MDedge Emergency Medicine

Adults with hypertension who were vaccinated for COVID-19 with at least one booster were more than twice as likely as vaccinated and boosted individuals without hypertension to be hospitalized for severe COVID-19, according to data from more than 900 individuals.

“We were surprised to learn that many people who were hospitalized with COVID-19 had hypertension and no other risk factors,” said Susan Cheng, MD, MPH, director of the Institute for Research on Healthy Aging in the department of cardiology at the Smidt Heart Institute, Los Angeles, and a senior author of the study. “This is concerning when you consider that almost half of American adults have high blood pressure.”

Vishnu Kumar/Thinkstock

COVID-19 vaccines demonstrated ability to reduce death and some of the most severe side effects from the infection in the early stages of the pandemic. Although the Omicron surge prompted recommendations for a third mRNA vaccine dose, “a proportion of individuals who received three mRNA vaccine doses still required hospitalization for COVID-19 during the Omicron surge,” and the characteristics associated with severe illness in vaccinated and boosted patients have not been explored, Joseph Ebinger, MD, of Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, and colleagues wrote.

Previous research has shown an association between high blood pressure an increased risk for developing severe COVID-19 compared to several other chronic health conditions, including kidney disease, type 2 diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and heart failure, the researchers noted.

In a study published in Hypertension, the researchers identified 912 adults who received at least three doses of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine and were later diagnosed with COVID-19 during the surge in infections from the Omicron variant between December 2021 and April 2022.

A total of 145 of the individuals were hospitalized (16%); of these, 125 (86%) had hypertension.

Patients with hypertension were the most likely to be hospitalized, with an odds ratio of 2.9. In addition to high blood pressure, factors including older age (OR, 1.3), chronic kidney disease (OR, 2.2), prior myocardial infarction or heart failure (OR, 2.2), and longer time since the last vaccination and COVID-19 infection were associated with increased risk of hospitalization in a multivariate analysis.

However, the increased risk of severe illness and hospitalization associated with high blood pressure persisted, with an OR of 2.6, in the absence of comorbid conditions such as type 2 diabetes, kidney disease, and heart failure, the researchers emphasized.

“Although the mechanism for hypertension-associated COVID-19 risk remains unclear, prior studies have identified delayed SARS-CoV-2 viral clearance and prolonged inflammatory response among hypertensive patients, which may contribute to greater disease severity,” they wrote.

The findings were limited by several factors, including the use of data from a single center and lack of information on which Omicron variants and subvariants were behind the infections, the researchers noted.

However, the results highlight the need for more research on how to reduce the risks of severe COVID-19 in vulnerable populations, and on the mechanism for a potential connection between high blood pressure and severe COVID-19, they said.

Given the high prevalence of hypertension worldwide, increased understanding of the hypertension-specific risks and identification of individual and population-level risk reduction strategies will be important to the transition of COVID-19 from pandemic to endemic, they concluded.
 

Omicron changes the game

“When the pandemic initially started, many conditions were seen to increase risk for more severe COVID illness, and hypertension was one of those factors – and then things changed,” lead author Dr. Ebinger said in an interview. “First, vaccines arrived on the scene and substantially reduced risk of severe COVID for everyone who received them. Second, Omicron arrived and, while more transmissible, this variant has been less likely to cause severe COVID. On the one hand, we have vaccines and boosters that we want to think of as ‘the great equalizer’ when it comes to preexisting conditions. On the other hand, we have a dominant set of SARS-CoV-2 subvariants that seem less virulent in most people.

“Taken together, we have been hoping and even assuming that we have been doing pretty well with minimizing risks. Unfortunately, our study results indicate this is not exactly the case,” he said.

“Although vaccines and boosters appear to have equalized or minimized the risks of severe COVID for some people, this has not happened for others – even in the setting of the milder Omicron variant. Of individuals who were fully vaccinated and boosted, having hypertension increased the odds of needing to be hospitalized after getting infected with Omicron by 2.6-fold, even when accounting for or in the absence of having any major chronic disease that might otherwise predispose to more severe COVID-19 illness,” Dr. Ebinger added.

“So, while the originally seen risks of having obesity or diabetes seem to have been minimized during this current era of pandemic, the risk of having hypertension has persisted. We found this both surprising and concerning, because hypertension is very common and present in over half of people over age 50.”

Surprisingly, “we found that a fair number of people, even after being fully vaccinated plus a having gotten a booster, will not only catch Omicron but get sick enough to need hospital care,” Dr. Ebinger emphasized. “Moreover, it is not just older adults with major comorbid conditions who are vulnerable. Our data show that this can happen to an adult of any age and especially if a person has only hypertension and otherwise no major chronic disease.”

The first takeaway message for clinicians at this time is to raise awareness, Dr. Ebinger stressed in the interview. “We need to raise understanding around the fact that receiving three doses of vaccine may not prevent severe COVID-19 illness in everyone, even when the circulating viral variant is presumed to be causing only mild disease in most people. Moreover, the people who are most at risk are not whom we might think they are. They are not the sickest of the sick. They include people who might not have major conditions such as heart disease or kidney disease, but they do have hypertension.”

Second, “we need more research to understand out why there is this link between hypertension and excess risk for the more severe forms of COVID-19, despite it arising from a supposedly milder variant,” said Dr. Ebinger.

“Third, we need to determine how to reduce these risks, whether through more tailored vaccine regimens or novel therapeutics or a combination approach,” he said.

Looking ahead, “the biological mechanism underpinning the association between hypertension and severe COVID-19 remains underexplored. Future work should focus on understanding the factors linking hypertension to severe COVID-19, as this may elucidate both information on how SARS-CoV-2 effects the body and potential targets for intervention,” Dr. Ebinger added.

The study was supported in part by Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, the Erika J. Glazer Family Foundation and the National Institutes of Health. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Adults with hypertension who were vaccinated for COVID-19 with at least one booster were more than twice as likely as vaccinated and boosted individuals without hypertension to be hospitalized for severe COVID-19, according to data from more than 900 individuals.

“We were surprised to learn that many people who were hospitalized with COVID-19 had hypertension and no other risk factors,” said Susan Cheng, MD, MPH, director of the Institute for Research on Healthy Aging in the department of cardiology at the Smidt Heart Institute, Los Angeles, and a senior author of the study. “This is concerning when you consider that almost half of American adults have high blood pressure.”

Vishnu Kumar/Thinkstock

COVID-19 vaccines demonstrated ability to reduce death and some of the most severe side effects from the infection in the early stages of the pandemic. Although the Omicron surge prompted recommendations for a third mRNA vaccine dose, “a proportion of individuals who received three mRNA vaccine doses still required hospitalization for COVID-19 during the Omicron surge,” and the characteristics associated with severe illness in vaccinated and boosted patients have not been explored, Joseph Ebinger, MD, of Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, and colleagues wrote.

Previous research has shown an association between high blood pressure an increased risk for developing severe COVID-19 compared to several other chronic health conditions, including kidney disease, type 2 diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and heart failure, the researchers noted.

In a study published in Hypertension, the researchers identified 912 adults who received at least three doses of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine and were later diagnosed with COVID-19 during the surge in infections from the Omicron variant between December 2021 and April 2022.

A total of 145 of the individuals were hospitalized (16%); of these, 125 (86%) had hypertension.

Patients with hypertension were the most likely to be hospitalized, with an odds ratio of 2.9. In addition to high blood pressure, factors including older age (OR, 1.3), chronic kidney disease (OR, 2.2), prior myocardial infarction or heart failure (OR, 2.2), and longer time since the last vaccination and COVID-19 infection were associated with increased risk of hospitalization in a multivariate analysis.

However, the increased risk of severe illness and hospitalization associated with high blood pressure persisted, with an OR of 2.6, in the absence of comorbid conditions such as type 2 diabetes, kidney disease, and heart failure, the researchers emphasized.

“Although the mechanism for hypertension-associated COVID-19 risk remains unclear, prior studies have identified delayed SARS-CoV-2 viral clearance and prolonged inflammatory response among hypertensive patients, which may contribute to greater disease severity,” they wrote.

The findings were limited by several factors, including the use of data from a single center and lack of information on which Omicron variants and subvariants were behind the infections, the researchers noted.

However, the results highlight the need for more research on how to reduce the risks of severe COVID-19 in vulnerable populations, and on the mechanism for a potential connection between high blood pressure and severe COVID-19, they said.

Given the high prevalence of hypertension worldwide, increased understanding of the hypertension-specific risks and identification of individual and population-level risk reduction strategies will be important to the transition of COVID-19 from pandemic to endemic, they concluded.
 

Omicron changes the game

“When the pandemic initially started, many conditions were seen to increase risk for more severe COVID illness, and hypertension was one of those factors – and then things changed,” lead author Dr. Ebinger said in an interview. “First, vaccines arrived on the scene and substantially reduced risk of severe COVID for everyone who received them. Second, Omicron arrived and, while more transmissible, this variant has been less likely to cause severe COVID. On the one hand, we have vaccines and boosters that we want to think of as ‘the great equalizer’ when it comes to preexisting conditions. On the other hand, we have a dominant set of SARS-CoV-2 subvariants that seem less virulent in most people.

“Taken together, we have been hoping and even assuming that we have been doing pretty well with minimizing risks. Unfortunately, our study results indicate this is not exactly the case,” he said.

“Although vaccines and boosters appear to have equalized or minimized the risks of severe COVID for some people, this has not happened for others – even in the setting of the milder Omicron variant. Of individuals who were fully vaccinated and boosted, having hypertension increased the odds of needing to be hospitalized after getting infected with Omicron by 2.6-fold, even when accounting for or in the absence of having any major chronic disease that might otherwise predispose to more severe COVID-19 illness,” Dr. Ebinger added.

“So, while the originally seen risks of having obesity or diabetes seem to have been minimized during this current era of pandemic, the risk of having hypertension has persisted. We found this both surprising and concerning, because hypertension is very common and present in over half of people over age 50.”

Surprisingly, “we found that a fair number of people, even after being fully vaccinated plus a having gotten a booster, will not only catch Omicron but get sick enough to need hospital care,” Dr. Ebinger emphasized. “Moreover, it is not just older adults with major comorbid conditions who are vulnerable. Our data show that this can happen to an adult of any age and especially if a person has only hypertension and otherwise no major chronic disease.”

The first takeaway message for clinicians at this time is to raise awareness, Dr. Ebinger stressed in the interview. “We need to raise understanding around the fact that receiving three doses of vaccine may not prevent severe COVID-19 illness in everyone, even when the circulating viral variant is presumed to be causing only mild disease in most people. Moreover, the people who are most at risk are not whom we might think they are. They are not the sickest of the sick. They include people who might not have major conditions such as heart disease or kidney disease, but they do have hypertension.”

Second, “we need more research to understand out why there is this link between hypertension and excess risk for the more severe forms of COVID-19, despite it arising from a supposedly milder variant,” said Dr. Ebinger.

“Third, we need to determine how to reduce these risks, whether through more tailored vaccine regimens or novel therapeutics or a combination approach,” he said.

Looking ahead, “the biological mechanism underpinning the association between hypertension and severe COVID-19 remains underexplored. Future work should focus on understanding the factors linking hypertension to severe COVID-19, as this may elucidate both information on how SARS-CoV-2 effects the body and potential targets for intervention,” Dr. Ebinger added.

The study was supported in part by Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, the Erika J. Glazer Family Foundation and the National Institutes of Health. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Adults with hypertension who were vaccinated for COVID-19 with at least one booster were more than twice as likely as vaccinated and boosted individuals without hypertension to be hospitalized for severe COVID-19, according to data from more than 900 individuals.

“We were surprised to learn that many people who were hospitalized with COVID-19 had hypertension and no other risk factors,” said Susan Cheng, MD, MPH, director of the Institute for Research on Healthy Aging in the department of cardiology at the Smidt Heart Institute, Los Angeles, and a senior author of the study. “This is concerning when you consider that almost half of American adults have high blood pressure.”

Vishnu Kumar/Thinkstock

COVID-19 vaccines demonstrated ability to reduce death and some of the most severe side effects from the infection in the early stages of the pandemic. Although the Omicron surge prompted recommendations for a third mRNA vaccine dose, “a proportion of individuals who received three mRNA vaccine doses still required hospitalization for COVID-19 during the Omicron surge,” and the characteristics associated with severe illness in vaccinated and boosted patients have not been explored, Joseph Ebinger, MD, of Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, and colleagues wrote.

Previous research has shown an association between high blood pressure an increased risk for developing severe COVID-19 compared to several other chronic health conditions, including kidney disease, type 2 diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and heart failure, the researchers noted.

In a study published in Hypertension, the researchers identified 912 adults who received at least three doses of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine and were later diagnosed with COVID-19 during the surge in infections from the Omicron variant between December 2021 and April 2022.

A total of 145 of the individuals were hospitalized (16%); of these, 125 (86%) had hypertension.

Patients with hypertension were the most likely to be hospitalized, with an odds ratio of 2.9. In addition to high blood pressure, factors including older age (OR, 1.3), chronic kidney disease (OR, 2.2), prior myocardial infarction or heart failure (OR, 2.2), and longer time since the last vaccination and COVID-19 infection were associated with increased risk of hospitalization in a multivariate analysis.

However, the increased risk of severe illness and hospitalization associated with high blood pressure persisted, with an OR of 2.6, in the absence of comorbid conditions such as type 2 diabetes, kidney disease, and heart failure, the researchers emphasized.

“Although the mechanism for hypertension-associated COVID-19 risk remains unclear, prior studies have identified delayed SARS-CoV-2 viral clearance and prolonged inflammatory response among hypertensive patients, which may contribute to greater disease severity,” they wrote.

The findings were limited by several factors, including the use of data from a single center and lack of information on which Omicron variants and subvariants were behind the infections, the researchers noted.

However, the results highlight the need for more research on how to reduce the risks of severe COVID-19 in vulnerable populations, and on the mechanism for a potential connection between high blood pressure and severe COVID-19, they said.

Given the high prevalence of hypertension worldwide, increased understanding of the hypertension-specific risks and identification of individual and population-level risk reduction strategies will be important to the transition of COVID-19 from pandemic to endemic, they concluded.
 

Omicron changes the game

“When the pandemic initially started, many conditions were seen to increase risk for more severe COVID illness, and hypertension was one of those factors – and then things changed,” lead author Dr. Ebinger said in an interview. “First, vaccines arrived on the scene and substantially reduced risk of severe COVID for everyone who received them. Second, Omicron arrived and, while more transmissible, this variant has been less likely to cause severe COVID. On the one hand, we have vaccines and boosters that we want to think of as ‘the great equalizer’ when it comes to preexisting conditions. On the other hand, we have a dominant set of SARS-CoV-2 subvariants that seem less virulent in most people.

“Taken together, we have been hoping and even assuming that we have been doing pretty well with minimizing risks. Unfortunately, our study results indicate this is not exactly the case,” he said.

“Although vaccines and boosters appear to have equalized or minimized the risks of severe COVID for some people, this has not happened for others – even in the setting of the milder Omicron variant. Of individuals who were fully vaccinated and boosted, having hypertension increased the odds of needing to be hospitalized after getting infected with Omicron by 2.6-fold, even when accounting for or in the absence of having any major chronic disease that might otherwise predispose to more severe COVID-19 illness,” Dr. Ebinger added.

“So, while the originally seen risks of having obesity or diabetes seem to have been minimized during this current era of pandemic, the risk of having hypertension has persisted. We found this both surprising and concerning, because hypertension is very common and present in over half of people over age 50.”

Surprisingly, “we found that a fair number of people, even after being fully vaccinated plus a having gotten a booster, will not only catch Omicron but get sick enough to need hospital care,” Dr. Ebinger emphasized. “Moreover, it is not just older adults with major comorbid conditions who are vulnerable. Our data show that this can happen to an adult of any age and especially if a person has only hypertension and otherwise no major chronic disease.”

The first takeaway message for clinicians at this time is to raise awareness, Dr. Ebinger stressed in the interview. “We need to raise understanding around the fact that receiving three doses of vaccine may not prevent severe COVID-19 illness in everyone, even when the circulating viral variant is presumed to be causing only mild disease in most people. Moreover, the people who are most at risk are not whom we might think they are. They are not the sickest of the sick. They include people who might not have major conditions such as heart disease or kidney disease, but they do have hypertension.”

Second, “we need more research to understand out why there is this link between hypertension and excess risk for the more severe forms of COVID-19, despite it arising from a supposedly milder variant,” said Dr. Ebinger.

“Third, we need to determine how to reduce these risks, whether through more tailored vaccine regimens or novel therapeutics or a combination approach,” he said.

Looking ahead, “the biological mechanism underpinning the association between hypertension and severe COVID-19 remains underexplored. Future work should focus on understanding the factors linking hypertension to severe COVID-19, as this may elucidate both information on how SARS-CoV-2 effects the body and potential targets for intervention,” Dr. Ebinger added.

The study was supported in part by Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, the Erika J. Glazer Family Foundation and the National Institutes of Health. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Two new noninferiority trials address the controversial question of whether thrombolytic therapy can be omitted for acute ischemic stroke in patients undergoing endovascular thrombectomy for large-vessel occlusion.

Both trials show better outcomes when standard bridging thrombolytic therapy is used before thrombectomy, with comparable safety.

The results of SWIFT-DIRECT and DIRECT-SAFE were published online June 22 in The Lancet.

“The case appears closed. Bypass intravenous thrombolysis is highly unlikely to be noninferior to standard care by a clinically acceptable margin for most patients,” writes Pooja Khatri, MD, MSc, department of neurology, University of Cincinnati, in a linked comment.
 

SWIFT-DIRECT

SWIFT-DIRECT enrolled 408 patients (median age 72; 51% women) with acute stroke due to large vessel occlusion admitted to stroke centers in Europe and Canada. Half were randomly allocated to thrombectomy alone and half to intravenous alteplase and thrombectomy.

Successful reperfusion was less common in patients who had thrombectomy alone (91% vs. 96%; risk difference −5.1%; 95% confidence interval, −10.2 to 0.0, P = .047).

With combination therapy, more patients achieved functional independence with a modified Rankin scale score of 0-2 at 90 days (65% vs. 57%; adjusted risk difference −7.3%; 95% CI, −16·6 to 2·1, lower limit of one-sided 95% CI, −15·1%, crossing the noninferiority margin of −12%).

“Despite a very liberal noninferiority margin and strict inclusion and exclusion criteria aimed at studying a population most likely to benefit from thrombectomy alone, point estimates directionally favored intravenous thrombolysis plus thrombectomy,” Urs Fischer, MD, cochair of the Stroke Center, University Hospital Basel, Switzerland, told this news organization.

“Furthermore, we could demonstrate that overall reperfusion rates were extremely high and yet significantly better in patients receiving intravenous thrombolysis plus thrombectomy than in patients treated with thrombectomy alone, a finding which has not been shown before,” Dr. Fischer said.

There was no significant difference in the risk of symptomatic intracranial bleeding (3% with combination therapy and 2% with thrombectomy alone).

Based on the results, in patients suitable for thrombolysis, skipping it before thrombectomy “is not justified,” the study team concludes.
 

DIRECT-SAFE

DIRECT-SAFE enrolled 295 patients (median age 69; 43% women) with stroke and large vessel occlusion from Australia, New Zealand, China, and Vietnam, with half undergoing direct thrombectomy and half bridging therapy first.

Functional independence (modified Rankin Scale 0-2 or return to baseline at 90 days) was more common in the bridging group (61% vs. 55%).

Safety outcomes were similar between groups. Symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage occurred in 2 (1%) patients in the direct group and 1 (1%) patient in the bridging group. There were 22 (15%) deaths in the direct group and 24 in the bridging group.

“There has been concern across the world regarding cost of treatment, together with fears of increasing bleeding risk or clot migration with intravenous thrombolytic,” lead investigator Peter Mitchell, MBBS, director, NeuroIntervention Service, The Royal Melbourne Hospital, Parkville, Victoria, Australia, told this news organization.

“We showed that patients in the bridging treatment arm had better outcomes across the entire study, especially in Asian region patients” and therefore remains “the gold standard,” Dr. Mitchell said.

To date, six published trials have addressed this question of endovascular therapy alone or with thrombolysis – SKIP, DIRECT-MT, MR CLEAN NO IV, SWIFT-DIRECT, and DIRECT-SAFE.

Dr. Fischer said the SWIFT-DIRECT study group plans to perform an individual participant data meta-analysis known as Improving Reperfusion Strategies in Ischemic Stroke (IRIS) of all six trials to see whether there are subgroups of patients in whom thrombectomy alone is as effective as thrombolysis plus thrombectomy.

Subgroups of interest, he said, include patients with early ischemic signs on imaging, those at increased risk for hemorrhagic complications, and patients with a high clot burden.

SWIFT-DIRECT was funding by Medtronic and University Hospital Bern. DIRECT-SAFE was funded by Australian National Health and Medical Research Council and Stryker USA. A complete list of author disclosures is available with the original articles.

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

Two new noninferiority trials address the controversial question of whether thrombolytic therapy can be omitted for acute ischemic stroke in patients undergoing endovascular thrombectomy for large-vessel occlusion.

Both trials show better outcomes when standard bridging thrombolytic therapy is used before thrombectomy, with comparable safety.

The results of SWIFT-DIRECT and DIRECT-SAFE were published online June 22 in The Lancet.

“The case appears closed. Bypass intravenous thrombolysis is highly unlikely to be noninferior to standard care by a clinically acceptable margin for most patients,” writes Pooja Khatri, MD, MSc, department of neurology, University of Cincinnati, in a linked comment.
 

SWIFT-DIRECT

SWIFT-DIRECT enrolled 408 patients (median age 72; 51% women) with acute stroke due to large vessel occlusion admitted to stroke centers in Europe and Canada. Half were randomly allocated to thrombectomy alone and half to intravenous alteplase and thrombectomy.

Successful reperfusion was less common in patients who had thrombectomy alone (91% vs. 96%; risk difference −5.1%; 95% confidence interval, −10.2 to 0.0, P = .047).

With combination therapy, more patients achieved functional independence with a modified Rankin scale score of 0-2 at 90 days (65% vs. 57%; adjusted risk difference −7.3%; 95% CI, −16·6 to 2·1, lower limit of one-sided 95% CI, −15·1%, crossing the noninferiority margin of −12%).

“Despite a very liberal noninferiority margin and strict inclusion and exclusion criteria aimed at studying a population most likely to benefit from thrombectomy alone, point estimates directionally favored intravenous thrombolysis plus thrombectomy,” Urs Fischer, MD, cochair of the Stroke Center, University Hospital Basel, Switzerland, told this news organization.

“Furthermore, we could demonstrate that overall reperfusion rates were extremely high and yet significantly better in patients receiving intravenous thrombolysis plus thrombectomy than in patients treated with thrombectomy alone, a finding which has not been shown before,” Dr. Fischer said.

There was no significant difference in the risk of symptomatic intracranial bleeding (3% with combination therapy and 2% with thrombectomy alone).

Based on the results, in patients suitable for thrombolysis, skipping it before thrombectomy “is not justified,” the study team concludes.
 

DIRECT-SAFE

DIRECT-SAFE enrolled 295 patients (median age 69; 43% women) with stroke and large vessel occlusion from Australia, New Zealand, China, and Vietnam, with half undergoing direct thrombectomy and half bridging therapy first.

Functional independence (modified Rankin Scale 0-2 or return to baseline at 90 days) was more common in the bridging group (61% vs. 55%).

Safety outcomes were similar between groups. Symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage occurred in 2 (1%) patients in the direct group and 1 (1%) patient in the bridging group. There were 22 (15%) deaths in the direct group and 24 in the bridging group.

“There has been concern across the world regarding cost of treatment, together with fears of increasing bleeding risk or clot migration with intravenous thrombolytic,” lead investigator Peter Mitchell, MBBS, director, NeuroIntervention Service, The Royal Melbourne Hospital, Parkville, Victoria, Australia, told this news organization.

“We showed that patients in the bridging treatment arm had better outcomes across the entire study, especially in Asian region patients” and therefore remains “the gold standard,” Dr. Mitchell said.

To date, six published trials have addressed this question of endovascular therapy alone or with thrombolysis – SKIP, DIRECT-MT, MR CLEAN NO IV, SWIFT-DIRECT, and DIRECT-SAFE.

Dr. Fischer said the SWIFT-DIRECT study group plans to perform an individual participant data meta-analysis known as Improving Reperfusion Strategies in Ischemic Stroke (IRIS) of all six trials to see whether there are subgroups of patients in whom thrombectomy alone is as effective as thrombolysis plus thrombectomy.

Subgroups of interest, he said, include patients with early ischemic signs on imaging, those at increased risk for hemorrhagic complications, and patients with a high clot burden.

SWIFT-DIRECT was funding by Medtronic and University Hospital Bern. DIRECT-SAFE was funded by Australian National Health and Medical Research Council and Stryker USA. A complete list of author disclosures is available with the original articles.

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

Two new noninferiority trials address the controversial question of whether thrombolytic therapy can be omitted for acute ischemic stroke in patients undergoing endovascular thrombectomy for large-vessel occlusion.

Both trials show better outcomes when standard bridging thrombolytic therapy is used before thrombectomy, with comparable safety.

The results of SWIFT-DIRECT and DIRECT-SAFE were published online June 22 in The Lancet.

“The case appears closed. Bypass intravenous thrombolysis is highly unlikely to be noninferior to standard care by a clinically acceptable margin for most patients,” writes Pooja Khatri, MD, MSc, department of neurology, University of Cincinnati, in a linked comment.
 

SWIFT-DIRECT

SWIFT-DIRECT enrolled 408 patients (median age 72; 51% women) with acute stroke due to large vessel occlusion admitted to stroke centers in Europe and Canada. Half were randomly allocated to thrombectomy alone and half to intravenous alteplase and thrombectomy.

Successful reperfusion was less common in patients who had thrombectomy alone (91% vs. 96%; risk difference −5.1%; 95% confidence interval, −10.2 to 0.0, P = .047).

With combination therapy, more patients achieved functional independence with a modified Rankin scale score of 0-2 at 90 days (65% vs. 57%; adjusted risk difference −7.3%; 95% CI, −16·6 to 2·1, lower limit of one-sided 95% CI, −15·1%, crossing the noninferiority margin of −12%).

“Despite a very liberal noninferiority margin and strict inclusion and exclusion criteria aimed at studying a population most likely to benefit from thrombectomy alone, point estimates directionally favored intravenous thrombolysis plus thrombectomy,” Urs Fischer, MD, cochair of the Stroke Center, University Hospital Basel, Switzerland, told this news organization.

“Furthermore, we could demonstrate that overall reperfusion rates were extremely high and yet significantly better in patients receiving intravenous thrombolysis plus thrombectomy than in patients treated with thrombectomy alone, a finding which has not been shown before,” Dr. Fischer said.

There was no significant difference in the risk of symptomatic intracranial bleeding (3% with combination therapy and 2% with thrombectomy alone).

Based on the results, in patients suitable for thrombolysis, skipping it before thrombectomy “is not justified,” the study team concludes.
 

DIRECT-SAFE

DIRECT-SAFE enrolled 295 patients (median age 69; 43% women) with stroke and large vessel occlusion from Australia, New Zealand, China, and Vietnam, with half undergoing direct thrombectomy and half bridging therapy first.

Functional independence (modified Rankin Scale 0-2 or return to baseline at 90 days) was more common in the bridging group (61% vs. 55%).

Safety outcomes were similar between groups. Symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage occurred in 2 (1%) patients in the direct group and 1 (1%) patient in the bridging group. There were 22 (15%) deaths in the direct group and 24 in the bridging group.

“There has been concern across the world regarding cost of treatment, together with fears of increasing bleeding risk or clot migration with intravenous thrombolytic,” lead investigator Peter Mitchell, MBBS, director, NeuroIntervention Service, The Royal Melbourne Hospital, Parkville, Victoria, Australia, told this news organization.

“We showed that patients in the bridging treatment arm had better outcomes across the entire study, especially in Asian region patients” and therefore remains “the gold standard,” Dr. Mitchell said.

To date, six published trials have addressed this question of endovascular therapy alone or with thrombolysis – SKIP, DIRECT-MT, MR CLEAN NO IV, SWIFT-DIRECT, and DIRECT-SAFE.

Dr. Fischer said the SWIFT-DIRECT study group plans to perform an individual participant data meta-analysis known as Improving Reperfusion Strategies in Ischemic Stroke (IRIS) of all six trials to see whether there are subgroups of patients in whom thrombectomy alone is as effective as thrombolysis plus thrombectomy.

Subgroups of interest, he said, include patients with early ischemic signs on imaging, those at increased risk for hemorrhagic complications, and patients with a high clot burden.

SWIFT-DIRECT was funding by Medtronic and University Hospital Bern. DIRECT-SAFE was funded by Australian National Health and Medical Research Council and Stryker USA. A complete list of author disclosures is available with the original articles.

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

Wide variation in the cost of common cardiovascular (CV) tests and procedures, from stress tests to coronary interventions, was revealed in a cross-sectional analysis based on publicly available data from 20 top-ranked hospitals in the United States.

The analysis also suggested a low level of compliance with the 2021 Hospital Price Transparency Final Rule among the 20 centers.

“The variation we found in payer-negotiated prices for identical cardiovascular tests and procedures was stunning,” Rishi K. Wadhera, MD, MPP, MPhil, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, told this news organization.

KatarzynaBialasiewicz/Thinkstock

Difficulties with data, interpretation

The researchers looked at payer and self-pay cash prices for noninvasive and invasive CV tests and procedures at the U.S. News & World Report 2021 top 20–ranked U.S. hospitals, based in part on Current Procedural Terminology codes.

Price differences among the hospitals were derived from median negotiated prices for each test and procedure at the centers across all payers. The interquartile ratio (IQR) of prices for each test or procedure across payers was used to evaluate within-hospital price variation.

“Only 80% of the hospitals reported prices for some cardiovascular tests and procedures,” Dr. Wadhera said. “For the most part, even among the hospitals that did report this information, it was extremely challenging to navigate and interpret the data provided.”

Further, the team found that only 7 of the 20 hospitals reported prices for all CV tests and procedures. Centers that did not post prices for some tests or procedures are named in the report’s Figure 1 and Figure 2.

The number of insurance plans listed for each test or procedure ranged from 1 to 432 in the analysis. Median prices ranged from $204 to $2,588 for an echocardiogram, $463 to $3,230 for a stress test, $2,821 to $9,382 for right heart catheterization, $2,868 to $9,203 for a coronary angiogram, $657 to $25,521 for a PCI, and $506 to $20,002 for pacemaker implantation, the report states.

A similar pattern was seen for self-pay cash prices.

Within-hospital variation also ranged broadly. For example, the widest IQR ranges were $3,143-$12,926 for a right heart catheterization, $4,011-$14,486 for a coronary angiogram, $11,325-$23,392 for a PCI, and $8,474-$22,694 for pacemaker implantation.

The report cites a number of limitations to the analysis, among those, the need to rely on the hospitals themselves for data quality and accuracy.
 

‘More needed besides transparency’

“As a means to better understand health care costs, many opined that full price transparency would leverage market dynamics and result in lower costs,” observed Clyde W. Yancy, MD, MSc, professor of medicine and chief of cardiology at Northwestern Medicine, Chicago. The findings “by an expert group of outcomes scientists make clear that more is needed besides price transparency to lower cost,” he said in an interview.

That said, he added, “there are sufficient variations and allowances made for data collection that it is preferable to hold the current findings circumspect at best. Importantly, the voice of the hospitals does not appear.”

Although “price variation among the top 20 hospitals is substantial,” he observed, “without a better assessment of root cause, actual charge capture, prevailing market dynamics – especially nursing and ancillary staff costs – and the general influence of inflation, it is too difficult to emerge with a precise interpretation.”

Across the 20 hospitals, “there are likely to be 20 different business models,” he added, with negotiated prices reflecting “at least regional, if not institutional, variations.”

“These are complex issues. The several-fold price differences in standard procedures are a concern and an area worth further study with the intention of lowering health care costs,” Dr. Yancy said. “But clearly our next efforts should not address lowering prices per se but understanding how prices are set [and] the connection with reimbursement and actual payments.”

Dr. Wadhera discloses receiving personal fees from Abbott and CVS Health unrelated to the current study; disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Yancy is deputy editor of JAMA Cardiology.

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

Wide variation in the cost of common cardiovascular (CV) tests and procedures, from stress tests to coronary interventions, was revealed in a cross-sectional analysis based on publicly available data from 20 top-ranked hospitals in the United States.

The analysis also suggested a low level of compliance with the 2021 Hospital Price Transparency Final Rule among the 20 centers.

“The variation we found in payer-negotiated prices for identical cardiovascular tests and procedures was stunning,” Rishi K. Wadhera, MD, MPP, MPhil, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, told this news organization.

KatarzynaBialasiewicz/Thinkstock

Difficulties with data, interpretation

The researchers looked at payer and self-pay cash prices for noninvasive and invasive CV tests and procedures at the U.S. News & World Report 2021 top 20–ranked U.S. hospitals, based in part on Current Procedural Terminology codes.

Price differences among the hospitals were derived from median negotiated prices for each test and procedure at the centers across all payers. The interquartile ratio (IQR) of prices for each test or procedure across payers was used to evaluate within-hospital price variation.

“Only 80% of the hospitals reported prices for some cardiovascular tests and procedures,” Dr. Wadhera said. “For the most part, even among the hospitals that did report this information, it was extremely challenging to navigate and interpret the data provided.”

Further, the team found that only 7 of the 20 hospitals reported prices for all CV tests and procedures. Centers that did not post prices for some tests or procedures are named in the report’s Figure 1 and Figure 2.

The number of insurance plans listed for each test or procedure ranged from 1 to 432 in the analysis. Median prices ranged from $204 to $2,588 for an echocardiogram, $463 to $3,230 for a stress test, $2,821 to $9,382 for right heart catheterization, $2,868 to $9,203 for a coronary angiogram, $657 to $25,521 for a PCI, and $506 to $20,002 for pacemaker implantation, the report states.

A similar pattern was seen for self-pay cash prices.

Within-hospital variation also ranged broadly. For example, the widest IQR ranges were $3,143-$12,926 for a right heart catheterization, $4,011-$14,486 for a coronary angiogram, $11,325-$23,392 for a PCI, and $8,474-$22,694 for pacemaker implantation.

The report cites a number of limitations to the analysis, among those, the need to rely on the hospitals themselves for data quality and accuracy.
 

‘More needed besides transparency’

“As a means to better understand health care costs, many opined that full price transparency would leverage market dynamics and result in lower costs,” observed Clyde W. Yancy, MD, MSc, professor of medicine and chief of cardiology at Northwestern Medicine, Chicago. The findings “by an expert group of outcomes scientists make clear that more is needed besides price transparency to lower cost,” he said in an interview.

That said, he added, “there are sufficient variations and allowances made for data collection that it is preferable to hold the current findings circumspect at best. Importantly, the voice of the hospitals does not appear.”

Although “price variation among the top 20 hospitals is substantial,” he observed, “without a better assessment of root cause, actual charge capture, prevailing market dynamics – especially nursing and ancillary staff costs – and the general influence of inflation, it is too difficult to emerge with a precise interpretation.”

Across the 20 hospitals, “there are likely to be 20 different business models,” he added, with negotiated prices reflecting “at least regional, if not institutional, variations.”

“These are complex issues. The several-fold price differences in standard procedures are a concern and an area worth further study with the intention of lowering health care costs,” Dr. Yancy said. “But clearly our next efforts should not address lowering prices per se but understanding how prices are set [and] the connection with reimbursement and actual payments.”

Dr. Wadhera discloses receiving personal fees from Abbott and CVS Health unrelated to the current study; disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Yancy is deputy editor of JAMA Cardiology.

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

Wide variation in the cost of common cardiovascular (CV) tests and procedures, from stress tests to coronary interventions, was revealed in a cross-sectional analysis based on publicly available data from 20 top-ranked hospitals in the United States.

The analysis also suggested a low level of compliance with the 2021 Hospital Price Transparency Final Rule among the 20 centers.

“The variation we found in payer-negotiated prices for identical cardiovascular tests and procedures was stunning,” Rishi K. Wadhera, MD, MPP, MPhil, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, told this news organization.

KatarzynaBialasiewicz/Thinkstock

Difficulties with data, interpretation

The researchers looked at payer and self-pay cash prices for noninvasive and invasive CV tests and procedures at the U.S. News & World Report 2021 top 20–ranked U.S. hospitals, based in part on Current Procedural Terminology codes.

Price differences among the hospitals were derived from median negotiated prices for each test and procedure at the centers across all payers. The interquartile ratio (IQR) of prices for each test or procedure across payers was used to evaluate within-hospital price variation.

“Only 80% of the hospitals reported prices for some cardiovascular tests and procedures,” Dr. Wadhera said. “For the most part, even among the hospitals that did report this information, it was extremely challenging to navigate and interpret the data provided.”

Further, the team found that only 7 of the 20 hospitals reported prices for all CV tests and procedures. Centers that did not post prices for some tests or procedures are named in the report’s Figure 1 and Figure 2.

The number of insurance plans listed for each test or procedure ranged from 1 to 432 in the analysis. Median prices ranged from $204 to $2,588 for an echocardiogram, $463 to $3,230 for a stress test, $2,821 to $9,382 for right heart catheterization, $2,868 to $9,203 for a coronary angiogram, $657 to $25,521 for a PCI, and $506 to $20,002 for pacemaker implantation, the report states.

A similar pattern was seen for self-pay cash prices.

Within-hospital variation also ranged broadly. For example, the widest IQR ranges were $3,143-$12,926 for a right heart catheterization, $4,011-$14,486 for a coronary angiogram, $11,325-$23,392 for a PCI, and $8,474-$22,694 for pacemaker implantation.

The report cites a number of limitations to the analysis, among those, the need to rely on the hospitals themselves for data quality and accuracy.
 

‘More needed besides transparency’

“As a means to better understand health care costs, many opined that full price transparency would leverage market dynamics and result in lower costs,” observed Clyde W. Yancy, MD, MSc, professor of medicine and chief of cardiology at Northwestern Medicine, Chicago. The findings “by an expert group of outcomes scientists make clear that more is needed besides price transparency to lower cost,” he said in an interview.

That said, he added, “there are sufficient variations and allowances made for data collection that it is preferable to hold the current findings circumspect at best. Importantly, the voice of the hospitals does not appear.”

Although “price variation among the top 20 hospitals is substantial,” he observed, “without a better assessment of root cause, actual charge capture, prevailing market dynamics – especially nursing and ancillary staff costs – and the general influence of inflation, it is too difficult to emerge with a precise interpretation.”

Across the 20 hospitals, “there are likely to be 20 different business models,” he added, with negotiated prices reflecting “at least regional, if not institutional, variations.”

“These are complex issues. The several-fold price differences in standard procedures are a concern and an area worth further study with the intention of lowering health care costs,” Dr. Yancy said. “But clearly our next efforts should not address lowering prices per se but understanding how prices are set [and] the connection with reimbursement and actual payments.”

Dr. Wadhera discloses receiving personal fees from Abbott and CVS Health unrelated to the current study; disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Yancy is deputy editor of JAMA Cardiology.

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

Few people like to pay taxes, and physicians are no exception.

For the Medscape Physicians and Taxes Report 2022, physicians shared information about their tax debt as well as how they feel about the U.S. tax code, audits, and the prospects for the future.

Even though it may not always seem that way to physicians, their family tax bills – around $75,406 on average – are in line with the other top 10% of U.S. taxpayers, according to an examination of IRS data by the Tax Foundation. However, when it comes to local taxes, the Tax Foundation found that physicians pay more than average. (Forty-three states collect tax on individual incomes.)

The average physician’s family pays a 35% marginal tax rate, compared with the top marginal tax rate in the United States of 37%. (The marginal tax rate is the highest amount of tax charged on each additional dollar after the IRS bracket rates are applied to your income.)

According to Alexis Gallati, founder of Cerebral Tax Advisors, a Knoxville, Tenn.–based firm that caters to medical professionals, doctors also should pay attention to their effective tax rate, or the percentage of income they pay in taxes. It takes into account differing tax rates on ordinary income, capital gains, and other income sources, she says. “It gives a better 30,000-foot view of your tax situation.”

Some high-income families are required to pay the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT), though in 2019 that applied to only one-tenth of U.S. households. The AMT is designed to make sure that high earners with many options for exemptions and deductions still contribute a minimum amount of tax. Only 13% of physicians surveyed said they paid the AMT, though 29% were unsure.
 

Filing taxes as painful as paying them

According to a 2021 Gallup poll, 50% of Americans think they pay too much tax. (About 44% think their tax bill is about right, and a kindhearted 4% think they pay too little.) Doctors are outliers on this one, with 75% saying they pay too much in taxes.

When asked what they would do to fix the tax system, the physicians in the Medscape survey had a wide array of proposed solutions, from “drop the corporate tax rate to nearly nothing to stimulate the economy” to “everyone should pay equitably. There are too many loopholes for the very wealthy.”

Some of the complaints were less about tax rates than the process of filing. One respondent said: “I would love for this system to not be our personal responsibility. Why should it be my duty to pay someone every year to do my taxes?”

About 48% of physicians prepare their own taxes (about the same percentage as the rest of the population), with most of those filing electronically, primarily because it saves time and the software is easy to use. Intuit TurboTax was the most popular online software, with 22% of respondents saying they currently used this product.

Of those who did pay someone to prepare their taxes, the complexity of their taxes cost them; the average respondent paid about three times the average rate for the service. In the long run, the cost might have been recouped.

Navjeet Chahal, managing partner and CEO of Chahal and Associates, a San Francisco–area firm specializing in working with physicians, points out that tax advisors don’t just fill out the forms; they proactively advise physicians about how they can limit their taxes. And indeed, most respondents feel that they got their money’s worth, with 70% saying their tax preparers charged a fair fee.

Though the physicians surveyed tended to think they pay too much tax, and several mentioned particular gripes with the system, the complexity of the tax code didn’t seem to be a big issue. While 82% of Americans polled in 2021 by Pew Research said they were bothered “a lot” or “some” by the complexity of the tax system, 68% of physicians agreed or slightly agreed that the U.S. tax system “makes sense.”
 

Gimme a break

Physicians are the beneficiaries of several types of tax breaks. Contributing to a pretax 401(k) account was the most common exemption, with 60% of physicians surveyed using this plan. Other tax breaks cited by respondents were: contributing to charity (54%), home mortgage interest (46%), and writing off business expenses (39%).

About one in five physicians has experienced an audit, but that risk has declined significantly in recent years, thanks to tighter IRS budgets. Overall, only about 1 in 167 U.S. taxpayers were audited in 2020, according to the IRS. Even for taxpayers reporting $5 million or more in income, the audit rate is only about 0.25%, the Government Accountability Office says.

The odds of a physician being summoned to a meeting with an auditor probably won’t increase for a few years, Mr. Gallati said. But the good news for doctors is bad news for lower-income Americans. “The IRS is woefully understaffed and underfunded, with the result that the agency is going for lower-hanging fruit and auditing more people in lower income brackets,” she said in an interview.

While one respondent described his experience with the IRS as “the audit from hell,” others thought it not so bad, with 72% saying the auditors treated them fairly. One respondent described the audit as “boring, short, and successful for me. The IRS owed me money.”

When it comes to taxes, physician respondents, on the whole, did not seem to be optimistic about the future. About 61% expect an increase in their tax rate because of Biden administration policies. One respondent veered into hyperbole with the comment: “I believe taxes will increase for physicians until they have no more money!”

Mr. Chahal doesn’t see it that way. He pointed out that recent attempts to raise taxes completely failed. “I personally don’t see that happening unless there’s a significant shift in the House and the Senate.”

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

Few people like to pay taxes, and physicians are no exception.

For the Medscape Physicians and Taxes Report 2022, physicians shared information about their tax debt as well as how they feel about the U.S. tax code, audits, and the prospects for the future.

Even though it may not always seem that way to physicians, their family tax bills – around $75,406 on average – are in line with the other top 10% of U.S. taxpayers, according to an examination of IRS data by the Tax Foundation. However, when it comes to local taxes, the Tax Foundation found that physicians pay more than average. (Forty-three states collect tax on individual incomes.)

The average physician’s family pays a 35% marginal tax rate, compared with the top marginal tax rate in the United States of 37%. (The marginal tax rate is the highest amount of tax charged on each additional dollar after the IRS bracket rates are applied to your income.)

According to Alexis Gallati, founder of Cerebral Tax Advisors, a Knoxville, Tenn.–based firm that caters to medical professionals, doctors also should pay attention to their effective tax rate, or the percentage of income they pay in taxes. It takes into account differing tax rates on ordinary income, capital gains, and other income sources, she says. “It gives a better 30,000-foot view of your tax situation.”

Some high-income families are required to pay the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT), though in 2019 that applied to only one-tenth of U.S. households. The AMT is designed to make sure that high earners with many options for exemptions and deductions still contribute a minimum amount of tax. Only 13% of physicians surveyed said they paid the AMT, though 29% were unsure.
 

Filing taxes as painful as paying them

According to a 2021 Gallup poll, 50% of Americans think they pay too much tax. (About 44% think their tax bill is about right, and a kindhearted 4% think they pay too little.) Doctors are outliers on this one, with 75% saying they pay too much in taxes.

When asked what they would do to fix the tax system, the physicians in the Medscape survey had a wide array of proposed solutions, from “drop the corporate tax rate to nearly nothing to stimulate the economy” to “everyone should pay equitably. There are too many loopholes for the very wealthy.”

Some of the complaints were less about tax rates than the process of filing. One respondent said: “I would love for this system to not be our personal responsibility. Why should it be my duty to pay someone every year to do my taxes?”

About 48% of physicians prepare their own taxes (about the same percentage as the rest of the population), with most of those filing electronically, primarily because it saves time and the software is easy to use. Intuit TurboTax was the most popular online software, with 22% of respondents saying they currently used this product.

Of those who did pay someone to prepare their taxes, the complexity of their taxes cost them; the average respondent paid about three times the average rate for the service. In the long run, the cost might have been recouped.

Navjeet Chahal, managing partner and CEO of Chahal and Associates, a San Francisco–area firm specializing in working with physicians, points out that tax advisors don’t just fill out the forms; they proactively advise physicians about how they can limit their taxes. And indeed, most respondents feel that they got their money’s worth, with 70% saying their tax preparers charged a fair fee.

Though the physicians surveyed tended to think they pay too much tax, and several mentioned particular gripes with the system, the complexity of the tax code didn’t seem to be a big issue. While 82% of Americans polled in 2021 by Pew Research said they were bothered “a lot” or “some” by the complexity of the tax system, 68% of physicians agreed or slightly agreed that the U.S. tax system “makes sense.”
 

Gimme a break

Physicians are the beneficiaries of several types of tax breaks. Contributing to a pretax 401(k) account was the most common exemption, with 60% of physicians surveyed using this plan. Other tax breaks cited by respondents were: contributing to charity (54%), home mortgage interest (46%), and writing off business expenses (39%).

About one in five physicians has experienced an audit, but that risk has declined significantly in recent years, thanks to tighter IRS budgets. Overall, only about 1 in 167 U.S. taxpayers were audited in 2020, according to the IRS. Even for taxpayers reporting $5 million or more in income, the audit rate is only about 0.25%, the Government Accountability Office says.

The odds of a physician being summoned to a meeting with an auditor probably won’t increase for a few years, Mr. Gallati said. But the good news for doctors is bad news for lower-income Americans. “The IRS is woefully understaffed and underfunded, with the result that the agency is going for lower-hanging fruit and auditing more people in lower income brackets,” she said in an interview.

While one respondent described his experience with the IRS as “the audit from hell,” others thought it not so bad, with 72% saying the auditors treated them fairly. One respondent described the audit as “boring, short, and successful for me. The IRS owed me money.”

When it comes to taxes, physician respondents, on the whole, did not seem to be optimistic about the future. About 61% expect an increase in their tax rate because of Biden administration policies. One respondent veered into hyperbole with the comment: “I believe taxes will increase for physicians until they have no more money!”

Mr. Chahal doesn’t see it that way. He pointed out that recent attempts to raise taxes completely failed. “I personally don’t see that happening unless there’s a significant shift in the House and the Senate.”

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

Few people like to pay taxes, and physicians are no exception.

For the Medscape Physicians and Taxes Report 2022, physicians shared information about their tax debt as well as how they feel about the U.S. tax code, audits, and the prospects for the future.

Even though it may not always seem that way to physicians, their family tax bills – around $75,406 on average – are in line with the other top 10% of U.S. taxpayers, according to an examination of IRS data by the Tax Foundation. However, when it comes to local taxes, the Tax Foundation found that physicians pay more than average. (Forty-three states collect tax on individual incomes.)

The average physician’s family pays a 35% marginal tax rate, compared with the top marginal tax rate in the United States of 37%. (The marginal tax rate is the highest amount of tax charged on each additional dollar after the IRS bracket rates are applied to your income.)

According to Alexis Gallati, founder of Cerebral Tax Advisors, a Knoxville, Tenn.–based firm that caters to medical professionals, doctors also should pay attention to their effective tax rate, or the percentage of income they pay in taxes. It takes into account differing tax rates on ordinary income, capital gains, and other income sources, she says. “It gives a better 30,000-foot view of your tax situation.”

Some high-income families are required to pay the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT), though in 2019 that applied to only one-tenth of U.S. households. The AMT is designed to make sure that high earners with many options for exemptions and deductions still contribute a minimum amount of tax. Only 13% of physicians surveyed said they paid the AMT, though 29% were unsure.
 

Filing taxes as painful as paying them

According to a 2021 Gallup poll, 50% of Americans think they pay too much tax. (About 44% think their tax bill is about right, and a kindhearted 4% think they pay too little.) Doctors are outliers on this one, with 75% saying they pay too much in taxes.

When asked what they would do to fix the tax system, the physicians in the Medscape survey had a wide array of proposed solutions, from “drop the corporate tax rate to nearly nothing to stimulate the economy” to “everyone should pay equitably. There are too many loopholes for the very wealthy.”

Some of the complaints were less about tax rates than the process of filing. One respondent said: “I would love for this system to not be our personal responsibility. Why should it be my duty to pay someone every year to do my taxes?”

About 48% of physicians prepare their own taxes (about the same percentage as the rest of the population), with most of those filing electronically, primarily because it saves time and the software is easy to use. Intuit TurboTax was the most popular online software, with 22% of respondents saying they currently used this product.

Of those who did pay someone to prepare their taxes, the complexity of their taxes cost them; the average respondent paid about three times the average rate for the service. In the long run, the cost might have been recouped.

Navjeet Chahal, managing partner and CEO of Chahal and Associates, a San Francisco–area firm specializing in working with physicians, points out that tax advisors don’t just fill out the forms; they proactively advise physicians about how they can limit their taxes. And indeed, most respondents feel that they got their money’s worth, with 70% saying their tax preparers charged a fair fee.

Though the physicians surveyed tended to think they pay too much tax, and several mentioned particular gripes with the system, the complexity of the tax code didn’t seem to be a big issue. While 82% of Americans polled in 2021 by Pew Research said they were bothered “a lot” or “some” by the complexity of the tax system, 68% of physicians agreed or slightly agreed that the U.S. tax system “makes sense.”
 

Gimme a break

Physicians are the beneficiaries of several types of tax breaks. Contributing to a pretax 401(k) account was the most common exemption, with 60% of physicians surveyed using this plan. Other tax breaks cited by respondents were: contributing to charity (54%), home mortgage interest (46%), and writing off business expenses (39%).

About one in five physicians has experienced an audit, but that risk has declined significantly in recent years, thanks to tighter IRS budgets. Overall, only about 1 in 167 U.S. taxpayers were audited in 2020, according to the IRS. Even for taxpayers reporting $5 million or more in income, the audit rate is only about 0.25%, the Government Accountability Office says.

The odds of a physician being summoned to a meeting with an auditor probably won’t increase for a few years, Mr. Gallati said. But the good news for doctors is bad news for lower-income Americans. “The IRS is woefully understaffed and underfunded, with the result that the agency is going for lower-hanging fruit and auditing more people in lower income brackets,” she said in an interview.

While one respondent described his experience with the IRS as “the audit from hell,” others thought it not so bad, with 72% saying the auditors treated them fairly. One respondent described the audit as “boring, short, and successful for me. The IRS owed me money.”

When it comes to taxes, physician respondents, on the whole, did not seem to be optimistic about the future. About 61% expect an increase in their tax rate because of Biden administration policies. One respondent veered into hyperbole with the comment: “I believe taxes will increase for physicians until they have no more money!”

Mr. Chahal doesn’t see it that way. He pointed out that recent attempts to raise taxes completely failed. “I personally don’t see that happening unless there’s a significant shift in the House and the Senate.”

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

Rosuvastatin for cholesterol lowering was associated with slightly greater risks for kidney harm than atorvastatin, risks that were greater at higher-dose levels, in a large retrospective cohort study.

The most potent statin on the market, rosuvastatin has been linked with excess risk for kidney damage compared with atorvastatin in case reports and small trials, but there has been little surveillance of the issue following its approval in 2003.

The current analysis “is one of the first and largest real-world studies” examining rosuvastatin versus atorvastatin for risk for hematuria, proteinuria, and kidney failure with replacement therapy – dialysis or transplantation – across a range of estimated glomerular filtration rates (eGFR) in a heterogeneous population, the researchers write.

“Our findings suggest the need for greater care in prescribing and monitoring of rosuvastatin, particularly in patients who are receiving high doses” or have severe chronic kidney disease (CKD), they concluded in their report published online in the Journal of the American Society of Nephrology.

The analysis included close to 1 million patients in the United States who were newly prescribed rosuvastatin or atorvastatin from 2011 through 2019; they were followed a median of 3.1 years. Among the findings:

• Users of rosuvastatin had an 8% higher risk for hematuria, a 17% higher risk for proteinuria, and a 15% higher risk for kidney failure with replacement therapy, compared with those on atorvastatin
• The two groups avoided MI and stroke to similar extents
• About 44% of patients with severe CKD G4+ (eGFR < 30 mL/min per 1.73 m2) were prescribed a higher rosuvastatin dosage than the maximum 10 mg/day recommended for such patients by the Food and Drug Administration.

From this study, “we do not know why the adherence of FDA dosing recommendation for rosuvastatin in patients with severe CKD is low,” lead author Jung-Im Shin, MD, PhD, said in an interview.

“It is likely that not many clinicians are aware of rosuvastatin’s dosing recommendations [in severe CKD], or potential risks of hematuria or proteinuria,” speculated Dr. Shin, assistant professor at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

“High-dose rosuvastatin [and its cardiovascular benefits] may not merit the risk, even if small, particularly in low eGFR,” she said. “Our study provides the opportunity to increase awareness of this clinical issue.”

“Future studies are warranted to shed light on the discrepancy between real-world practice and FDA dosing recommendations for high-dose rosuvastatin,” the researchers noted.

‘Greater awareness and education are key’

Invited to comment, Swapnil Hiremath, MD, a nephrologist at the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, noted that the higher risk for nephrotoxicity with high-dose rosuvastatin versus high-dose atorvastatin was shown in the PLANET 1 trial published in 2015 and in, for example, a case report published in 2016 – which the researchers also mention.

“I was personally surprised” at the high proportion of patients with severe CKD who received higher than recommended doses of rosuvastatin, said Dr. Hiremath, who is also an associate professor at the University of Ottawa and a Freely Filtered podcaster, and not associated with the current study.

“We do see this occasionally,” he continued, “but either because someone is targeting LDL [cholesterol] and hasn’t noted the GFR, or possibly the patient was started on a high dose a long time ago and the kidney function has declined, and no one has noted the high dose.”

“Greater awareness and education are key,” observed Dr. Hiremath. “My personal bias is to have renal pharmacists involved in multidisciplinary clinics when GFR [is] less than 30 or so,” he said. “There are so many other tricky medicine/interaction issues” in patients with kidney disease.

Nevertheless, “I would be careful in drawing too many conclusions from an observational study,” Dr. Hiremath added. “There’s always the threat of residual confounding and selection bias,” which the researchers acknowledge, “and especially competing risks.”

For example, “if there is less cardiovascular death with rosuvastatin, then more people will remain alive to develop kidney failure.”
 

Dosing in practice unclear

Atorvastatin at 40-mg and 80-mg dosages and rosuvastatin at 20 mg and 40 mg are the only two statins considered high-intensity, the researchers noted.

Development of an 80-mg dosage for rosuvastatin was dropped because of hematuria and proteinuria safety signals highlighted at the time of rosuvastatin’s FDA approval.

However, there has been little postmarketing surveillance to assess real-world risk from high-intensity rosuvastatin, and it remains unclear whether and to what extent clinical practice adheres to the starting dosage recommended by the FDA in severe CKD, 5 mg/day with a maximum of 10 mg/day, the report noted.

The researchers analyzed deidentified electronic health record data from 40 health care organizations in the United States from the OptumLabs Data Warehouse database. They entered 152,101 new rosuvastatin users and 795,799 new atorvastatin users, and excluded patients with a history of rhabdomyolysis.

Patients in the two groups were similar with respect to CKD prevalence, cardiovascular risk factors, and demographics. Their age averaged 60 years, 48% were women, and 82% were White.

Hematuria was defined as dipstick hematuria > + or the presence of more than 3 red blood cells per high-power field in urine microscopy, at least twice. Proteinuria was defined as dipstick proteinuria > ++ or urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio greater than 300 mg/g at least twice.

Overall, 2.9% of patients had hematuria (3.4% of the rosuvastatin group and 2.8% of those taking atorvastatin) and 1% of patients had proteinuria (1.2% and 0.9%, respectively).

After balancing baseline characteristics in both groups using inverse probability of treatment weighting, rosuvastatin treatment, compared with atorvastatin, was associated with significantly greater risks for hematuria (hazard ratio, 1.08), proteinuria (HR, 1.17), and kidney failure requiring replacement therapy (HR, 1.15).  

Patients with eGFR less than 30 mL/min per 1.73 m2 had an approximately twofold higher risk for hematuria and ninefold higher risk for proteinuria during the follow-up compared with patients with eGFR of at least 60 mL/min per 1.73 m2.

Patients with eGFR less than 30 mL/min per 1.73 m2 were commonly prescribed high-dose rosuvastatin (29.9% received the 20-mg dose and 14% the 40-mg dose), contrary to the labeling recommendation.

Dr. Shin reported receiving research Funding from the National Institutes of Health and Merck; disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Hiremath reported having no relevant financial relationships.

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

Rosuvastatin for cholesterol lowering was associated with slightly greater risks for kidney harm than atorvastatin, risks that were greater at higher-dose levels, in a large retrospective cohort study.

The most potent statin on the market, rosuvastatin has been linked with excess risk for kidney damage compared with atorvastatin in case reports and small trials, but there has been little surveillance of the issue following its approval in 2003.

The current analysis “is one of the first and largest real-world studies” examining rosuvastatin versus atorvastatin for risk for hematuria, proteinuria, and kidney failure with replacement therapy – dialysis or transplantation – across a range of estimated glomerular filtration rates (eGFR) in a heterogeneous population, the researchers write.

“Our findings suggest the need for greater care in prescribing and monitoring of rosuvastatin, particularly in patients who are receiving high doses” or have severe chronic kidney disease (CKD), they concluded in their report published online in the Journal of the American Society of Nephrology.

The analysis included close to 1 million patients in the United States who were newly prescribed rosuvastatin or atorvastatin from 2011 through 2019; they were followed a median of 3.1 years. Among the findings:

• Users of rosuvastatin had an 8% higher risk for hematuria, a 17% higher risk for proteinuria, and a 15% higher risk for kidney failure with replacement therapy, compared with those on atorvastatin
• The two groups avoided MI and stroke to similar extents
• About 44% of patients with severe CKD G4+ (eGFR < 30 mL/min per 1.73 m2) were prescribed a higher rosuvastatin dosage than the maximum 10 mg/day recommended for such patients by the Food and Drug Administration.

From this study, “we do not know why the adherence of FDA dosing recommendation for rosuvastatin in patients with severe CKD is low,” lead author Jung-Im Shin, MD, PhD, said in an interview.

“It is likely that not many clinicians are aware of rosuvastatin’s dosing recommendations [in severe CKD], or potential risks of hematuria or proteinuria,” speculated Dr. Shin, assistant professor at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

“High-dose rosuvastatin [and its cardiovascular benefits] may not merit the risk, even if small, particularly in low eGFR,” she said. “Our study provides the opportunity to increase awareness of this clinical issue.”

“Future studies are warranted to shed light on the discrepancy between real-world practice and FDA dosing recommendations for high-dose rosuvastatin,” the researchers noted.

‘Greater awareness and education are key’

Invited to comment, Swapnil Hiremath, MD, a nephrologist at the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, noted that the higher risk for nephrotoxicity with high-dose rosuvastatin versus high-dose atorvastatin was shown in the PLANET 1 trial published in 2015 and in, for example, a case report published in 2016 – which the researchers also mention.

“I was personally surprised” at the high proportion of patients with severe CKD who received higher than recommended doses of rosuvastatin, said Dr. Hiremath, who is also an associate professor at the University of Ottawa and a Freely Filtered podcaster, and not associated with the current study.

“We do see this occasionally,” he continued, “but either because someone is targeting LDL [cholesterol] and hasn’t noted the GFR, or possibly the patient was started on a high dose a long time ago and the kidney function has declined, and no one has noted the high dose.”

“Greater awareness and education are key,” observed Dr. Hiremath. “My personal bias is to have renal pharmacists involved in multidisciplinary clinics when GFR [is] less than 30 or so,” he said. “There are so many other tricky medicine/interaction issues” in patients with kidney disease.

Nevertheless, “I would be careful in drawing too many conclusions from an observational study,” Dr. Hiremath added. “There’s always the threat of residual confounding and selection bias,” which the researchers acknowledge, “and especially competing risks.”

For example, “if there is less cardiovascular death with rosuvastatin, then more people will remain alive to develop kidney failure.”
 

Dosing in practice unclear

Atorvastatin at 40-mg and 80-mg dosages and rosuvastatin at 20 mg and 40 mg are the only two statins considered high-intensity, the researchers noted.

Development of an 80-mg dosage for rosuvastatin was dropped because of hematuria and proteinuria safety signals highlighted at the time of rosuvastatin’s FDA approval.

However, there has been little postmarketing surveillance to assess real-world risk from high-intensity rosuvastatin, and it remains unclear whether and to what extent clinical practice adheres to the starting dosage recommended by the FDA in severe CKD, 5 mg/day with a maximum of 10 mg/day, the report noted.

The researchers analyzed deidentified electronic health record data from 40 health care organizations in the United States from the OptumLabs Data Warehouse database. They entered 152,101 new rosuvastatin users and 795,799 new atorvastatin users, and excluded patients with a history of rhabdomyolysis.

Patients in the two groups were similar with respect to CKD prevalence, cardiovascular risk factors, and demographics. Their age averaged 60 years, 48% were women, and 82% were White.

Hematuria was defined as dipstick hematuria > + or the presence of more than 3 red blood cells per high-power field in urine microscopy, at least twice. Proteinuria was defined as dipstick proteinuria > ++ or urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio greater than 300 mg/g at least twice.

Overall, 2.9% of patients had hematuria (3.4% of the rosuvastatin group and 2.8% of those taking atorvastatin) and 1% of patients had proteinuria (1.2% and 0.9%, respectively).

After balancing baseline characteristics in both groups using inverse probability of treatment weighting, rosuvastatin treatment, compared with atorvastatin, was associated with significantly greater risks for hematuria (hazard ratio, 1.08), proteinuria (HR, 1.17), and kidney failure requiring replacement therapy (HR, 1.15).  

Patients with eGFR less than 30 mL/min per 1.73 m2 had an approximately twofold higher risk for hematuria and ninefold higher risk for proteinuria during the follow-up compared with patients with eGFR of at least 60 mL/min per 1.73 m2.

Patients with eGFR less than 30 mL/min per 1.73 m2 were commonly prescribed high-dose rosuvastatin (29.9% received the 20-mg dose and 14% the 40-mg dose), contrary to the labeling recommendation.

Dr. Shin reported receiving research Funding from the National Institutes of Health and Merck; disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Hiremath reported having no relevant financial relationships.

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

Rosuvastatin for cholesterol lowering was associated with slightly greater risks for kidney harm than atorvastatin, risks that were greater at higher-dose levels, in a large retrospective cohort study.

The most potent statin on the market, rosuvastatin has been linked with excess risk for kidney damage compared with atorvastatin in case reports and small trials, but there has been little surveillance of the issue following its approval in 2003.

The current analysis “is one of the first and largest real-world studies” examining rosuvastatin versus atorvastatin for risk for hematuria, proteinuria, and kidney failure with replacement therapy – dialysis or transplantation – across a range of estimated glomerular filtration rates (eGFR) in a heterogeneous population, the researchers write.

“Our findings suggest the need for greater care in prescribing and monitoring of rosuvastatin, particularly in patients who are receiving high doses” or have severe chronic kidney disease (CKD), they concluded in their report published online in the Journal of the American Society of Nephrology.

The analysis included close to 1 million patients in the United States who were newly prescribed rosuvastatin or atorvastatin from 2011 through 2019; they were followed a median of 3.1 years. Among the findings:

• Users of rosuvastatin had an 8% higher risk for hematuria, a 17% higher risk for proteinuria, and a 15% higher risk for kidney failure with replacement therapy, compared with those on atorvastatin
• The two groups avoided MI and stroke to similar extents
• About 44% of patients with severe CKD G4+ (eGFR < 30 mL/min per 1.73 m2) were prescribed a higher rosuvastatin dosage than the maximum 10 mg/day recommended for such patients by the Food and Drug Administration.

From this study, “we do not know why the adherence of FDA dosing recommendation for rosuvastatin in patients with severe CKD is low,” lead author Jung-Im Shin, MD, PhD, said in an interview.

“It is likely that not many clinicians are aware of rosuvastatin’s dosing recommendations [in severe CKD], or potential risks of hematuria or proteinuria,” speculated Dr. Shin, assistant professor at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

“High-dose rosuvastatin [and its cardiovascular benefits] may not merit the risk, even if small, particularly in low eGFR,” she said. “Our study provides the opportunity to increase awareness of this clinical issue.”

“Future studies are warranted to shed light on the discrepancy between real-world practice and FDA dosing recommendations for high-dose rosuvastatin,” the researchers noted.

‘Greater awareness and education are key’

Invited to comment, Swapnil Hiremath, MD, a nephrologist at the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, noted that the higher risk for nephrotoxicity with high-dose rosuvastatin versus high-dose atorvastatin was shown in the PLANET 1 trial published in 2015 and in, for example, a case report published in 2016 – which the researchers also mention.

“I was personally surprised” at the high proportion of patients with severe CKD who received higher than recommended doses of rosuvastatin, said Dr. Hiremath, who is also an associate professor at the University of Ottawa and a Freely Filtered podcaster, and not associated with the current study.

“We do see this occasionally,” he continued, “but either because someone is targeting LDL [cholesterol] and hasn’t noted the GFR, or possibly the patient was started on a high dose a long time ago and the kidney function has declined, and no one has noted the high dose.”

“Greater awareness and education are key,” observed Dr. Hiremath. “My personal bias is to have renal pharmacists involved in multidisciplinary clinics when GFR [is] less than 30 or so,” he said. “There are so many other tricky medicine/interaction issues” in patients with kidney disease.

Nevertheless, “I would be careful in drawing too many conclusions from an observational study,” Dr. Hiremath added. “There’s always the threat of residual confounding and selection bias,” which the researchers acknowledge, “and especially competing risks.”

For example, “if there is less cardiovascular death with rosuvastatin, then more people will remain alive to develop kidney failure.”
 

Dosing in practice unclear

Atorvastatin at 40-mg and 80-mg dosages and rosuvastatin at 20 mg and 40 mg are the only two statins considered high-intensity, the researchers noted.

Development of an 80-mg dosage for rosuvastatin was dropped because of hematuria and proteinuria safety signals highlighted at the time of rosuvastatin’s FDA approval.

However, there has been little postmarketing surveillance to assess real-world risk from high-intensity rosuvastatin, and it remains unclear whether and to what extent clinical practice adheres to the starting dosage recommended by the FDA in severe CKD, 5 mg/day with a maximum of 10 mg/day, the report noted.

The researchers analyzed deidentified electronic health record data from 40 health care organizations in the United States from the OptumLabs Data Warehouse database. They entered 152,101 new rosuvastatin users and 795,799 new atorvastatin users, and excluded patients with a history of rhabdomyolysis.

Patients in the two groups were similar with respect to CKD prevalence, cardiovascular risk factors, and demographics. Their age averaged 60 years, 48% were women, and 82% were White.

Hematuria was defined as dipstick hematuria > + or the presence of more than 3 red blood cells per high-power field in urine microscopy, at least twice. Proteinuria was defined as dipstick proteinuria > ++ or urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio greater than 300 mg/g at least twice.

Overall, 2.9% of patients had hematuria (3.4% of the rosuvastatin group and 2.8% of those taking atorvastatin) and 1% of patients had proteinuria (1.2% and 0.9%, respectively).

After balancing baseline characteristics in both groups using inverse probability of treatment weighting, rosuvastatin treatment, compared with atorvastatin, was associated with significantly greater risks for hematuria (hazard ratio, 1.08), proteinuria (HR, 1.17), and kidney failure requiring replacement therapy (HR, 1.15).  

Patients with eGFR less than 30 mL/min per 1.73 m2 had an approximately twofold higher risk for hematuria and ninefold higher risk for proteinuria during the follow-up compared with patients with eGFR of at least 60 mL/min per 1.73 m2.

Patients with eGFR less than 30 mL/min per 1.73 m2 were commonly prescribed high-dose rosuvastatin (29.9% received the 20-mg dose and 14% the 40-mg dose), contrary to the labeling recommendation.

Dr. Shin reported receiving research Funding from the National Institutes of Health and Merck; disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Hiremath reported having no relevant financial relationships.

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

Women who’ve had endometriosis carry an elevated risk of stroke with them for the rest of their lives, with the greatest risk found in women who’ve had a hysterectomy with an oophorectomy, according to a cohort study of the Nurses’ Health Study.

“This is yet additional evidence that those girls and women with endometriosis are having effects across their lives and in multiple aspects of their health and well-being,” senior study author Stacey A. Missmer, ScD, of the Michigan State University, East Lansing, said in an interview. “This is not, in quotes ‘just a gynecologic condition,’ ” Dr. Missmer added. “It is not strictly about the pelvic pain or infertility, but it really is about the whole health across the life course.”

The study included 112,056 women in the NHSII cohort study who were followed from 1989 to June 2017, documenting 893 incident cases of stroke among them – an incidence of less than 1%. Endometriosis was reported in 5,244 women, and 93% of the cohort were White.

Multivariate adjusted models showed that women who had laparoscopically confirmed endometriosis had a 34% greater risk of stroke than women without a history of endometriosis. Leslie V. Farland, ScD, of the University of Arizona, Tucson, was lead author of the study.

While previous studies have demonstrated an increased risk of cardiovascular disease, heart attack, angina, and atherosclerosis in women who’ve had endometriosis, this is the first study that has confirmed an additional increased risk of stroke, Dr. Missmer said.

Another novel finding, Dr. Missmer said, is that while the CVD risks for these women “seem to peak at an earlier age,” the study found no age differences for stroke risk. “That also reinforces that these stroke events are often happening in an age range typical for stroke, which is further removed from when women are thinking about their gynecologic health specifically.”

These findings don’t translate into a significantly greater risk for stroke overall in women who’ve had endometriosis, Dr. Missmer said. She characterized the risk as “not negligible, but it’s not a huge increased risk.” The absolute risk is still fairly low, she said.

“We don’t want to give the impression that all women with endometriosis need to be panicked or fearful about stroke, she said. “Rather, the messaging is that this yet another bit of evidence that whole health care for those with endometriosis is important.”

Women who’ve had endometriosis and their primary care providers need to be attuned to stroke risk, she said. “This is a critical condition that primary care physicians need to engage around, and perhaps if symptoms related to cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease emerge in their patients, they need to be engaging cardiology and similar types of support. This is not just about the gynecologists.”

The study also explored other factors that may contribute to stroke risk, with the most significant being hysterectomy with bilateral oophorectomy, Dr. Missmer said.

This study was unique because it used laparoscopically confirmed rather than self-reported endometriosis, said Louise D. McCullough, MD, neurology chair at the University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston. Another strength of the study she noted was its longitudinal design, although the cohort study design yielded a low number of stroke patients.

“Regardless, I do think it was a very important study because we have a growing recognition about how women’s health and factors such as pregnancy, infertility, parity, complications, and gonadal hormones such as estrogen can influence a woman’s stroke risk much later in life,” Dr. McCullough said in an interview.

Future studies into the relationship between endometriosis and CVD and stroke risk should focus on the mechanism behind the inflammation that occurs in endometriosis, Dr. McCullough said. “Part of it is probably the loss of hormones if a patient has to have an oophorectomy, but part of it is just what do these diseases do for a woman’s later risk – and for primary care physicians, ob.gyns., and stroke neurologists to recognize that these are questions we should ask: Have you ever  had eclampsia or preeclampsia? Did you have endometriosis? Have you had miscarriages?”

The study received funding from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and the National Institute for Neurological Disorders and Stroke. Dr. Missmer disclosed relationships with Shanghai Huilun Biotechnology, Roche, and AbbVie. Dr. McCullough has no relevant disclosures.


 

Women who’ve had endometriosis carry an elevated risk of stroke with them for the rest of their lives, with the greatest risk found in women who’ve had a hysterectomy with an oophorectomy, according to a cohort study of the Nurses’ Health Study.

“This is yet additional evidence that those girls and women with endometriosis are having effects across their lives and in multiple aspects of their health and well-being,” senior study author Stacey A. Missmer, ScD, of the Michigan State University, East Lansing, said in an interview. “This is not, in quotes ‘just a gynecologic condition,’ ” Dr. Missmer added. “It is not strictly about the pelvic pain or infertility, but it really is about the whole health across the life course.”

The study included 112,056 women in the NHSII cohort study who were followed from 1989 to June 2017, documenting 893 incident cases of stroke among them – an incidence of less than 1%. Endometriosis was reported in 5,244 women, and 93% of the cohort were White.

Multivariate adjusted models showed that women who had laparoscopically confirmed endometriosis had a 34% greater risk of stroke than women without a history of endometriosis. Leslie V. Farland, ScD, of the University of Arizona, Tucson, was lead author of the study.

While previous studies have demonstrated an increased risk of cardiovascular disease, heart attack, angina, and atherosclerosis in women who’ve had endometriosis, this is the first study that has confirmed an additional increased risk of stroke, Dr. Missmer said.

Another novel finding, Dr. Missmer said, is that while the CVD risks for these women “seem to peak at an earlier age,” the study found no age differences for stroke risk. “That also reinforces that these stroke events are often happening in an age range typical for stroke, which is further removed from when women are thinking about their gynecologic health specifically.”

These findings don’t translate into a significantly greater risk for stroke overall in women who’ve had endometriosis, Dr. Missmer said. She characterized the risk as “not negligible, but it’s not a huge increased risk.” The absolute risk is still fairly low, she said.

“We don’t want to give the impression that all women with endometriosis need to be panicked or fearful about stroke, she said. “Rather, the messaging is that this yet another bit of evidence that whole health care for those with endometriosis is important.”

Women who’ve had endometriosis and their primary care providers need to be attuned to stroke risk, she said. “This is a critical condition that primary care physicians need to engage around, and perhaps if symptoms related to cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease emerge in their patients, they need to be engaging cardiology and similar types of support. This is not just about the gynecologists.”

The study also explored other factors that may contribute to stroke risk, with the most significant being hysterectomy with bilateral oophorectomy, Dr. Missmer said.

This study was unique because it used laparoscopically confirmed rather than self-reported endometriosis, said Louise D. McCullough, MD, neurology chair at the University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston. Another strength of the study she noted was its longitudinal design, although the cohort study design yielded a low number of stroke patients.

“Regardless, I do think it was a very important study because we have a growing recognition about how women’s health and factors such as pregnancy, infertility, parity, complications, and gonadal hormones such as estrogen can influence a woman’s stroke risk much later in life,” Dr. McCullough said in an interview.

Future studies into the relationship between endometriosis and CVD and stroke risk should focus on the mechanism behind the inflammation that occurs in endometriosis, Dr. McCullough said. “Part of it is probably the loss of hormones if a patient has to have an oophorectomy, but part of it is just what do these diseases do for a woman’s later risk – and for primary care physicians, ob.gyns., and stroke neurologists to recognize that these are questions we should ask: Have you ever  had eclampsia or preeclampsia? Did you have endometriosis? Have you had miscarriages?”

The study received funding from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and the National Institute for Neurological Disorders and Stroke. Dr. Missmer disclosed relationships with Shanghai Huilun Biotechnology, Roche, and AbbVie. Dr. McCullough has no relevant disclosures.


 

Women who’ve had endometriosis carry an elevated risk of stroke with them for the rest of their lives, with the greatest risk found in women who’ve had a hysterectomy with an oophorectomy, according to a cohort study of the Nurses’ Health Study.

“This is yet additional evidence that those girls and women with endometriosis are having effects across their lives and in multiple aspects of their health and well-being,” senior study author Stacey A. Missmer, ScD, of the Michigan State University, East Lansing, said in an interview. “This is not, in quotes ‘just a gynecologic condition,’ ” Dr. Missmer added. “It is not strictly about the pelvic pain or infertility, but it really is about the whole health across the life course.”

The study included 112,056 women in the NHSII cohort study who were followed from 1989 to June 2017, documenting 893 incident cases of stroke among them – an incidence of less than 1%. Endometriosis was reported in 5,244 women, and 93% of the cohort were White.

Multivariate adjusted models showed that women who had laparoscopically confirmed endometriosis had a 34% greater risk of stroke than women without a history of endometriosis. Leslie V. Farland, ScD, of the University of Arizona, Tucson, was lead author of the study.

While previous studies have demonstrated an increased risk of cardiovascular disease, heart attack, angina, and atherosclerosis in women who’ve had endometriosis, this is the first study that has confirmed an additional increased risk of stroke, Dr. Missmer said.

Another novel finding, Dr. Missmer said, is that while the CVD risks for these women “seem to peak at an earlier age,” the study found no age differences for stroke risk. “That also reinforces that these stroke events are often happening in an age range typical for stroke, which is further removed from when women are thinking about their gynecologic health specifically.”

These findings don’t translate into a significantly greater risk for stroke overall in women who’ve had endometriosis, Dr. Missmer said. She characterized the risk as “not negligible, but it’s not a huge increased risk.” The absolute risk is still fairly low, she said.

“We don’t want to give the impression that all women with endometriosis need to be panicked or fearful about stroke, she said. “Rather, the messaging is that this yet another bit of evidence that whole health care for those with endometriosis is important.”

Women who’ve had endometriosis and their primary care providers need to be attuned to stroke risk, she said. “This is a critical condition that primary care physicians need to engage around, and perhaps if symptoms related to cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease emerge in their patients, they need to be engaging cardiology and similar types of support. This is not just about the gynecologists.”

The study also explored other factors that may contribute to stroke risk, with the most significant being hysterectomy with bilateral oophorectomy, Dr. Missmer said.

This study was unique because it used laparoscopically confirmed rather than self-reported endometriosis, said Louise D. McCullough, MD, neurology chair at the University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston. Another strength of the study she noted was its longitudinal design, although the cohort study design yielded a low number of stroke patients.

“Regardless, I do think it was a very important study because we have a growing recognition about how women’s health and factors such as pregnancy, infertility, parity, complications, and gonadal hormones such as estrogen can influence a woman’s stroke risk much later in life,” Dr. McCullough said in an interview.

Future studies into the relationship between endometriosis and CVD and stroke risk should focus on the mechanism behind the inflammation that occurs in endometriosis, Dr. McCullough said. “Part of it is probably the loss of hormones if a patient has to have an oophorectomy, but part of it is just what do these diseases do for a woman’s later risk – and for primary care physicians, ob.gyns., and stroke neurologists to recognize that these are questions we should ask: Have you ever  had eclampsia or preeclampsia? Did you have endometriosis? Have you had miscarriages?”

The study received funding from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and the National Institute for Neurological Disorders and Stroke. Dr. Missmer disclosed relationships with Shanghai Huilun Biotechnology, Roche, and AbbVie. Dr. McCullough has no relevant disclosures.


 

Cutting out almost all salt when preparing meals was associated with a worse prognosis in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), according to the results of a new study.

Results from a post hoc analysis of the TOPCAT trial show that those with a cooking salt score of zero were at significantly higher risk of the primary outcome of cardiovascular (CV) death, HF hospitalization, and aborted cardiac arrest than those whose score was above zero. Survival was similar in both groups.

“Some patients restrict dietary salt intake as least as possible according to their physicians’ words or their own understanding. However, the present study found that, in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, overstrict salt restriction could lead to poor prognosis – mainly heart failure hospitalization,” explained professor Chen Liu, MD, and Weihao Liang, MD, Sun Yat-sen University First Affiliated Hospital, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.

Krisana Antharith / EyeEm / Getty Images

“Thus, when giving salt restriction advice to patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, physicians should be careful instead of just saying “as least as possible,” they said in an email to this news organization.

The study was published in the journal Heart.

The authors note that HF guidelines recommend reduced salt intake, but there’s a lack of high-quality evidence to support those recommendations and no consensus on how low to go.

Previous studies have shown that reduced dietary sodium intake was associated with worse survival and higher readmission rate in patients with HF, whereas the SODIUM HF trial reported earlier this year that dietary sodium intake of less than 100 mmol (1,500 mg) per day did not improve 1-year clinical outcomes but moderately improved quality of life and New York Heart Association functional class.

“In daily clinical practice, we noticed that some physicians advised patients with heart failure to take salt as least as possible, but it could lead to hyponatremia and loss of appetite, which has been frequently reported to be associated with poor prognosis. Thus, we wanted to investigate the potential effect of overstrict salt restriction,” Dr. Liu and Dr. Liang explained.

The investigators examined data from 1,713 participants aged 50 and older with HFpEF (left ventricular ejection fraction 45% or greater) in the phase 3 TOPCAT trial, excluding those from Russia and Georgia. Patients self-reported how much salt they added to cooking staples, such as rice, pasta, potatoes, soup, meat, and vegetables, and were scored as 0 (none), 1 (⅛ teaspoon), 2 (¼ teaspoon), and 3 (½ teaspoon or more) points. Median follow-up was 2.9 years.

TOPCAT failed to show that spironolactone improved CV outcomes over placebo, but regional differences in data from Russia/Georgia and the Americas have raised concerns about its validity.

In the present analysis, almost half the participants (816) had a cooking salt score of 0, 56.4% were male, and 80.8% were White. They were more likely than participants with a salt score greater than zero to have a previous HF hospitalization, diabetes, poor renal function, and a lower ejection fraction (57% vs. 60%). Half were randomly assigned to spironolactone.

Compared with patients with a cooking salt score of 0, patients with a cooking salt score greater than 0 had significantly lower risks of the primary outcome (hazard ratio, 0.760; P = .002) and HF hospitalization (HR, 0.737; P = .003) but not all-cause (HR, 0.838) or CV (HR, 0.782) death.

The findings were consistent after full adjustment, with hazard ratios of 0.834 (P = .046), 0.791 (P = .024), 0.944, and 0.872, respectively.

Results of subgroup analyses suggested that patients aged 70 years or younger (HR, 0.644) and those of Black and other ethnicities (HR, 0.574) were at greater risk of the primary outcome from aggressive restriction of cooking salt.

“It was an interesting but unproved finding,” Dr. Liu and Dr. Liang observed. “One possible explanation is the difference in RAAS [renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system] physiology and its response to salt restriction among races, and the other is the difference in accustomed food, because the cooking salt score only accounted for sodium added during cooking but not sodium from ingredients.”

Spearman correlation analyses showed that the cooking salt score correlated significantly with systolic and diastolic blood pressure, serum sodium, and chloronium levels but not with plasma volume status, suggesting that low sodium intake did not have an intravascular volume contraction effect on patients with HFpEF.

The authors pointed out that the salt score was self-reported, hemodynamic parameters were seldom acquired in TOPCAT, and that reverse causation between low dietary sodium intake and worse HF might still exist, despite a propensity score-matching sensitivity analysis.

Reached for comment, Mary Norine Walsh, MD, the medical director of heart failure and cardiac transplantation, Ascension St. Vincent Heart Center, Indianapolis, said in an email that the authors appropriately excluded patients enrolled from Russia and Georgia because of concerns about the representativeness of patients with HFpEF in these two countries, which has been previously demonstrated.

“What limits the importance of the authors’ findings, which they acknowledge, is that the sodium intake for each patient was self-reported,” she said. “No confirmatory testing was done and recall bias could clearly have played a role.”

“Last, many patients with HFpEF have significant volume overload and dyspnea and appropriate sodium restriction is needed to help address symptoms and achieve a euvolemic state,” added Dr. Walsh, a past president of the American College of Cardiology.

Future trials are needed to determine an optimal salt restriction range for patients with heart failure, Dr. Liu and Dr. Liang suggested. “A randomized controlled trial may be hard to achieve because it is difficult to set a perfect control group. Therefore, an analysis using real-world data with a dose-response curve could be ideal.”

The study was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, Guangdong Natural Science Foundation, and China Postdoctoral Science Foundation. The authors report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Cutting out almost all salt when preparing meals was associated with a worse prognosis in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), according to the results of a new study.

Results from a post hoc analysis of the TOPCAT trial show that those with a cooking salt score of zero were at significantly higher risk of the primary outcome of cardiovascular (CV) death, HF hospitalization, and aborted cardiac arrest than those whose score was above zero. Survival was similar in both groups.

“Some patients restrict dietary salt intake as least as possible according to their physicians’ words or their own understanding. However, the present study found that, in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, overstrict salt restriction could lead to poor prognosis – mainly heart failure hospitalization,” explained professor Chen Liu, MD, and Weihao Liang, MD, Sun Yat-sen University First Affiliated Hospital, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.

Krisana Antharith / EyeEm / Getty Images

“Thus, when giving salt restriction advice to patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, physicians should be careful instead of just saying “as least as possible,” they said in an email to this news organization.

The study was published in the journal Heart.

The authors note that HF guidelines recommend reduced salt intake, but there’s a lack of high-quality evidence to support those recommendations and no consensus on how low to go.

Previous studies have shown that reduced dietary sodium intake was associated with worse survival and higher readmission rate in patients with HF, whereas the SODIUM HF trial reported earlier this year that dietary sodium intake of less than 100 mmol (1,500 mg) per day did not improve 1-year clinical outcomes but moderately improved quality of life and New York Heart Association functional class.

“In daily clinical practice, we noticed that some physicians advised patients with heart failure to take salt as least as possible, but it could lead to hyponatremia and loss of appetite, which has been frequently reported to be associated with poor prognosis. Thus, we wanted to investigate the potential effect of overstrict salt restriction,” Dr. Liu and Dr. Liang explained.

The investigators examined data from 1,713 participants aged 50 and older with HFpEF (left ventricular ejection fraction 45% or greater) in the phase 3 TOPCAT trial, excluding those from Russia and Georgia. Patients self-reported how much salt they added to cooking staples, such as rice, pasta, potatoes, soup, meat, and vegetables, and were scored as 0 (none), 1 (⅛ teaspoon), 2 (¼ teaspoon), and 3 (½ teaspoon or more) points. Median follow-up was 2.9 years.

TOPCAT failed to show that spironolactone improved CV outcomes over placebo, but regional differences in data from Russia/Georgia and the Americas have raised concerns about its validity.

In the present analysis, almost half the participants (816) had a cooking salt score of 0, 56.4% were male, and 80.8% were White. They were more likely than participants with a salt score greater than zero to have a previous HF hospitalization, diabetes, poor renal function, and a lower ejection fraction (57% vs. 60%). Half were randomly assigned to spironolactone.

Compared with patients with a cooking salt score of 0, patients with a cooking salt score greater than 0 had significantly lower risks of the primary outcome (hazard ratio, 0.760; P = .002) and HF hospitalization (HR, 0.737; P = .003) but not all-cause (HR, 0.838) or CV (HR, 0.782) death.

The findings were consistent after full adjustment, with hazard ratios of 0.834 (P = .046), 0.791 (P = .024), 0.944, and 0.872, respectively.

Results of subgroup analyses suggested that patients aged 70 years or younger (HR, 0.644) and those of Black and other ethnicities (HR, 0.574) were at greater risk of the primary outcome from aggressive restriction of cooking salt.

“It was an interesting but unproved finding,” Dr. Liu and Dr. Liang observed. “One possible explanation is the difference in RAAS [renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system] physiology and its response to salt restriction among races, and the other is the difference in accustomed food, because the cooking salt score only accounted for sodium added during cooking but not sodium from ingredients.”

Spearman correlation analyses showed that the cooking salt score correlated significantly with systolic and diastolic blood pressure, serum sodium, and chloronium levels but not with plasma volume status, suggesting that low sodium intake did not have an intravascular volume contraction effect on patients with HFpEF.

The authors pointed out that the salt score was self-reported, hemodynamic parameters were seldom acquired in TOPCAT, and that reverse causation between low dietary sodium intake and worse HF might still exist, despite a propensity score-matching sensitivity analysis.

Reached for comment, Mary Norine Walsh, MD, the medical director of heart failure and cardiac transplantation, Ascension St. Vincent Heart Center, Indianapolis, said in an email that the authors appropriately excluded patients enrolled from Russia and Georgia because of concerns about the representativeness of patients with HFpEF in these two countries, which has been previously demonstrated.

“What limits the importance of the authors’ findings, which they acknowledge, is that the sodium intake for each patient was self-reported,” she said. “No confirmatory testing was done and recall bias could clearly have played a role.”

“Last, many patients with HFpEF have significant volume overload and dyspnea and appropriate sodium restriction is needed to help address symptoms and achieve a euvolemic state,” added Dr. Walsh, a past president of the American College of Cardiology.

Future trials are needed to determine an optimal salt restriction range for patients with heart failure, Dr. Liu and Dr. Liang suggested. “A randomized controlled trial may be hard to achieve because it is difficult to set a perfect control group. Therefore, an analysis using real-world data with a dose-response curve could be ideal.”

The study was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, Guangdong Natural Science Foundation, and China Postdoctoral Science Foundation. The authors report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Cutting out almost all salt when preparing meals was associated with a worse prognosis in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), according to the results of a new study.

Results from a post hoc analysis of the TOPCAT trial show that those with a cooking salt score of zero were at significantly higher risk of the primary outcome of cardiovascular (CV) death, HF hospitalization, and aborted cardiac arrest than those whose score was above zero. Survival was similar in both groups.

“Some patients restrict dietary salt intake as least as possible according to their physicians’ words or their own understanding. However, the present study found that, in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, overstrict salt restriction could lead to poor prognosis – mainly heart failure hospitalization,” explained professor Chen Liu, MD, and Weihao Liang, MD, Sun Yat-sen University First Affiliated Hospital, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.

Krisana Antharith / EyeEm / Getty Images

“Thus, when giving salt restriction advice to patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, physicians should be careful instead of just saying “as least as possible,” they said in an email to this news organization.

The study was published in the journal Heart.

The authors note that HF guidelines recommend reduced salt intake, but there’s a lack of high-quality evidence to support those recommendations and no consensus on how low to go.

Previous studies have shown that reduced dietary sodium intake was associated with worse survival and higher readmission rate in patients with HF, whereas the SODIUM HF trial reported earlier this year that dietary sodium intake of less than 100 mmol (1,500 mg) per day did not improve 1-year clinical outcomes but moderately improved quality of life and New York Heart Association functional class.

“In daily clinical practice, we noticed that some physicians advised patients with heart failure to take salt as least as possible, but it could lead to hyponatremia and loss of appetite, which has been frequently reported to be associated with poor prognosis. Thus, we wanted to investigate the potential effect of overstrict salt restriction,” Dr. Liu and Dr. Liang explained.

The investigators examined data from 1,713 participants aged 50 and older with HFpEF (left ventricular ejection fraction 45% or greater) in the phase 3 TOPCAT trial, excluding those from Russia and Georgia. Patients self-reported how much salt they added to cooking staples, such as rice, pasta, potatoes, soup, meat, and vegetables, and were scored as 0 (none), 1 (⅛ teaspoon), 2 (¼ teaspoon), and 3 (½ teaspoon or more) points. Median follow-up was 2.9 years.

TOPCAT failed to show that spironolactone improved CV outcomes over placebo, but regional differences in data from Russia/Georgia and the Americas have raised concerns about its validity.

In the present analysis, almost half the participants (816) had a cooking salt score of 0, 56.4% were male, and 80.8% were White. They were more likely than participants with a salt score greater than zero to have a previous HF hospitalization, diabetes, poor renal function, and a lower ejection fraction (57% vs. 60%). Half were randomly assigned to spironolactone.

Compared with patients with a cooking salt score of 0, patients with a cooking salt score greater than 0 had significantly lower risks of the primary outcome (hazard ratio, 0.760; P = .002) and HF hospitalization (HR, 0.737; P = .003) but not all-cause (HR, 0.838) or CV (HR, 0.782) death.

The findings were consistent after full adjustment, with hazard ratios of 0.834 (P = .046), 0.791 (P = .024), 0.944, and 0.872, respectively.

Results of subgroup analyses suggested that patients aged 70 years or younger (HR, 0.644) and those of Black and other ethnicities (HR, 0.574) were at greater risk of the primary outcome from aggressive restriction of cooking salt.

“It was an interesting but unproved finding,” Dr. Liu and Dr. Liang observed. “One possible explanation is the difference in RAAS [renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system] physiology and its response to salt restriction among races, and the other is the difference in accustomed food, because the cooking salt score only accounted for sodium added during cooking but not sodium from ingredients.”

Spearman correlation analyses showed that the cooking salt score correlated significantly with systolic and diastolic blood pressure, serum sodium, and chloronium levels but not with plasma volume status, suggesting that low sodium intake did not have an intravascular volume contraction effect on patients with HFpEF.

The authors pointed out that the salt score was self-reported, hemodynamic parameters were seldom acquired in TOPCAT, and that reverse causation between low dietary sodium intake and worse HF might still exist, despite a propensity score-matching sensitivity analysis.

Reached for comment, Mary Norine Walsh, MD, the medical director of heart failure and cardiac transplantation, Ascension St. Vincent Heart Center, Indianapolis, said in an email that the authors appropriately excluded patients enrolled from Russia and Georgia because of concerns about the representativeness of patients with HFpEF in these two countries, which has been previously demonstrated.

“What limits the importance of the authors’ findings, which they acknowledge, is that the sodium intake for each patient was self-reported,” she said. “No confirmatory testing was done and recall bias could clearly have played a role.”

“Last, many patients with HFpEF have significant volume overload and dyspnea and appropriate sodium restriction is needed to help address symptoms and achieve a euvolemic state,” added Dr. Walsh, a past president of the American College of Cardiology.

Future trials are needed to determine an optimal salt restriction range for patients with heart failure, Dr. Liu and Dr. Liang suggested. “A randomized controlled trial may be hard to achieve because it is difficult to set a perfect control group. Therefore, an analysis using real-world data with a dose-response curve could be ideal.”

The study was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, Guangdong Natural Science Foundation, and China Postdoctoral Science Foundation. The authors report no relevant financial relationships.

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

After a year of uncertainty and decline because of the COVID-19 pandemic, demand for clinicians has rebounded – and the job market for new physicians and advanced practitioners is back to normal, or more accurately “the new normal,” according to a recently released report from Merritt Hawkins, the physician search division of AMN Healthcare.

The study is based on an analysis of job search and consulting assignments that the firm conducted on behalf of its health care organization clients from April 1, 2021, to March 31, 2022.

“Search engagements were down a little over 30% in 2020, but by the end of 2021, everything started spiking dramatically to the point of where we were at a 34-year high,” Michael Belkin, divisional vice president with Merritt Hawkins, told this news organization. “The pendulum has gone all the way back. People are more interested in going out and seeing their physicians.”

Demand for physicians was suppressed during the peak of the pandemic, as many hospitals curtailed elective procedures and many patients refrained from entering a medical facility. A large backlog of patients needing care subsequently developed.

This, combined with an aging population and widespread chronic medical conditions, has caused a strong surge in demand for physicians and advanced practitioners, according to the report.

In addition to the volume of searches increasing, physician starting salaries have rebounded from the COVID-19 downturn.

Average starting salaries of 14 physician specialties tracked in 2021/2022 increased, while only 3 decreased. Orthopedic surgeons were offered an average of $565,000 to start, exclusive of signing bonuses and other incentives, up from $546,000 the previous year. Urologists were offered an average of $510,000 to start, up from $497,000; gastroenterologists were offered $474,000, up from $453,000; while radiologists were offered $455,000, up from $401,000.

Similarly, a recent Medscape study based on responses from more than 13,000 U.S. physicians across 29 specialties found that income for all physician specialists increased, with otolaryngologists, gastroenterologists, and dermatologists experiencing the greatest gains.
 

A new reality

While the job market for physicians and advanced practitioners has seemingly recovered, there are many differences between today’s working environment for clinicians and what existed during the pandemic.

First, specialists are now stepping into the spotlight, a position that primary care clinicians previously held. The majority of Merritt Hawkins’ search engagements (64%) in 2021/2022 were for physician specialists, including cardiologists, gastroenterologists, orthopedic surgeons, neurologists, oncologists, and others. Only 17% of the search engagements were for primary care physicians, down from 18% in 2020/2021 and 20% in 2019/2020.

“We’ve seen specialties bounce back faster. Of course, you’ve got the aging population; you’ve got people that want that specialized care,” Mr. Belkin said.

Advanced practitioners also are playing a more significant role in the postpandemic word. In fact, 19% of Merritt Hawkins’ search engagements were for advanced practitioners, including nurse practitioners (NPs), physician assistants, and certified registered nurse anesthetists, up from 18% the previous year and just 13% the year prior to that, indicating growing demand for nonphysician providers.

NPs, in fact, topped the list of most requested search engagements, underscoring a shift from traditional physician office-based primary care delivery settings toward “convenient care” settings such as urgent care centers and retail clinics that are largely staffed by NPs and other advanced practitioners.

Advanced practitioners are taking on more responsibility for primary care simply because there is a large number of these professionals ready to take on the challenge.

The health care industry was “not able to produce enough primary care physicians over the last decade. So advanced practitioners, I believe, have slowly started to work alongside those primary care physicians. In a lot of areas such as your retail space, your CVS, your Walmart, your Walgreens, your standalone urgent cares, they’ve stepped up,” Mr. Belkin said.

Advanced practitioners also are providing the convenience that consumers are increasingly demanding.

“We are a society that wants things immediately ... but it’s still a challenge to schedule an appointment with a physician. However, it’s less of a challenge to get into a retail clinic or an urgent care center or to schedule something through telehealth,” Mr. Belkin noted.
 

More than just money

With the job market strong, the challenge for health care organizations is to create competitive recruiting packages. Sure enough, 92% of candidates were offered signing bonuses in 2021/2022 compared with just 61% in 2020/2021.

The financial incentives, however, might not be enough. In this environment, health care organizations need to go beyond simply offering competitive salaries to new recruits. For example, clinicians are seeking flexibility, as many potential hires are seeking remote positions. In fact, 18% of radiology search engagements were for teleradiologists, while 15% of its search engagements for psychiatrists were for telepsychiatrists in 2021/2022.

“Right now, quality of life is a very important factor. It’s work-life balance. It’s sensitivity to the stresses that we just experienced over the last 2.5 years,” Mr. Belkin concluded. “There’s more sensitivity around the culture of the organizations. What’s the leadership like? How did the organization handle the pandemic? How do they respond?”

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

After a year of uncertainty and decline because of the COVID-19 pandemic, demand for clinicians has rebounded – and the job market for new physicians and advanced practitioners is back to normal, or more accurately “the new normal,” according to a recently released report from Merritt Hawkins, the physician search division of AMN Healthcare.

The study is based on an analysis of job search and consulting assignments that the firm conducted on behalf of its health care organization clients from April 1, 2021, to March 31, 2022.

“Search engagements were down a little over 30% in 2020, but by the end of 2021, everything started spiking dramatically to the point of where we were at a 34-year high,” Michael Belkin, divisional vice president with Merritt Hawkins, told this news organization. “The pendulum has gone all the way back. People are more interested in going out and seeing their physicians.”

Demand for physicians was suppressed during the peak of the pandemic, as many hospitals curtailed elective procedures and many patients refrained from entering a medical facility. A large backlog of patients needing care subsequently developed.

This, combined with an aging population and widespread chronic medical conditions, has caused a strong surge in demand for physicians and advanced practitioners, according to the report.

In addition to the volume of searches increasing, physician starting salaries have rebounded from the COVID-19 downturn.

Average starting salaries of 14 physician specialties tracked in 2021/2022 increased, while only 3 decreased. Orthopedic surgeons were offered an average of $565,000 to start, exclusive of signing bonuses and other incentives, up from $546,000 the previous year. Urologists were offered an average of $510,000 to start, up from $497,000; gastroenterologists were offered $474,000, up from $453,000; while radiologists were offered $455,000, up from $401,000.

Similarly, a recent Medscape study based on responses from more than 13,000 U.S. physicians across 29 specialties found that income for all physician specialists increased, with otolaryngologists, gastroenterologists, and dermatologists experiencing the greatest gains.
 

A new reality

While the job market for physicians and advanced practitioners has seemingly recovered, there are many differences between today’s working environment for clinicians and what existed during the pandemic.

First, specialists are now stepping into the spotlight, a position that primary care clinicians previously held. The majority of Merritt Hawkins’ search engagements (64%) in 2021/2022 were for physician specialists, including cardiologists, gastroenterologists, orthopedic surgeons, neurologists, oncologists, and others. Only 17% of the search engagements were for primary care physicians, down from 18% in 2020/2021 and 20% in 2019/2020.

“We’ve seen specialties bounce back faster. Of course, you’ve got the aging population; you’ve got people that want that specialized care,” Mr. Belkin said.

Advanced practitioners also are playing a more significant role in the postpandemic word. In fact, 19% of Merritt Hawkins’ search engagements were for advanced practitioners, including nurse practitioners (NPs), physician assistants, and certified registered nurse anesthetists, up from 18% the previous year and just 13% the year prior to that, indicating growing demand for nonphysician providers.

NPs, in fact, topped the list of most requested search engagements, underscoring a shift from traditional physician office-based primary care delivery settings toward “convenient care” settings such as urgent care centers and retail clinics that are largely staffed by NPs and other advanced practitioners.

Advanced practitioners are taking on more responsibility for primary care simply because there is a large number of these professionals ready to take on the challenge.

The health care industry was “not able to produce enough primary care physicians over the last decade. So advanced practitioners, I believe, have slowly started to work alongside those primary care physicians. In a lot of areas such as your retail space, your CVS, your Walmart, your Walgreens, your standalone urgent cares, they’ve stepped up,” Mr. Belkin said.

Advanced practitioners also are providing the convenience that consumers are increasingly demanding.

“We are a society that wants things immediately ... but it’s still a challenge to schedule an appointment with a physician. However, it’s less of a challenge to get into a retail clinic or an urgent care center or to schedule something through telehealth,” Mr. Belkin noted.
 

More than just money

With the job market strong, the challenge for health care organizations is to create competitive recruiting packages. Sure enough, 92% of candidates were offered signing bonuses in 2021/2022 compared with just 61% in 2020/2021.

The financial incentives, however, might not be enough. In this environment, health care organizations need to go beyond simply offering competitive salaries to new recruits. For example, clinicians are seeking flexibility, as many potential hires are seeking remote positions. In fact, 18% of radiology search engagements were for teleradiologists, while 15% of its search engagements for psychiatrists were for telepsychiatrists in 2021/2022.

“Right now, quality of life is a very important factor. It’s work-life balance. It’s sensitivity to the stresses that we just experienced over the last 2.5 years,” Mr. Belkin concluded. “There’s more sensitivity around the culture of the organizations. What’s the leadership like? How did the organization handle the pandemic? How do they respond?”

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

After a year of uncertainty and decline because of the COVID-19 pandemic, demand for clinicians has rebounded – and the job market for new physicians and advanced practitioners is back to normal, or more accurately “the new normal,” according to a recently released report from Merritt Hawkins, the physician search division of AMN Healthcare.

The study is based on an analysis of job search and consulting assignments that the firm conducted on behalf of its health care organization clients from April 1, 2021, to March 31, 2022.

“Search engagements were down a little over 30% in 2020, but by the end of 2021, everything started spiking dramatically to the point of where we were at a 34-year high,” Michael Belkin, divisional vice president with Merritt Hawkins, told this news organization. “The pendulum has gone all the way back. People are more interested in going out and seeing their physicians.”

Demand for physicians was suppressed during the peak of the pandemic, as many hospitals curtailed elective procedures and many patients refrained from entering a medical facility. A large backlog of patients needing care subsequently developed.

This, combined with an aging population and widespread chronic medical conditions, has caused a strong surge in demand for physicians and advanced practitioners, according to the report.

In addition to the volume of searches increasing, physician starting salaries have rebounded from the COVID-19 downturn.

Average starting salaries of 14 physician specialties tracked in 2021/2022 increased, while only 3 decreased. Orthopedic surgeons were offered an average of $565,000 to start, exclusive of signing bonuses and other incentives, up from $546,000 the previous year. Urologists were offered an average of $510,000 to start, up from $497,000; gastroenterologists were offered $474,000, up from $453,000; while radiologists were offered $455,000, up from $401,000.

Similarly, a recent Medscape study based on responses from more than 13,000 U.S. physicians across 29 specialties found that income for all physician specialists increased, with otolaryngologists, gastroenterologists, and dermatologists experiencing the greatest gains.
 

A new reality

While the job market for physicians and advanced practitioners has seemingly recovered, there are many differences between today’s working environment for clinicians and what existed during the pandemic.

First, specialists are now stepping into the spotlight, a position that primary care clinicians previously held. The majority of Merritt Hawkins’ search engagements (64%) in 2021/2022 were for physician specialists, including cardiologists, gastroenterologists, orthopedic surgeons, neurologists, oncologists, and others. Only 17% of the search engagements were for primary care physicians, down from 18% in 2020/2021 and 20% in 2019/2020.

“We’ve seen specialties bounce back faster. Of course, you’ve got the aging population; you’ve got people that want that specialized care,” Mr. Belkin said.

Advanced practitioners also are playing a more significant role in the postpandemic word. In fact, 19% of Merritt Hawkins’ search engagements were for advanced practitioners, including nurse practitioners (NPs), physician assistants, and certified registered nurse anesthetists, up from 18% the previous year and just 13% the year prior to that, indicating growing demand for nonphysician providers.

NPs, in fact, topped the list of most requested search engagements, underscoring a shift from traditional physician office-based primary care delivery settings toward “convenient care” settings such as urgent care centers and retail clinics that are largely staffed by NPs and other advanced practitioners.

Advanced practitioners are taking on more responsibility for primary care simply because there is a large number of these professionals ready to take on the challenge.

The health care industry was “not able to produce enough primary care physicians over the last decade. So advanced practitioners, I believe, have slowly started to work alongside those primary care physicians. In a lot of areas such as your retail space, your CVS, your Walmart, your Walgreens, your standalone urgent cares, they’ve stepped up,” Mr. Belkin said.

Advanced practitioners also are providing the convenience that consumers are increasingly demanding.

“We are a society that wants things immediately ... but it’s still a challenge to schedule an appointment with a physician. However, it’s less of a challenge to get into a retail clinic or an urgent care center or to schedule something through telehealth,” Mr. Belkin noted.
 

More than just money

With the job market strong, the challenge for health care organizations is to create competitive recruiting packages. Sure enough, 92% of candidates were offered signing bonuses in 2021/2022 compared with just 61% in 2020/2021.

The financial incentives, however, might not be enough. In this environment, health care organizations need to go beyond simply offering competitive salaries to new recruits. For example, clinicians are seeking flexibility, as many potential hires are seeking remote positions. In fact, 18% of radiology search engagements were for teleradiologists, while 15% of its search engagements for psychiatrists were for telepsychiatrists in 2021/2022.

“Right now, quality of life is a very important factor. It’s work-life balance. It’s sensitivity to the stresses that we just experienced over the last 2.5 years,” Mr. Belkin concluded. “There’s more sensitivity around the culture of the organizations. What’s the leadership like? How did the organization handle the pandemic? How do they respond?”

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

In a video posted to TikTok by the comedian Will Flanary, MD, better known to his followers as Dr. Glaucomflecken, he imitates a neurosurgical residency interview. With glasses perched on the bridge of his nose, Dr. Glaucomflecken poses as the attending, asking: “What are your weaknesses?”

The residency applicant answers without hesitation: “My physiological need for sleep.” “What are your strengths?” The resident replies with the hard, steely stare of the determined and uninitiated: “My desire to eliminate my physiological need for sleep.”

If you follow Dr. Glaucomflecken on Twitter, you might know the skit I’m referencing. For many physicians and physicians-in-training, what makes the satire successful is its reflection of reality.

Many things have changed in medicine since his time, but the tired trope of the sleepless surgeon hangs on. Undaunted, I spent my second and third year of medical school accumulating accolades, conducting research, and connecting with mentors with the singular goal of joining the surgical ranks.

Midway through my third year, I completed a month-long surgical subinternship designed to give students a taste of what life would look like as an intern. I loved the operating room; it felt like the difference between being on dry land and being underwater. There were fewer distractions – your patient in the spotlight while everything else receded to the shadows.

However, as the month wore on, something stronger took hold. I couldn’t keep my eyes open in the darkened operating rooms and had to decline stools, fearing that I would fall asleep if I sat down.

On early morning prerounds, it’s 4:50 a.m. when I glance at the clock and pull back the curtain, already apologizing. My patient rolls over, flashing a wry smile. “Do you ever go home?” I’ve seen residents respond to this exact question in various ways. I live here. Yes. No. Soon. Not enough. My partner doesn’t think so.

There are days and, yes, years when we are led to believe this is what we live for: to be constantly available to our patients. It feels like a hollow victory when the patient, 2 days out from a total colectomy, begins to worry about your personal life. I ask her how she slept (not enough), any fevers (no), vomiting (no), urinating (I pause – she has a catheter).

My favorite part of these early morning rounds is the pause in my scripted litany of questions to listen to heart and lungs. It never fails to feel sacred: Patients become so quiet and still that I can’t help but think they have faith in me. Without prompting, she slides the back of her hospital gown forward like a curtain, already taking deep breaths so I can hear her lungs.

I look outside. The streetlights are still on, and from the seventh-floor window, I can watch staff making their way through the sliding double-doors, just beyond the yellowed pools of streetlight. I smile. I love medicine. I’m so tired.

For many in medicine, we are treated, and thus behave, as though our ability to manipulate physiology should also apply within the borders of our bodies: commanding less sleep, food, or bathroom breaks.

It places health care workers solidly in the realm of superhuman, living beyond one’s corporeal needs. The pandemic only heightened this misappropriation – adding hero and setting out a pedestal for health care workers to make their ungainly ascent. This kind of unsolicited admiration implicitly implies inhumanness, an otherness.

What would it look like if we started treating ourselves less like physicians and more like patients? I wish I was offering a solution, but really this is just a story. Maybe it’s not more sleep you need but something just as critical to the delicate physiologic and psychological scales of well-being.

To students rising through the ranks of medical training, identify what it is you need early and often. I can count on one hand how many physicians I’ve seen take a lunch break – even 10 minutes. Embrace hard work and self-preservation equally. My hope is that if enough of us take this path, it just might become a matter of course.

Dr. Meffert is a resident in the department of emergency medicine, MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington Hospital Center, Washington. Dr. Meffert disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

In a video posted to TikTok by the comedian Will Flanary, MD, better known to his followers as Dr. Glaucomflecken, he imitates a neurosurgical residency interview. With glasses perched on the bridge of his nose, Dr. Glaucomflecken poses as the attending, asking: “What are your weaknesses?”

The residency applicant answers without hesitation: “My physiological need for sleep.” “What are your strengths?” The resident replies with the hard, steely stare of the determined and uninitiated: “My desire to eliminate my physiological need for sleep.”

If you follow Dr. Glaucomflecken on Twitter, you might know the skit I’m referencing. For many physicians and physicians-in-training, what makes the satire successful is its reflection of reality.

Many things have changed in medicine since his time, but the tired trope of the sleepless surgeon hangs on. Undaunted, I spent my second and third year of medical school accumulating accolades, conducting research, and connecting with mentors with the singular goal of joining the surgical ranks.

Midway through my third year, I completed a month-long surgical subinternship designed to give students a taste of what life would look like as an intern. I loved the operating room; it felt like the difference between being on dry land and being underwater. There were fewer distractions – your patient in the spotlight while everything else receded to the shadows.

However, as the month wore on, something stronger took hold. I couldn’t keep my eyes open in the darkened operating rooms and had to decline stools, fearing that I would fall asleep if I sat down.

On early morning prerounds, it’s 4:50 a.m. when I glance at the clock and pull back the curtain, already apologizing. My patient rolls over, flashing a wry smile. “Do you ever go home?” I’ve seen residents respond to this exact question in various ways. I live here. Yes. No. Soon. Not enough. My partner doesn’t think so.

There are days and, yes, years when we are led to believe this is what we live for: to be constantly available to our patients. It feels like a hollow victory when the patient, 2 days out from a total colectomy, begins to worry about your personal life. I ask her how she slept (not enough), any fevers (no), vomiting (no), urinating (I pause – she has a catheter).

My favorite part of these early morning rounds is the pause in my scripted litany of questions to listen to heart and lungs. It never fails to feel sacred: Patients become so quiet and still that I can’t help but think they have faith in me. Without prompting, she slides the back of her hospital gown forward like a curtain, already taking deep breaths so I can hear her lungs.

I look outside. The streetlights are still on, and from the seventh-floor window, I can watch staff making their way through the sliding double-doors, just beyond the yellowed pools of streetlight. I smile. I love medicine. I’m so tired.

For many in medicine, we are treated, and thus behave, as though our ability to manipulate physiology should also apply within the borders of our bodies: commanding less sleep, food, or bathroom breaks.

It places health care workers solidly in the realm of superhuman, living beyond one’s corporeal needs. The pandemic only heightened this misappropriation – adding hero and setting out a pedestal for health care workers to make their ungainly ascent. This kind of unsolicited admiration implicitly implies inhumanness, an otherness.

What would it look like if we started treating ourselves less like physicians and more like patients? I wish I was offering a solution, but really this is just a story. Maybe it’s not more sleep you need but something just as critical to the delicate physiologic and psychological scales of well-being.

To students rising through the ranks of medical training, identify what it is you need early and often. I can count on one hand how many physicians I’ve seen take a lunch break – even 10 minutes. Embrace hard work and self-preservation equally. My hope is that if enough of us take this path, it just might become a matter of course.

Dr. Meffert is a resident in the department of emergency medicine, MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington Hospital Center, Washington. Dr. Meffert disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

In a video posted to TikTok by the comedian Will Flanary, MD, better known to his followers as Dr. Glaucomflecken, he imitates a neurosurgical residency interview. With glasses perched on the bridge of his nose, Dr. Glaucomflecken poses as the attending, asking: “What are your weaknesses?”

The residency applicant answers without hesitation: “My physiological need for sleep.” “What are your strengths?” The resident replies with the hard, steely stare of the determined and uninitiated: “My desire to eliminate my physiological need for sleep.”

If you follow Dr. Glaucomflecken on Twitter, you might know the skit I’m referencing. For many physicians and physicians-in-training, what makes the satire successful is its reflection of reality.

Many things have changed in medicine since his time, but the tired trope of the sleepless surgeon hangs on. Undaunted, I spent my second and third year of medical school accumulating accolades, conducting research, and connecting with mentors with the singular goal of joining the surgical ranks.

Midway through my third year, I completed a month-long surgical subinternship designed to give students a taste of what life would look like as an intern. I loved the operating room; it felt like the difference between being on dry land and being underwater. There were fewer distractions – your patient in the spotlight while everything else receded to the shadows.

However, as the month wore on, something stronger took hold. I couldn’t keep my eyes open in the darkened operating rooms and had to decline stools, fearing that I would fall asleep if I sat down.

On early morning prerounds, it’s 4:50 a.m. when I glance at the clock and pull back the curtain, already apologizing. My patient rolls over, flashing a wry smile. “Do you ever go home?” I’ve seen residents respond to this exact question in various ways. I live here. Yes. No. Soon. Not enough. My partner doesn’t think so.

There are days and, yes, years when we are led to believe this is what we live for: to be constantly available to our patients. It feels like a hollow victory when the patient, 2 days out from a total colectomy, begins to worry about your personal life. I ask her how she slept (not enough), any fevers (no), vomiting (no), urinating (I pause – she has a catheter).

My favorite part of these early morning rounds is the pause in my scripted litany of questions to listen to heart and lungs. It never fails to feel sacred: Patients become so quiet and still that I can’t help but think they have faith in me. Without prompting, she slides the back of her hospital gown forward like a curtain, already taking deep breaths so I can hear her lungs.

I look outside. The streetlights are still on, and from the seventh-floor window, I can watch staff making their way through the sliding double-doors, just beyond the yellowed pools of streetlight. I smile. I love medicine. I’m so tired.

For many in medicine, we are treated, and thus behave, as though our ability to manipulate physiology should also apply within the borders of our bodies: commanding less sleep, food, or bathroom breaks.

It places health care workers solidly in the realm of superhuman, living beyond one’s corporeal needs. The pandemic only heightened this misappropriation – adding hero and setting out a pedestal for health care workers to make their ungainly ascent. This kind of unsolicited admiration implicitly implies inhumanness, an otherness.

What would it look like if we started treating ourselves less like physicians and more like patients? I wish I was offering a solution, but really this is just a story. Maybe it’s not more sleep you need but something just as critical to the delicate physiologic and psychological scales of well-being.

To students rising through the ranks of medical training, identify what it is you need early and often. I can count on one hand how many physicians I’ve seen take a lunch break – even 10 minutes. Embrace hard work and self-preservation equally. My hope is that if enough of us take this path, it just might become a matter of course.

Dr. Meffert is a resident in the department of emergency medicine, MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington Hospital Center, Washington. Dr. Meffert disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Charcoal won’t let high-fat diet weigh you down

Do you want to be the funniest person alive? Of course you do. It’s really simple too, just one joke can make you the greatest comedian of all time. All you have to do is go camping and cook food over a roaring campfire. When someone drops food into the fire (which they always will), get ready. Once they fish out the offending food, which is almost certainly coated in hot coals, tell them: “Ah, eat it anyway. A little texture never hurt!” Trust us, most hilarious and original gag of all time.

But before your hapless friend brushes off his hot dog and forces a laugh, consider this: Japanese researchers have found that a charcoal supplement can prevent weight gain in mice consuming a high-fat diet. Charcoal is actually quite the helpful substance, and not just for grilling. It’s been used as medicine for hundreds of years and even today is used as a treatment for drug overdose and excess gas and flatulence.

PxHere

The study involved two groups of mice: One was fed a normal diet, the other a high-fat diet. After 12 weeks, the high-fat diet mice had gained weight. At that point, edible activated charcoal was added to their diet. From that point, weight gain was similar between the two groups, and the amount of bile acid, cholesterol, triglyceride, and fatty acid excreted by the high-fat mice increased by two to four times.

The researchers supported the notion that consuming an activated charcoal supplement before or while eating fatty food could prevent weight gain from said fatty food. Which works out well for the classic American barbecue, which is traditionally both high in fat and charcoal. All you have to do is buy some extra charcoal briquettes to pass around and munch on with your friends. Now that’s a party we can get behind.
 

There’s awake, and then there’s neurologically awake

Time to toss another urban legend onto the trash heap of history. Say goodbye to the benefits of uninterrupted sleep. It’s a fraud, a fake, a myth, a hit or myth, a swing and a myth, an old wives’ tale. You can stuff it and put it on a shelf next to Bigfoot, the Slender Man, and Twinkies.

JackF/thinkstockphotos.com

We all thought we needed 8 hours of uninterrupted sleep every night, but guess who we forgot to tell? Our brains. They’ve been doing exactly the opposite all along, laughing at us the whole time. Smug SOBs.

To straighten out this mess, let’s bring in a scientist, Celia Kjaerby of the Center for Translational Neuromedicine at the University of Copenhagen: “You may think that sleep is a constant state that you are in, and then you wake up. But there is a lot more to sleep than meets the eye. We have learned that noradrenaline causes you to wake up more than 100 times a night. And that is during perfectly normal sleep.”

Those 100 or so sleep interruptions are so brief that we don’t even notice, but they are very important, according to a study conducted at the university. Those tiny little wake-up calls are “the essence for the part of sleep that makes us wake up rested and which enables us to remember what we learned the day before. ... The very short awakenings are created by waves of norepinephrine [and they] reset the brain so that it is ready to store memory when you dive back into sleep,” lead author Maiken Nedergaard, MD, explained.

The investigators compared the level of noradrenaline in sleeping mice with their electrical activity and found that the hormone constantly increased and decreased in a wavelike pattern. A high level meant that the animal was neurologically awake. Deeper valleys between the high points meant better sleep, and the mice with the “highest number of deep noradrenaline valleys were also the ones with the best memory,” the team said in their written statement.

Not just the best memory, they said, but “super memory.” That, of course, was enough to get the attention of Marvel Comics, so the next Disney superhero blockbuster will feature Nocturna, the queen of the night. Her power? Never forgets. Her archnemesis? The Insomniac. Her catchphrase? “Let me sleep on it.”

Words can hurt, literally

Growing up, we’re sure you heard the “sticks and stones” rhyme. Maybe you’ve even recited it once or twice to defend yourself. Well, forget it, because words can hurt and your brain knows it.

PxHere

In a new study published in Frontiers in Communication, Marijn Struiksma, PhD, of Utrecht University, and colleagues incorporated the use of electroencephalography (EEG) and skin conductance on 79 women to see how words (specifically insults) actually affect the human body.

Each subject was asked to read three different types of statements: an insult, a compliment, and something factual but neutral. Half of the statements contained the subject’s name and half used somebody else’s. The participants were told that these statements were collected from three men.

Nobody interacted with each other, and the setting was completely clinical, yet the results were unmistakable. The EEG showed an effect in P2 amplitude with repetitive insults, no matter who it was about. Even though the insults weren’t real and the participants were aware of it, the brain still recognized them as hurtful, coming across as “mini slaps in the face,” Dr. Struiksma noted in a written statement.

The researchers noted that more needs to be done to better understand the long-term effects that insults can have and create a deeper understanding between words and emotion, but studying the effects of insults in a real-life setting is ethically tricky. This study is a start.

So, yeah, sticks and stones can break your bones, but words will actually hurt you.

This article was updated 7/21/22.

Charcoal won’t let high-fat diet weigh you down

Do you want to be the funniest person alive? Of course you do. It’s really simple too, just one joke can make you the greatest comedian of all time. All you have to do is go camping and cook food over a roaring campfire. When someone drops food into the fire (which they always will), get ready. Once they fish out the offending food, which is almost certainly coated in hot coals, tell them: “Ah, eat it anyway. A little texture never hurt!” Trust us, most hilarious and original gag of all time.

But before your hapless friend brushes off his hot dog and forces a laugh, consider this: Japanese researchers have found that a charcoal supplement can prevent weight gain in mice consuming a high-fat diet. Charcoal is actually quite the helpful substance, and not just for grilling. It’s been used as medicine for hundreds of years and even today is used as a treatment for drug overdose and excess gas and flatulence.

PxHere

The study involved two groups of mice: One was fed a normal diet, the other a high-fat diet. After 12 weeks, the high-fat diet mice had gained weight. At that point, edible activated charcoal was added to their diet. From that point, weight gain was similar between the two groups, and the amount of bile acid, cholesterol, triglyceride, and fatty acid excreted by the high-fat mice increased by two to four times.

The researchers supported the notion that consuming an activated charcoal supplement before or while eating fatty food could prevent weight gain from said fatty food. Which works out well for the classic American barbecue, which is traditionally both high in fat and charcoal. All you have to do is buy some extra charcoal briquettes to pass around and munch on with your friends. Now that’s a party we can get behind.
 

There’s awake, and then there’s neurologically awake

Time to toss another urban legend onto the trash heap of history. Say goodbye to the benefits of uninterrupted sleep. It’s a fraud, a fake, a myth, a hit or myth, a swing and a myth, an old wives’ tale. You can stuff it and put it on a shelf next to Bigfoot, the Slender Man, and Twinkies.

JackF/thinkstockphotos.com

We all thought we needed 8 hours of uninterrupted sleep every night, but guess who we forgot to tell? Our brains. They’ve been doing exactly the opposite all along, laughing at us the whole time. Smug SOBs.

To straighten out this mess, let’s bring in a scientist, Celia Kjaerby of the Center for Translational Neuromedicine at the University of Copenhagen: “You may think that sleep is a constant state that you are in, and then you wake up. But there is a lot more to sleep than meets the eye. We have learned that noradrenaline causes you to wake up more than 100 times a night. And that is during perfectly normal sleep.”

Those 100 or so sleep interruptions are so brief that we don’t even notice, but they are very important, according to a study conducted at the university. Those tiny little wake-up calls are “the essence for the part of sleep that makes us wake up rested and which enables us to remember what we learned the day before. ... The very short awakenings are created by waves of norepinephrine [and they] reset the brain so that it is ready to store memory when you dive back into sleep,” lead author Maiken Nedergaard, MD, explained.

The investigators compared the level of noradrenaline in sleeping mice with their electrical activity and found that the hormone constantly increased and decreased in a wavelike pattern. A high level meant that the animal was neurologically awake. Deeper valleys between the high points meant better sleep, and the mice with the “highest number of deep noradrenaline valleys were also the ones with the best memory,” the team said in their written statement.

Not just the best memory, they said, but “super memory.” That, of course, was enough to get the attention of Marvel Comics, so the next Disney superhero blockbuster will feature Nocturna, the queen of the night. Her power? Never forgets. Her archnemesis? The Insomniac. Her catchphrase? “Let me sleep on it.”

Words can hurt, literally

Growing up, we’re sure you heard the “sticks and stones” rhyme. Maybe you’ve even recited it once or twice to defend yourself. Well, forget it, because words can hurt and your brain knows it.

PxHere

In a new study published in Frontiers in Communication, Marijn Struiksma, PhD, of Utrecht University, and colleagues incorporated the use of electroencephalography (EEG) and skin conductance on 79 women to see how words (specifically insults) actually affect the human body.

Each subject was asked to read three different types of statements: an insult, a compliment, and something factual but neutral. Half of the statements contained the subject’s name and half used somebody else’s. The participants were told that these statements were collected from three men.

Nobody interacted with each other, and the setting was completely clinical, yet the results were unmistakable. The EEG showed an effect in P2 amplitude with repetitive insults, no matter who it was about. Even though the insults weren’t real and the participants were aware of it, the brain still recognized them as hurtful, coming across as “mini slaps in the face,” Dr. Struiksma noted in a written statement.

The researchers noted that more needs to be done to better understand the long-term effects that insults can have and create a deeper understanding between words and emotion, but studying the effects of insults in a real-life setting is ethically tricky. This study is a start.

So, yeah, sticks and stones can break your bones, but words will actually hurt you.

This article was updated 7/21/22.

Charcoal won’t let high-fat diet weigh you down

Do you want to be the funniest person alive? Of course you do. It’s really simple too, just one joke can make you the greatest comedian of all time. All you have to do is go camping and cook food over a roaring campfire. When someone drops food into the fire (which they always will), get ready. Once they fish out the offending food, which is almost certainly coated in hot coals, tell them: “Ah, eat it anyway. A little texture never hurt!” Trust us, most hilarious and original gag of all time.

But before your hapless friend brushes off his hot dog and forces a laugh, consider this: Japanese researchers have found that a charcoal supplement can prevent weight gain in mice consuming a high-fat diet. Charcoal is actually quite the helpful substance, and not just for grilling. It’s been used as medicine for hundreds of years and even today is used as a treatment for drug overdose and excess gas and flatulence.

PxHere

The study involved two groups of mice: One was fed a normal diet, the other a high-fat diet. After 12 weeks, the high-fat diet mice had gained weight. At that point, edible activated charcoal was added to their diet. From that point, weight gain was similar between the two groups, and the amount of bile acid, cholesterol, triglyceride, and fatty acid excreted by the high-fat mice increased by two to four times.

The researchers supported the notion that consuming an activated charcoal supplement before or while eating fatty food could prevent weight gain from said fatty food. Which works out well for the classic American barbecue, which is traditionally both high in fat and charcoal. All you have to do is buy some extra charcoal briquettes to pass around and munch on with your friends. Now that’s a party we can get behind.
 

There’s awake, and then there’s neurologically awake

Time to toss another urban legend onto the trash heap of history. Say goodbye to the benefits of uninterrupted sleep. It’s a fraud, a fake, a myth, a hit or myth, a swing and a myth, an old wives’ tale. You can stuff it and put it on a shelf next to Bigfoot, the Slender Man, and Twinkies.

JackF/thinkstockphotos.com

We all thought we needed 8 hours of uninterrupted sleep every night, but guess who we forgot to tell? Our brains. They’ve been doing exactly the opposite all along, laughing at us the whole time. Smug SOBs.

To straighten out this mess, let’s bring in a scientist, Celia Kjaerby of the Center for Translational Neuromedicine at the University of Copenhagen: “You may think that sleep is a constant state that you are in, and then you wake up. But there is a lot more to sleep than meets the eye. We have learned that noradrenaline causes you to wake up more than 100 times a night. And that is during perfectly normal sleep.”

Those 100 or so sleep interruptions are so brief that we don’t even notice, but they are very important, according to a study conducted at the university. Those tiny little wake-up calls are “the essence for the part of sleep that makes us wake up rested and which enables us to remember what we learned the day before. ... The very short awakenings are created by waves of norepinephrine [and they] reset the brain so that it is ready to store memory when you dive back into sleep,” lead author Maiken Nedergaard, MD, explained.

The investigators compared the level of noradrenaline in sleeping mice with their electrical activity and found that the hormone constantly increased and decreased in a wavelike pattern. A high level meant that the animal was neurologically awake. Deeper valleys between the high points meant better sleep, and the mice with the “highest number of deep noradrenaline valleys were also the ones with the best memory,” the team said in their written statement.

Not just the best memory, they said, but “super memory.” That, of course, was enough to get the attention of Marvel Comics, so the next Disney superhero blockbuster will feature Nocturna, the queen of the night. Her power? Never forgets. Her archnemesis? The Insomniac. Her catchphrase? “Let me sleep on it.”

Words can hurt, literally

Growing up, we’re sure you heard the “sticks and stones” rhyme. Maybe you’ve even recited it once or twice to defend yourself. Well, forget it, because words can hurt and your brain knows it.

PxHere

In a new study published in Frontiers in Communication, Marijn Struiksma, PhD, of Utrecht University, and colleagues incorporated the use of electroencephalography (EEG) and skin conductance on 79 women to see how words (specifically insults) actually affect the human body.

Each subject was asked to read three different types of statements: an insult, a compliment, and something factual but neutral. Half of the statements contained the subject’s name and half used somebody else’s. The participants were told that these statements were collected from three men.

Nobody interacted with each other, and the setting was completely clinical, yet the results were unmistakable. The EEG showed an effect in P2 amplitude with repetitive insults, no matter who it was about. Even though the insults weren’t real and the participants were aware of it, the brain still recognized them as hurtful, coming across as “mini slaps in the face,” Dr. Struiksma noted in a written statement.

The researchers noted that more needs to be done to better understand the long-term effects that insults can have and create a deeper understanding between words and emotion, but studying the effects of insults in a real-life setting is ethically tricky. This study is a start.

So, yeah, sticks and stones can break your bones, but words will actually hurt you.

This article was updated 7/21/22.