitamin D are known to be associated with an increased risk of acute respiratory infections, and some observational studies have linked low 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) with more severe COVID-19; however, data on a possible protective effect of vitamin D supplementation in preventing infection have been inconsistent.
 

U.K. study compares doses

To further investigate the relationship with infections, including COVID-19, in a large cohort, the authors of the first of the two BMJ studies, a phase 3 open-label trial, enrolled 6,200 people in the United Kingdom aged 16 and older between December 2020 and June 2021 who were not taking vitamin D supplements at baseline.

Half of participants were offered a finger-prick blood test, and of the 2,674 who accepted, 86.3% were found to have low concentrations of 25(OH)D (< 75 nmol/L). These participants were provided with vitamin D supplementation at a lower (800 IU/day; n = 1328) or higher dose (3,200 IU/day; n = 1,346) for 6 months. The other half of the group received no tests or supplements.

The results showed minimal differences between groups in terms of rates of developing at least one acute respiratory infection, which occurred in 5% of those in the lower-dose group, 5.7% in the higher-dose group, and 4.6% of participants not offered supplementation.

Similarly, there were no significant differences in the development of real-time PCR-confirmed COVID-19, with rates of 3.6% in the lower-dose group, 3.0% in the higher-dose group, and 2.6% in the group not offered supplementation.

The study is “the first phase 3 randomized controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness of a test-and-treat approach for correction of suboptimal vitamin D status to prevent acute respiratory tract infections,” report the authors, led by Adrian R. Martineau, MD, PhD, of Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London.

While uptake and supplementation in the study were favorable, “no statistically significant effect of either dose was seen on the primary outcome of swab test, doctor-confirmed acute respiratory tract infection, or on the major secondary outcome of swab test-confirmed COVID-19,” they conclude.
 

Traditional use of cod liver oil of benefit?

In the second study, researchers in Norway, led by Arne Soraas, MD, PhD, of the department of microbiology, Oslo University Hospital, evaluated whether that country’s long-held tradition of consuming cod liver oil during the winter to prevent vitamin D deficiency could affect the development of COVID-19 or outcomes.

For the Cod Liver Oil for COVID-19 Prevention Study (CLOC), a large cohort of 34,601 adults with a mean age of 44.9 years who were not taking daily vitamin D supplements were randomized to receive 5 mL/day of cod liver oil, representing a surrogate dose of 400 IU/day of vitamin D (n = 17,278), or placebo (n = 17,323) for up to 6 months.

In contrast with the first study, the vast majority of patients in the CLOC study (86%) had adequate vitamin D levels, defined as greater than 50 nmol/L, at baseline.

Again, however, the results showed no association between increased vitamin D supplementation with cod liver oil and PCR-confirmed COVID-19 or acute respiratory infections, with approximately 1.3% in each group testing positive for COVID-19 over a median of 164 days.

Supplementation with cod liver oil was also not associated with a reduced risk of any of the coprimary endpoints, including other acute respiratory infections.

“Daily supplementation with cod liver oil, a low-dose vitamin D, eicosapentaenoic acid, and docosahexaenoic acid supplement, for 6 months during the SARS-CoV-2pandemic among Norwegian adults did not reduce the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection, serious COVID-19, or other acute respiratory infections,” the authors report.
 

Key study limitations

In his editorial, Dr. Bergman underscores the limitations of two studies – also acknowledged by the authors – including the key confounding role of vaccines that emerged during the studies.

“The null findings of the studies should be interpreted in the context of a highly effective vaccine rolled out during both studies,” Dr. Bergman writes.

In the U.K. study, for instance, whereas only 1.2% of participants were vaccinated at baseline, the rate soared to 89.1% having received at least one dose by study end, potentially masking any effect of vitamin D, he says.

Additionally, for the Norway study, Dr. Bergman notes that cod liver oil also contains a substantial amount of vitamin A, which can be a potent immunomodulator.

“Excessive intake of vitamin A can cause adverse effects and may also interfere with vitamin D-mediated effects on the immune system,” he writes.

With two recent large meta-analyses showing benefits of vitamin D supplementation to be specifically among people who are vitamin D deficient, “a pragmatic approach for the clinician could be to focus on risk groups” for supplementation, Dr. Bergman writes.

“[These include] those who could be tested before supplementation, including people with dark skin, or skin that is rarely exposed to the sun, pregnant women, and elderly people with chronic diseases.”

The U.K. trial was supported by Barts Charity, Pharma Nord, the Fischer Family Foundation, DSM Nutritional Products, the Exilarch’s Foundation, the Karl R. Pfleger Foundation, the AIM Foundation, Synergy Biologics, Cytoplan, the Clinical Research Network of the U.K. National Institute for Health and Care Research, the HDR UK BREATHE Hub, the U.K. Research and Innovation Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund, Thornton & Ross, Warburtons, Hyphens Pharma, and philanthropist Matthew Isaacs.

The CLOC trial was funded by Orkla Health, the manufacturer of the cod liver oil used in the trial. Dr. Bergman has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Among men who have not been vaccinated against COVID-19, having low levels of testosterone may increase the risk of hospitalization from the disease – but hormone therapy appears to reduce the likelihood of severe COVID, researchers have found.

Low testosterone has long been linked to multiple chronic conditions, including obesity, heart disease, and type 2 diabetes, as well as acute conditions, such as heart attack and stroke. A study published earlier in the pandemic suggested that suppressing the sex hormone might protect against COVID-19. The new study, published in JAMA Network Open, is among the first to suggest a link between low testosterone and the risk for severe COVID.

Researchers at Washington University in St. Louis evaluated data from 723 unvaccinated men who had been infected with SARS-CoV-2. Of those, 116 had been diagnosed with hypogonadism, and 180 were receiving testosterone supplementation.

The study found that men whose testosterone levels were less than 200 ng/dL were 2.4 times more likely to experience a severe case of COVID-19 that required hospitalization than were those with normal levels of the hormone. The study accounted for the fact that participants with low testosterone were also more likely to have comorbidities such as diabetes and obesity.

Paresh Dandona, MD, PhD, distinguished professor of medicine and endocrinology at the State University of New York at Buffalo, called the findings “very exciting” and “fundamental.”

“In the world of hypogonadism, this is the first to show that low testosterone makes you vulnerable” to COVID, added Dr. Dandona, who was not involved with the research.

Men who were receiving hormone replacement therapy were at lower risk of hospitalization, compared with those who were not receiving treatment, the study found.

“Testosterone therapy seemed to negate the harmful effects of COVID,” said Sandeep Dhindsa, MD, an endocrinologist at Saint Louis University and lead author of the study.

Approximately 50% more men have died from confirmed COVID-19 than women since the start of the pandemic, according to the Sex, Gender and COVID-19 Project. Previous findings suggesting that sex may be a risk factor for death from COVID prompted researchers to consider whether hormones may play a role in the increased risk among men and whether treatments that suppress androgen levels could cut hospitalizations, but researchers consistently found that androgen suppression was not effective.

“There are other reasons women might be doing better – they may have followed public health guidelines a lot better,” according to Abhinav Diwan, MD, professor of medicine at Washington University in St. Louis, who helped conduct the new study. “It may be chromosomal and not necessarily just hormonal. The differences between men and women go beyond one factor.”

According to the researchers, the findings do not suggest that hormone therapy be used as a preventive measure against COVID.

“We don’t want patients to get excited and start to ask their doctors for testosterone,” Dr. Dhindsa said.

However, viewing low testosterone as a risk factor for COVID could be considered a shift in thinking for some clinicians, according to Dr. Dandana.

“All obese and all [men with] type 2 diabetes should be tested for testosterone, which is the practice in my clinic right now, even if they have no symptoms,” Dr. Dandana said. “Certainly, those with symptoms [of low testosterone] but no diagnosis, they should be tested, too.”

Participants in the study were infected with SARS-CoV-2 early in 2020, before vaccines were available. The researchers did not assess whether the rate of hospitalizations among participants with low testosterone would be different had they been vaccinated.

“Whatever benefits we saw with testosterone might be minor compared to getting the vaccine,” Dr. Dhindsa said.

Dr. Diwan agreed. “COVID hospitalization continues to be a problem, the strains are evolving, and new vaccines are coming in,” he said. “The bottom line is to get vaccinated.”

Dr. Dhindsa has received personal fees from Bayer and Acerus Pharmaceuticals and grants from Clarus Therapeutics outside the submitted work. Dr. Diwan has served as a consultant for the interpretation of echocardiograms for clinical trials for Clario (previously ERT) and has received nonfinancial support from Dewpoint Therapeutics outside the submitted work. Dr. Dandana has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Among men who have not been vaccinated against COVID-19, having low levels of testosterone may increase the risk of hospitalization from the disease – but hormone therapy appears to reduce the likelihood of severe COVID, researchers have found.

Low testosterone has long been linked to multiple chronic conditions, including obesity, heart disease, and type 2 diabetes, as well as acute conditions, such as heart attack and stroke. A study published earlier in the pandemic suggested that suppressing the sex hormone might protect against COVID-19. The new study, published in JAMA Network Open, is among the first to suggest a link between low testosterone and the risk for severe COVID.

Researchers at Washington University in St. Louis evaluated data from 723 unvaccinated men who had been infected with SARS-CoV-2. Of those, 116 had been diagnosed with hypogonadism, and 180 were receiving testosterone supplementation.

The study found that men whose testosterone levels were less than 200 ng/dL were 2.4 times more likely to experience a severe case of COVID-19 that required hospitalization than were those with normal levels of the hormone. The study accounted for the fact that participants with low testosterone were also more likely to have comorbidities such as diabetes and obesity.

Paresh Dandona, MD, PhD, distinguished professor of medicine and endocrinology at the State University of New York at Buffalo, called the findings “very exciting” and “fundamental.”

“In the world of hypogonadism, this is the first to show that low testosterone makes you vulnerable” to COVID, added Dr. Dandona, who was not involved with the research.

Men who were receiving hormone replacement therapy were at lower risk of hospitalization, compared with those who were not receiving treatment, the study found.

“Testosterone therapy seemed to negate the harmful effects of COVID,” said Sandeep Dhindsa, MD, an endocrinologist at Saint Louis University and lead author of the study.

Approximately 50% more men have died from confirmed COVID-19 than women since the start of the pandemic, according to the Sex, Gender and COVID-19 Project. Previous findings suggesting that sex may be a risk factor for death from COVID prompted researchers to consider whether hormones may play a role in the increased risk among men and whether treatments that suppress androgen levels could cut hospitalizations, but researchers consistently found that androgen suppression was not effective.

“There are other reasons women might be doing better – they may have followed public health guidelines a lot better,” according to Abhinav Diwan, MD, professor of medicine at Washington University in St. Louis, who helped conduct the new study. “It may be chromosomal and not necessarily just hormonal. The differences between men and women go beyond one factor.”

According to the researchers, the findings do not suggest that hormone therapy be used as a preventive measure against COVID.

“We don’t want patients to get excited and start to ask their doctors for testosterone,” Dr. Dhindsa said.

However, viewing low testosterone as a risk factor for COVID could be considered a shift in thinking for some clinicians, according to Dr. Dandana.

“All obese and all [men with] type 2 diabetes should be tested for testosterone, which is the practice in my clinic right now, even if they have no symptoms,” Dr. Dandana said. “Certainly, those with symptoms [of low testosterone] but no diagnosis, they should be tested, too.”

Participants in the study were infected with SARS-CoV-2 early in 2020, before vaccines were available. The researchers did not assess whether the rate of hospitalizations among participants with low testosterone would be different had they been vaccinated.

“Whatever benefits we saw with testosterone might be minor compared to getting the vaccine,” Dr. Dhindsa said.

Dr. Diwan agreed. “COVID hospitalization continues to be a problem, the strains are evolving, and new vaccines are coming in,” he said. “The bottom line is to get vaccinated.”

Dr. Dhindsa has received personal fees from Bayer and Acerus Pharmaceuticals and grants from Clarus Therapeutics outside the submitted work. Dr. Diwan has served as a consultant for the interpretation of echocardiograms for clinical trials for Clario (previously ERT) and has received nonfinancial support from Dewpoint Therapeutics outside the submitted work. Dr. Dandana has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Among men who have not been vaccinated against COVID-19, having low levels of testosterone may increase the risk of hospitalization from the disease – but hormone therapy appears to reduce the likelihood of severe COVID, researchers have found.

Low testosterone has long been linked to multiple chronic conditions, including obesity, heart disease, and type 2 diabetes, as well as acute conditions, such as heart attack and stroke. A study published earlier in the pandemic suggested that suppressing the sex hormone might protect against COVID-19. The new study, published in JAMA Network Open, is among the first to suggest a link between low testosterone and the risk for severe COVID.

Researchers at Washington University in St. Louis evaluated data from 723 unvaccinated men who had been infected with SARS-CoV-2. Of those, 116 had been diagnosed with hypogonadism, and 180 were receiving testosterone supplementation.

The study found that men whose testosterone levels were less than 200 ng/dL were 2.4 times more likely to experience a severe case of COVID-19 that required hospitalization than were those with normal levels of the hormone. The study accounted for the fact that participants with low testosterone were also more likely to have comorbidities such as diabetes and obesity.

Paresh Dandona, MD, PhD, distinguished professor of medicine and endocrinology at the State University of New York at Buffalo, called the findings “very exciting” and “fundamental.”

“In the world of hypogonadism, this is the first to show that low testosterone makes you vulnerable” to COVID, added Dr. Dandona, who was not involved with the research.

Men who were receiving hormone replacement therapy were at lower risk of hospitalization, compared with those who were not receiving treatment, the study found.

“Testosterone therapy seemed to negate the harmful effects of COVID,” said Sandeep Dhindsa, MD, an endocrinologist at Saint Louis University and lead author of the study.

Approximately 50% more men have died from confirmed COVID-19 than women since the start of the pandemic, according to the Sex, Gender and COVID-19 Project. Previous findings suggesting that sex may be a risk factor for death from COVID prompted researchers to consider whether hormones may play a role in the increased risk among men and whether treatments that suppress androgen levels could cut hospitalizations, but researchers consistently found that androgen suppression was not effective.

“There are other reasons women might be doing better – they may have followed public health guidelines a lot better,” according to Abhinav Diwan, MD, professor of medicine at Washington University in St. Louis, who helped conduct the new study. “It may be chromosomal and not necessarily just hormonal. The differences between men and women go beyond one factor.”

According to the researchers, the findings do not suggest that hormone therapy be used as a preventive measure against COVID.

“We don’t want patients to get excited and start to ask their doctors for testosterone,” Dr. Dhindsa said.

However, viewing low testosterone as a risk factor for COVID could be considered a shift in thinking for some clinicians, according to Dr. Dandana.

“All obese and all [men with] type 2 diabetes should be tested for testosterone, which is the practice in my clinic right now, even if they have no symptoms,” Dr. Dandana said. “Certainly, those with symptoms [of low testosterone] but no diagnosis, they should be tested, too.”

Participants in the study were infected with SARS-CoV-2 early in 2020, before vaccines were available. The researchers did not assess whether the rate of hospitalizations among participants with low testosterone would be different had they been vaccinated.

“Whatever benefits we saw with testosterone might be minor compared to getting the vaccine,” Dr. Dhindsa said.

Dr. Diwan agreed. “COVID hospitalization continues to be a problem, the strains are evolving, and new vaccines are coming in,” he said. “The bottom line is to get vaccinated.”

Dr. Dhindsa has received personal fees from Bayer and Acerus Pharmaceuticals and grants from Clarus Therapeutics outside the submitted work. Dr. Diwan has served as a consultant for the interpretation of echocardiograms for clinical trials for Clario (previously ERT) and has received nonfinancial support from Dewpoint Therapeutics outside the submitted work. Dr. Dandana has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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