MDedge Endocrinology

Finding a fiber of good moral fiber

If you’ve ever wandered into the supplement aisle at your local grocery store, you’ve probably noticed an overabundance of fiber supplements that claim to do this for you and benefit that. Since there’s no Food and Drug Administration regulation on fiber supplements, manufacturers are free to (and do) make whatever wild claims they like. And much like choosing which of 500 shows to watch on Netflix, when you’re spoiled for choice, it can be difficult to pick.

Duke University Photo

Enter a team of molecular geneticists and microbiologists from Duke University. They can’t tell you what show to watch next, but they can tell you which fiber to choose, thanks to their new study. And the answer? Yes.

Well that’s not very helpful, but let us explain. For their study, a group of 28 received three of the main fiber supplements (inulin, dextrin, and galactooligosaccharides) for a week each, followed by a week off of fibers for their gut to return to baseline until they’d received all three. Those who consumed the least fiber at baseline saw the greatest benefit from fiber supplementation, with no appreciable difference between the three types. It was the same story for study participants who already consumed enough fiber; because their guts already hosted a more-optimal microbiome, the type of supplement didn’t matter. The benefits were the same across the board.

In an additional study, the Duke researchers found that gut microbiomes reacted to new fiber within a day, being primed to consume fiber on the first dose and digesting it more quickly on the second fiber dose.

The results, the researchers pointed out, make sense, since the average American only consumes 20%-40% of their daily recommended supply of fiber. Our digestive systems aren’t picky; they just want more, so go out there and choose whatever fiber you’d like. Do that, and then feel free to eat as many double bacon cheeseburgers as you’d like. That is the pinnacle of diet right there. Dietitians literally could not complain about it.
 

Jarlsberg vs. Camembert: This time it’s skeletal

Fiber is fabulous, of course, but the road to dietary health and wellness fulfillment takes us to many other, equally wondrous places. Hey, look! This next exit is covered with cheese.

PxHere

All the cheeses are here, from Abbaye de Belloc to Zwitser, and there, right between the jalapeno cheddar and the Jermi tortes you’ll find Jarlsberg, a mild, semisoft, nutty-flavored cheese that comes from Jarlsberg in eastern Norway. A recent study also suggests that Jarlsberg may help to prevent osteopenia and osteoporosis.

A group of Norwegian investigators gathered together 66 healthy women and gave them a daily portion of either Jarlsberg or Camembert for 6 weeks, at which point the Camembert group was switched to Jarlsberg for another 6 weeks.

The research team choose Camembert because of its similarity to Jarlsberg in fat and protein content. Jarlsberg, however, also is rich in vitamin K_{2, which is important for bone health,} and a substance known as DHNA, which “might combat bone thinning and increase bone tissue formation,” they said in a Eurekalert release.

After the first 6 weeks, blood levels of osteocalcin; vitamin K_{2; and} PINP, a peptide involved in bone turnover, were significantly higher in the Jarlsberg group only. All those measures rose significantly after the switch from Camembert to Jarlsberg, while levels of total and LDL cholesterol “fell significantly in the Camembert group after they switched to Jarlsberg,” the team added.

But wait! There’s more! HbA1c fell significantly among those initially eating the Jarlsberg but rose sharply in those eating Camembert. Do you see where this is going? After the Camembert group made the switch to Jarlsberg, their HbA1c levels fell significantly as well.

So it’s not just a cheese thing: The effects are specific to Jarlsberg. Can you guess what we’re having for lunch? Double bacon and fiber Jarlsbergers. Mmm, Jarlsburgers.
 

Luck be a lady: The mother of twins

It’s widely believed that women who have twins must be more fertile, giving birth to more than one child at a time. Some studies have supported the idea, but more recent work is refuting that claim. In actuality, it might just be more statistics and luck than fertility after all.

Michael Blackburn/istockphoto

Those earlier studies supporting fertility didn’t specify whether the chances of twin births were based on the ability to produce more than one egg at a time or on the number of births that women had overall. Looking at 100,000 preindustrial European births, before contraception was available, researchers from Norway, Germany, France, and the United Kingdom found that the number of total births, twins included, makes all the difference.

“When a woman gives birth several times, the chances increase that at least one of these births will be a twin birth,” investigator Gine Roll Skjærvø of the Norwegian University of Science and Technology said in a written statement.

Since twins occur in 1%-3% of all births, the more births that a woman has, the better her chances of giving birth to twins. The researchers compared it to playing the lottery. You buy enough tickets, eventually your numbers are going to come up. Despite that, however, they found that women who give birth to twins give birth less often than those who don’t have twins. Which raises the idea of sheer luck.

The researchers said that there’s still a lot to uncover in twin births, noting that “uncritically comparing groups of women with and without twins can trick us into believing the opposite of what is really true. These groupings may either hide the effects of twinning and fertility genes where they exist, or vice versa, create the illusion of these if they do not exist.”

For now, this new research claims that it’s basically a lottery. And women who give birth to twins hit the jackpot.
 

Those with low wages may be earning future memory loss

Not only are low wages detrimental to our souls, hopes, and dreams, but a new study shows that low wages also are linked to quicker memory decline later in life. Sustained low wages not only cause stress and food insecurity in the lives of many, but they also can cause diseases such as depression, obesity, and high blood pressure, which are risk factors for cognitive aging.

Nicola Barts/Pexels

The study was conducted using records from the Health and Retirement Study for the years 1992-2016 and focused on 2,879 adults born between 1936 and 1941. The participants were divided into three groups: those who never earned low wages, those who sometimes did, and those who always did.

The investigators found that workers who earned sustained low wages – defined as an hourly wage lower than two-thirds of the federal median wage for the corresponding year – “experienced significantly faster memory decline in older age” than did those who never earned low wages.

There are signs of inflation everywhere we look these days, but many people are not earning higher wages to compensate for the extra expenses. “Increasing the federal minimum wage, for example to $15 per hour, remains a gridlock issue in Congress,” lead author Katrina Kezios of the Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, said in a statement released by the university.

If only salaries would rise instead of prices for once.

Finding a fiber of good moral fiber

If you’ve ever wandered into the supplement aisle at your local grocery store, you’ve probably noticed an overabundance of fiber supplements that claim to do this for you and benefit that. Since there’s no Food and Drug Administration regulation on fiber supplements, manufacturers are free to (and do) make whatever wild claims they like. And much like choosing which of 500 shows to watch on Netflix, when you’re spoiled for choice, it can be difficult to pick.

Duke University Photo

Enter a team of molecular geneticists and microbiologists from Duke University. They can’t tell you what show to watch next, but they can tell you which fiber to choose, thanks to their new study. And the answer? Yes.

Well that’s not very helpful, but let us explain. For their study, a group of 28 received three of the main fiber supplements (inulin, dextrin, and galactooligosaccharides) for a week each, followed by a week off of fibers for their gut to return to baseline until they’d received all three. Those who consumed the least fiber at baseline saw the greatest benefit from fiber supplementation, with no appreciable difference between the three types. It was the same story for study participants who already consumed enough fiber; because their guts already hosted a more-optimal microbiome, the type of supplement didn’t matter. The benefits were the same across the board.

In an additional study, the Duke researchers found that gut microbiomes reacted to new fiber within a day, being primed to consume fiber on the first dose and digesting it more quickly on the second fiber dose.

The results, the researchers pointed out, make sense, since the average American only consumes 20%-40% of their daily recommended supply of fiber. Our digestive systems aren’t picky; they just want more, so go out there and choose whatever fiber you’d like. Do that, and then feel free to eat as many double bacon cheeseburgers as you’d like. That is the pinnacle of diet right there. Dietitians literally could not complain about it.
 

Jarlsberg vs. Camembert: This time it’s skeletal

Fiber is fabulous, of course, but the road to dietary health and wellness fulfillment takes us to many other, equally wondrous places. Hey, look! This next exit is covered with cheese.

PxHere

All the cheeses are here, from Abbaye de Belloc to Zwitser, and there, right between the jalapeno cheddar and the Jermi tortes you’ll find Jarlsberg, a mild, semisoft, nutty-flavored cheese that comes from Jarlsberg in eastern Norway. A recent study also suggests that Jarlsberg may help to prevent osteopenia and osteoporosis.

A group of Norwegian investigators gathered together 66 healthy women and gave them a daily portion of either Jarlsberg or Camembert for 6 weeks, at which point the Camembert group was switched to Jarlsberg for another 6 weeks.

The research team choose Camembert because of its similarity to Jarlsberg in fat and protein content. Jarlsberg, however, also is rich in vitamin K_{2, which is important for bone health,} and a substance known as DHNA, which “might combat bone thinning and increase bone tissue formation,” they said in a Eurekalert release.

After the first 6 weeks, blood levels of osteocalcin; vitamin K_{2; and} PINP, a peptide involved in bone turnover, were significantly higher in the Jarlsberg group only. All those measures rose significantly after the switch from Camembert to Jarlsberg, while levels of total and LDL cholesterol “fell significantly in the Camembert group after they switched to Jarlsberg,” the team added.

But wait! There’s more! HbA1c fell significantly among those initially eating the Jarlsberg but rose sharply in those eating Camembert. Do you see where this is going? After the Camembert group made the switch to Jarlsberg, their HbA1c levels fell significantly as well.

So it’s not just a cheese thing: The effects are specific to Jarlsberg. Can you guess what we’re having for lunch? Double bacon and fiber Jarlsbergers. Mmm, Jarlsburgers.
 

Luck be a lady: The mother of twins

It’s widely believed that women who have twins must be more fertile, giving birth to more than one child at a time. Some studies have supported the idea, but more recent work is refuting that claim. In actuality, it might just be more statistics and luck than fertility after all.

Michael Blackburn/istockphoto

Those earlier studies supporting fertility didn’t specify whether the chances of twin births were based on the ability to produce more than one egg at a time or on the number of births that women had overall. Looking at 100,000 preindustrial European births, before contraception was available, researchers from Norway, Germany, France, and the United Kingdom found that the number of total births, twins included, makes all the difference.

“When a woman gives birth several times, the chances increase that at least one of these births will be a twin birth,” investigator Gine Roll Skjærvø of the Norwegian University of Science and Technology said in a written statement.

Since twins occur in 1%-3% of all births, the more births that a woman has, the better her chances of giving birth to twins. The researchers compared it to playing the lottery. You buy enough tickets, eventually your numbers are going to come up. Despite that, however, they found that women who give birth to twins give birth less often than those who don’t have twins. Which raises the idea of sheer luck.

The researchers said that there’s still a lot to uncover in twin births, noting that “uncritically comparing groups of women with and without twins can trick us into believing the opposite of what is really true. These groupings may either hide the effects of twinning and fertility genes where they exist, or vice versa, create the illusion of these if they do not exist.”

For now, this new research claims that it’s basically a lottery. And women who give birth to twins hit the jackpot.
 

Those with low wages may be earning future memory loss

Not only are low wages detrimental to our souls, hopes, and dreams, but a new study shows that low wages also are linked to quicker memory decline later in life. Sustained low wages not only cause stress and food insecurity in the lives of many, but they also can cause diseases such as depression, obesity, and high blood pressure, which are risk factors for cognitive aging.

Nicola Barts/Pexels

The study was conducted using records from the Health and Retirement Study for the years 1992-2016 and focused on 2,879 adults born between 1936 and 1941. The participants were divided into three groups: those who never earned low wages, those who sometimes did, and those who always did.

The investigators found that workers who earned sustained low wages – defined as an hourly wage lower than two-thirds of the federal median wage for the corresponding year – “experienced significantly faster memory decline in older age” than did those who never earned low wages.

There are signs of inflation everywhere we look these days, but many people are not earning higher wages to compensate for the extra expenses. “Increasing the federal minimum wage, for example to $15 per hour, remains a gridlock issue in Congress,” lead author Katrina Kezios of the Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, said in a statement released by the university.

If only salaries would rise instead of prices for once.

Finding a fiber of good moral fiber

If you’ve ever wandered into the supplement aisle at your local grocery store, you’ve probably noticed an overabundance of fiber supplements that claim to do this for you and benefit that. Since there’s no Food and Drug Administration regulation on fiber supplements, manufacturers are free to (and do) make whatever wild claims they like. And much like choosing which of 500 shows to watch on Netflix, when you’re spoiled for choice, it can be difficult to pick.

Duke University Photo

Enter a team of molecular geneticists and microbiologists from Duke University. They can’t tell you what show to watch next, but they can tell you which fiber to choose, thanks to their new study. And the answer? Yes.

Well that’s not very helpful, but let us explain. For their study, a group of 28 received three of the main fiber supplements (inulin, dextrin, and galactooligosaccharides) for a week each, followed by a week off of fibers for their gut to return to baseline until they’d received all three. Those who consumed the least fiber at baseline saw the greatest benefit from fiber supplementation, with no appreciable difference between the three types. It was the same story for study participants who already consumed enough fiber; because their guts already hosted a more-optimal microbiome, the type of supplement didn’t matter. The benefits were the same across the board.

In an additional study, the Duke researchers found that gut microbiomes reacted to new fiber within a day, being primed to consume fiber on the first dose and digesting it more quickly on the second fiber dose.

The results, the researchers pointed out, make sense, since the average American only consumes 20%-40% of their daily recommended supply of fiber. Our digestive systems aren’t picky; they just want more, so go out there and choose whatever fiber you’d like. Do that, and then feel free to eat as many double bacon cheeseburgers as you’d like. That is the pinnacle of diet right there. Dietitians literally could not complain about it.
 

Jarlsberg vs. Camembert: This time it’s skeletal

Fiber is fabulous, of course, but the road to dietary health and wellness fulfillment takes us to many other, equally wondrous places. Hey, look! This next exit is covered with cheese.

PxHere

All the cheeses are here, from Abbaye de Belloc to Zwitser, and there, right between the jalapeno cheddar and the Jermi tortes you’ll find Jarlsberg, a mild, semisoft, nutty-flavored cheese that comes from Jarlsberg in eastern Norway. A recent study also suggests that Jarlsberg may help to prevent osteopenia and osteoporosis.

A group of Norwegian investigators gathered together 66 healthy women and gave them a daily portion of either Jarlsberg or Camembert for 6 weeks, at which point the Camembert group was switched to Jarlsberg for another 6 weeks.

The research team choose Camembert because of its similarity to Jarlsberg in fat and protein content. Jarlsberg, however, also is rich in vitamin K_{2, which is important for bone health,} and a substance known as DHNA, which “might combat bone thinning and increase bone tissue formation,” they said in a Eurekalert release.

After the first 6 weeks, blood levels of osteocalcin; vitamin K_{2; and} PINP, a peptide involved in bone turnover, were significantly higher in the Jarlsberg group only. All those measures rose significantly after the switch from Camembert to Jarlsberg, while levels of total and LDL cholesterol “fell significantly in the Camembert group after they switched to Jarlsberg,” the team added.

But wait! There’s more! HbA1c fell significantly among those initially eating the Jarlsberg but rose sharply in those eating Camembert. Do you see where this is going? After the Camembert group made the switch to Jarlsberg, their HbA1c levels fell significantly as well.

So it’s not just a cheese thing: The effects are specific to Jarlsberg. Can you guess what we’re having for lunch? Double bacon and fiber Jarlsbergers. Mmm, Jarlsburgers.
 

Luck be a lady: The mother of twins

It’s widely believed that women who have twins must be more fertile, giving birth to more than one child at a time. Some studies have supported the idea, but more recent work is refuting that claim. In actuality, it might just be more statistics and luck than fertility after all.

Michael Blackburn/istockphoto

Those earlier studies supporting fertility didn’t specify whether the chances of twin births were based on the ability to produce more than one egg at a time or on the number of births that women had overall. Looking at 100,000 preindustrial European births, before contraception was available, researchers from Norway, Germany, France, and the United Kingdom found that the number of total births, twins included, makes all the difference.

“When a woman gives birth several times, the chances increase that at least one of these births will be a twin birth,” investigator Gine Roll Skjærvø of the Norwegian University of Science and Technology said in a written statement.

Since twins occur in 1%-3% of all births, the more births that a woman has, the better her chances of giving birth to twins. The researchers compared it to playing the lottery. You buy enough tickets, eventually your numbers are going to come up. Despite that, however, they found that women who give birth to twins give birth less often than those who don’t have twins. Which raises the idea of sheer luck.

The researchers said that there’s still a lot to uncover in twin births, noting that “uncritically comparing groups of women with and without twins can trick us into believing the opposite of what is really true. These groupings may either hide the effects of twinning and fertility genes where they exist, or vice versa, create the illusion of these if they do not exist.”

For now, this new research claims that it’s basically a lottery. And women who give birth to twins hit the jackpot.
 

Those with low wages may be earning future memory loss

Not only are low wages detrimental to our souls, hopes, and dreams, but a new study shows that low wages also are linked to quicker memory decline later in life. Sustained low wages not only cause stress and food insecurity in the lives of many, but they also can cause diseases such as depression, obesity, and high blood pressure, which are risk factors for cognitive aging.

Nicola Barts/Pexels

The study was conducted using records from the Health and Retirement Study for the years 1992-2016 and focused on 2,879 adults born between 1936 and 1941. The participants were divided into three groups: those who never earned low wages, those who sometimes did, and those who always did.

The investigators found that workers who earned sustained low wages – defined as an hourly wage lower than two-thirds of the federal median wage for the corresponding year – “experienced significantly faster memory decline in older age” than did those who never earned low wages.

There are signs of inflation everywhere we look these days, but many people are not earning higher wages to compensate for the extra expenses. “Increasing the federal minimum wage, for example to $15 per hour, remains a gridlock issue in Congress,” lead author Katrina Kezios of the Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, said in a statement released by the university.

If only salaries would rise instead of prices for once.

We all have friends or relatives who, somehow, have managed to avoid catching COVID-19, which has infected more than 91.5 million Americans. You may even be one of the lucky ones yourself.

But health experts are saying: Not so fast. A mounting pile of scientific evidence suggests millions of Americans have been infected with the virus without ever even knowing it because they didn’t have symptoms or had mild cases they mistook for a cold or allergies.

The upshot: These silent COVID-19 cases reflect a hidden side of the pandemic that may be helping to drive new surges and viral variants.

Still, infectious disease experts say there is little doubt that some people have indeed managed to avoid COVID-19 infection altogether, and they are trying to understand why.

Several recent studies have suggested certain genetic and immune system traits may better protect this group of people against the coronavirus, making them less likely than others to be infected or seriously sickened. Researchers around the world are now studying these seemingly super-immune people for clues to what makes them so special, with an eye toward better vaccines, treatments, and prevention strategies.

Infectious disease specialists say both types of cases – those unknowingly infected by COVID-19 and people who’ve avoided the virus altogether – matter greatly to public health, more than 2 years into the pandemic.

“It’s definitely true that some people have had COVID and don’t realize it,” says Stephen Kissler, PhD, an infectious disease researcher with the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston. “It is potentially good news if there’s more immunity in the population than we realize.”

But he says that being able to identify genetic and other factors that may offer some people protection against COVID-19 is an “exciting prospect” that could help find out who’s most at risk and improve efforts to get the pandemic under control.

Some studies have found a person’s genetic profile, past exposure to other COVID-like viruses, allergies, and even drugs they take for other conditions may all provide some defense – even for people who have not been vaccinated, don’t use masks, or don’t practice social distancing.

A person’s medical history and genetics may help decide their risk from new diseases, meaning “we may be able to help identify people who are at especially high risk from infection,” Dr. Kissler says. “That knowledge could help those people better shield themselves from infection and get quicker access to treatment and vaccines, if necessary. … We don’t yet know, but studies are ongoing for these things.”

Amesh Adalja, MD, an infectious disease specialist with the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, Baltimore, agrees that emerging research on people who’ve avoided infection offers the chance of new public health strategies to combat COVID-19.

“I’m sure there is some subset of people who are [COVID] negative,” he says. “So what explains that phenomenon, especially if that person was out there getting significant exposures?”
 

Have you had COVID without knowing it?

In a media briefing late last month, White House COVID-19 Response Coordinator Ashish Jha, MD, said more than 70% of the U.S. population has had the virus, according to the latest CDC data. That’s up from 33.5% in December.

But the actual number of people in the U.S. who have been infected with SARS-CoV-2, the scientific name for the virus that causes COVID-19, is likely to be much higher due to cases without symptoms that are unreported, experts say.

Since the early days of the pandemic, researchers have tried to put a number on these hidden cases, but that figure has been evolving and a clear consensus has not emerged.

In September 2020, a study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine said “approximately 40% to 45% of those infected with SARS-CoV-2 will remain asymptomatic.”

A follow-up analysis of 95 studies, published last December, reached similar findings, estimating that more than 40% of COVID-19 infections didn’t come with symptoms.

To get a better handle on the issue, CDC officials have been working with the American Red Cross and other blood banks to track COVID-19 antibodies – proteins your body makes after exposure to the virus to fight off an infection – in donors who said they have never had COVID-19.

While that joint effort is still ongoing, early findings say the number of donors with antibodies from COVID-19 infection increased in blood donors from 3.5% in July 2020 to at least 20.2% in May 2021. Since then, those percentages have soared, in part due to the introduction of vaccines, which also make the body produce COVID-19 antibodies.

The most current findings show that 83.3% of donors have combined COVID infection– and vaccine-induced antibodies in their blood. Those findings are based on 1.4 million blood donations.

Health experts say all of these studies are strong evidence that many COVID-19 cases continue to go undetected. In fact, the University of Washington Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation estimates that only 7% of positive COVID-19 cases in the U.S. are being detected. That means case rates are actually 14.5 times higher than the official count of 131,000 new COVID infections each day, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which reports the virus is still killing about 440 Americans daily.

So, why is all this important, in terms of public health?

Experts say people are more likely to be cautious if they know COVID-19 cases are high where they live, work, and play. On the other hand, if they believe case rates in their communities are lower than they actually are, they may be less likely to get vaccinated and boosted, wear masks indoors, avoid crowded indoor spaces, and take other precautions to fend off infection.
 

How do some avoid infection altogether?

In addition to tracking cases that go unreported and don’t have symptoms, infectious disease experts have also been trying to figure out why some people have managed to avoid getting the highly contagious virus.

Several leading lines of research have produced promising early results – suggesting that a person’s genetic makeup, past exposure to less-lethal coronaviruses, allergies, and even certain drugs they take for other conditions may all provide at least some protection against COVID.

“Our study showed that there are many human genes – hundreds of genes – that can impact SARS-CoV-2 infection,” says Neville Sanjana, PhD, a geneticist at New York University and the New York Genome Center who co-led the study. “With a better understanding of host genetic factors, we can find new kinds of therapies that target these host factors to block infection.”

In addition, he says several studies show some drugs that regulate genes, such as the breast cancer drug tamoxifen, also appear to knock down COVID-19 risk. He suggests such drugs, already approved by the Food and Drug Administration, might be “repurposed” to target the virus.

Studies in other countries show that patients taking tamoxifen before the pandemic were protected against severe COVID-19, Dr. Sanjana says. “That was a really cool thing, highlighting the power of harnessing host genetics. The virus critically depends on our genes to complete key parts of its life cycle.”

The NYU research findings echo other studies that have been published in recent months.

In July, a team of researchers led by the National Cancer Institute identified a genetic factor that appears to determine how severe an infection will be. In a study involving 3,000 people, they found that two gene changes, or mutations, that decrease the expression of a gene called OAS1 boosted the risk of hospitalization from COVID-19. OAS1 is part of the immune system’s response to viral infections.

As a result, developing a genetic therapy designed to increase the OAS1 gene’s expression might reduce the risk of severe disease.

“It’s very natural to get infected once you are exposed. There’s no magic bullet for that. But after you get infected, how you’re going to respond to this infection, that’s what is going to be affected by your genetic variants,” said Ludmila Prokunina-Olsson, PhD, the study’s lead researcher and chief of the National Cancer Institute’s Laboratory of Translational Genomics, Bethesda, Md., in an interview with NBC News.

Benjamin tenOever, PhD, a New York University virologist who co-authored the 2020 research, says the new genetic research is promising, but he believes it’s unlikely scientists will be able to identify a single gene responsible for actually preventing a COVID-19 infection.

“On the flip side, we have identified many genes that makes the disease worse,” he says.
 

T cells ‘remember’ past viral infections

As Dr. tenOever and Dr. Sanjana suggest, another intriguing line of research has found that prior viral infections may prime the body’s immune system to fight COVID-19.

Four other common coronaviruses – aside from SARS-CoV-2 – infect people worldwide, typically causing mild to moderate upper respiratory illnesses like the common cold, says Alessandro Sette, PhD, an infectious disease expert and vaccine researcher with the La Jolla (Calif.) Institute for Immunology.

In a recent study published in Science, he and his team found past infection with these other coronaviruses may give some protection against SARS-CoV-2.

T cells – white blood cells that act like immunological ninjas to ferret out and fight infections – appear to maintain a kind of “biological memory” of coronaviruses they have seen before and can mount an attack on similar pathogens, such SARS-CoV-2, Dr. Sette says.

The new work builds on a prior research he helped lead that found 40%-60% of people never exposed to SARS-CoV-2 had T cells that reacted to the virus – with their immune systems recognizing fragments of a virus they had never seen before.

Dr. Sette says his research shows that people whose T cells have this “preexisting memory” of past coronavirus exposures also tend to respond better to vaccination for reasons not yet well understood.

“The question is, at which point will there be enough immunity from vaccination, repeated infections from other coronaviruses, but also some of the variants of the SARS-CoV-2 … where infections become less frequent? We’re not there yet,” he says.

In addition to these exciting genetic and T-cell findings, other research has suggested low-grade inflammation from allergies – a key part of the body’s immune response to foreign substances – may also give some people an extra leg up, in terms of avoiding COVID infection.

Last May, a study of 1,400 households published in The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology found that having a food allergy cut the risk of COVID-19 infection in half.

The researchers said it’s unclear why allergies may reduce the risk of infection, but they noted that people with food allergies express fewer ACE2 receptors on the surface of their airway cells, making it harder for the virus to enter cells.
 

The big picture: Prevention still your best bet

So, what’s the takeaway from all of this emerging research?

New York University’s Dr. tenOever says that while genes, T cells and allergies may offer some protection against COVID, tried-and-true precautions – vaccination, wearing masks, avoiding crowded indoor spaces, and social distancing – are likely to provide a greater defense.

He believes these precautions are likely why he and his family have never contracted COVID-19.

“I was tested weekly, as were my kids at school,” he says. “We definitely never got COVID, despite the fact that we live in New York City and I worked in a hospital every single day of the pandemic.”

Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, an infectious disease specialist and director of clinical epidemiology at Washington University in St. Louis, agrees that the new research on COVID-19 is intriguing but won’t likely result in practical changes in the approach to fighting the virus in the near term.

“Getting a deeper understanding of potential genetic factors or other characteristics – that could really help us understand why the virus just comes and goes without any ill effects in some people, and in other people it produces really serious disease,” he says. “That will really help us eventually to design better vaccines to prevent it or reduce severity or even [treat] people who get severe disease.”

In the meantime, Dr. Al-Aly says, “it’s still best to do everything you can to avoid infection in the first place – even if you’re vaccinated or previously infected, you should really try to avoid reinfection.”

That means sit outside if you can when visiting a restaurant. Wear a mask on a plane, even though it’s not required. And get vaccinated and boosted.

“In the future, there may be more tools to address this pandemic, but that’s really the best advice for now,” Dr. Al-Aly says.

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

We all have friends or relatives who, somehow, have managed to avoid catching COVID-19, which has infected more than 91.5 million Americans. You may even be one of the lucky ones yourself.

But health experts are saying: Not so fast. A mounting pile of scientific evidence suggests millions of Americans have been infected with the virus without ever even knowing it because they didn’t have symptoms or had mild cases they mistook for a cold or allergies.

The upshot: These silent COVID-19 cases reflect a hidden side of the pandemic that may be helping to drive new surges and viral variants.

Still, infectious disease experts say there is little doubt that some people have indeed managed to avoid COVID-19 infection altogether, and they are trying to understand why.

Several recent studies have suggested certain genetic and immune system traits may better protect this group of people against the coronavirus, making them less likely than others to be infected or seriously sickened. Researchers around the world are now studying these seemingly super-immune people for clues to what makes them so special, with an eye toward better vaccines, treatments, and prevention strategies.

Infectious disease specialists say both types of cases – those unknowingly infected by COVID-19 and people who’ve avoided the virus altogether – matter greatly to public health, more than 2 years into the pandemic.

“It’s definitely true that some people have had COVID and don’t realize it,” says Stephen Kissler, PhD, an infectious disease researcher with the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston. “It is potentially good news if there’s more immunity in the population than we realize.”

But he says that being able to identify genetic and other factors that may offer some people protection against COVID-19 is an “exciting prospect” that could help find out who’s most at risk and improve efforts to get the pandemic under control.

Some studies have found a person’s genetic profile, past exposure to other COVID-like viruses, allergies, and even drugs they take for other conditions may all provide some defense – even for people who have not been vaccinated, don’t use masks, or don’t practice social distancing.

A person’s medical history and genetics may help decide their risk from new diseases, meaning “we may be able to help identify people who are at especially high risk from infection,” Dr. Kissler says. “That knowledge could help those people better shield themselves from infection and get quicker access to treatment and vaccines, if necessary. … We don’t yet know, but studies are ongoing for these things.”

Amesh Adalja, MD, an infectious disease specialist with the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, Baltimore, agrees that emerging research on people who’ve avoided infection offers the chance of new public health strategies to combat COVID-19.

“I’m sure there is some subset of people who are [COVID] negative,” he says. “So what explains that phenomenon, especially if that person was out there getting significant exposures?”
 

Have you had COVID without knowing it?

In a media briefing late last month, White House COVID-19 Response Coordinator Ashish Jha, MD, said more than 70% of the U.S. population has had the virus, according to the latest CDC data. That’s up from 33.5% in December.

But the actual number of people in the U.S. who have been infected with SARS-CoV-2, the scientific name for the virus that causes COVID-19, is likely to be much higher due to cases without symptoms that are unreported, experts say.

Since the early days of the pandemic, researchers have tried to put a number on these hidden cases, but that figure has been evolving and a clear consensus has not emerged.

In September 2020, a study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine said “approximately 40% to 45% of those infected with SARS-CoV-2 will remain asymptomatic.”

A follow-up analysis of 95 studies, published last December, reached similar findings, estimating that more than 40% of COVID-19 infections didn’t come with symptoms.

To get a better handle on the issue, CDC officials have been working with the American Red Cross and other blood banks to track COVID-19 antibodies – proteins your body makes after exposure to the virus to fight off an infection – in donors who said they have never had COVID-19.

While that joint effort is still ongoing, early findings say the number of donors with antibodies from COVID-19 infection increased in blood donors from 3.5% in July 2020 to at least 20.2% in May 2021. Since then, those percentages have soared, in part due to the introduction of vaccines, which also make the body produce COVID-19 antibodies.

The most current findings show that 83.3% of donors have combined COVID infection– and vaccine-induced antibodies in their blood. Those findings are based on 1.4 million blood donations.

Health experts say all of these studies are strong evidence that many COVID-19 cases continue to go undetected. In fact, the University of Washington Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation estimates that only 7% of positive COVID-19 cases in the U.S. are being detected. That means case rates are actually 14.5 times higher than the official count of 131,000 new COVID infections each day, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which reports the virus is still killing about 440 Americans daily.

So, why is all this important, in terms of public health?

Experts say people are more likely to be cautious if they know COVID-19 cases are high where they live, work, and play. On the other hand, if they believe case rates in their communities are lower than they actually are, they may be less likely to get vaccinated and boosted, wear masks indoors, avoid crowded indoor spaces, and take other precautions to fend off infection.
 

How do some avoid infection altogether?

In addition to tracking cases that go unreported and don’t have symptoms, infectious disease experts have also been trying to figure out why some people have managed to avoid getting the highly contagious virus.

Several leading lines of research have produced promising early results – suggesting that a person’s genetic makeup, past exposure to less-lethal coronaviruses, allergies, and even certain drugs they take for other conditions may all provide at least some protection against COVID.

“Our study showed that there are many human genes – hundreds of genes – that can impact SARS-CoV-2 infection,” says Neville Sanjana, PhD, a geneticist at New York University and the New York Genome Center who co-led the study. “With a better understanding of host genetic factors, we can find new kinds of therapies that target these host factors to block infection.”

In addition, he says several studies show some drugs that regulate genes, such as the breast cancer drug tamoxifen, also appear to knock down COVID-19 risk. He suggests such drugs, already approved by the Food and Drug Administration, might be “repurposed” to target the virus.

Studies in other countries show that patients taking tamoxifen before the pandemic were protected against severe COVID-19, Dr. Sanjana says. “That was a really cool thing, highlighting the power of harnessing host genetics. The virus critically depends on our genes to complete key parts of its life cycle.”

The NYU research findings echo other studies that have been published in recent months.

In July, a team of researchers led by the National Cancer Institute identified a genetic factor that appears to determine how severe an infection will be. In a study involving 3,000 people, they found that two gene changes, or mutations, that decrease the expression of a gene called OAS1 boosted the risk of hospitalization from COVID-19. OAS1 is part of the immune system’s response to viral infections.

As a result, developing a genetic therapy designed to increase the OAS1 gene’s expression might reduce the risk of severe disease.

“It’s very natural to get infected once you are exposed. There’s no magic bullet for that. But after you get infected, how you’re going to respond to this infection, that’s what is going to be affected by your genetic variants,” said Ludmila Prokunina-Olsson, PhD, the study’s lead researcher and chief of the National Cancer Institute’s Laboratory of Translational Genomics, Bethesda, Md., in an interview with NBC News.

Benjamin tenOever, PhD, a New York University virologist who co-authored the 2020 research, says the new genetic research is promising, but he believes it’s unlikely scientists will be able to identify a single gene responsible for actually preventing a COVID-19 infection.

“On the flip side, we have identified many genes that makes the disease worse,” he says.
 

T cells ‘remember’ past viral infections

As Dr. tenOever and Dr. Sanjana suggest, another intriguing line of research has found that prior viral infections may prime the body’s immune system to fight COVID-19.

Four other common coronaviruses – aside from SARS-CoV-2 – infect people worldwide, typically causing mild to moderate upper respiratory illnesses like the common cold, says Alessandro Sette, PhD, an infectious disease expert and vaccine researcher with the La Jolla (Calif.) Institute for Immunology.

In a recent study published in Science, he and his team found past infection with these other coronaviruses may give some protection against SARS-CoV-2.

T cells – white blood cells that act like immunological ninjas to ferret out and fight infections – appear to maintain a kind of “biological memory” of coronaviruses they have seen before and can mount an attack on similar pathogens, such SARS-CoV-2, Dr. Sette says.

The new work builds on a prior research he helped lead that found 40%-60% of people never exposed to SARS-CoV-2 had T cells that reacted to the virus – with their immune systems recognizing fragments of a virus they had never seen before.

Dr. Sette says his research shows that people whose T cells have this “preexisting memory” of past coronavirus exposures also tend to respond better to vaccination for reasons not yet well understood.

“The question is, at which point will there be enough immunity from vaccination, repeated infections from other coronaviruses, but also some of the variants of the SARS-CoV-2 … where infections become less frequent? We’re not there yet,” he says.

In addition to these exciting genetic and T-cell findings, other research has suggested low-grade inflammation from allergies – a key part of the body’s immune response to foreign substances – may also give some people an extra leg up, in terms of avoiding COVID infection.

Last May, a study of 1,400 households published in The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology found that having a food allergy cut the risk of COVID-19 infection in half.

The researchers said it’s unclear why allergies may reduce the risk of infection, but they noted that people with food allergies express fewer ACE2 receptors on the surface of their airway cells, making it harder for the virus to enter cells.
 

The big picture: Prevention still your best bet

So, what’s the takeaway from all of this emerging research?

New York University’s Dr. tenOever says that while genes, T cells and allergies may offer some protection against COVID, tried-and-true precautions – vaccination, wearing masks, avoiding crowded indoor spaces, and social distancing – are likely to provide a greater defense.

He believes these precautions are likely why he and his family have never contracted COVID-19.

“I was tested weekly, as were my kids at school,” he says. “We definitely never got COVID, despite the fact that we live in New York City and I worked in a hospital every single day of the pandemic.”

Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, an infectious disease specialist and director of clinical epidemiology at Washington University in St. Louis, agrees that the new research on COVID-19 is intriguing but won’t likely result in practical changes in the approach to fighting the virus in the near term.

“Getting a deeper understanding of potential genetic factors or other characteristics – that could really help us understand why the virus just comes and goes without any ill effects in some people, and in other people it produces really serious disease,” he says. “That will really help us eventually to design better vaccines to prevent it or reduce severity or even [treat] people who get severe disease.”

In the meantime, Dr. Al-Aly says, “it’s still best to do everything you can to avoid infection in the first place – even if you’re vaccinated or previously infected, you should really try to avoid reinfection.”

That means sit outside if you can when visiting a restaurant. Wear a mask on a plane, even though it’s not required. And get vaccinated and boosted.

“In the future, there may be more tools to address this pandemic, but that’s really the best advice for now,” Dr. Al-Aly says.

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

We all have friends or relatives who, somehow, have managed to avoid catching COVID-19, which has infected more than 91.5 million Americans. You may even be one of the lucky ones yourself.

But health experts are saying: Not so fast. A mounting pile of scientific evidence suggests millions of Americans have been infected with the virus without ever even knowing it because they didn’t have symptoms or had mild cases they mistook for a cold or allergies.

The upshot: These silent COVID-19 cases reflect a hidden side of the pandemic that may be helping to drive new surges and viral variants.

Still, infectious disease experts say there is little doubt that some people have indeed managed to avoid COVID-19 infection altogether, and they are trying to understand why.

Several recent studies have suggested certain genetic and immune system traits may better protect this group of people against the coronavirus, making them less likely than others to be infected or seriously sickened. Researchers around the world are now studying these seemingly super-immune people for clues to what makes them so special, with an eye toward better vaccines, treatments, and prevention strategies.

Infectious disease specialists say both types of cases – those unknowingly infected by COVID-19 and people who’ve avoided the virus altogether – matter greatly to public health, more than 2 years into the pandemic.

“It’s definitely true that some people have had COVID and don’t realize it,” says Stephen Kissler, PhD, an infectious disease researcher with the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston. “It is potentially good news if there’s more immunity in the population than we realize.”

But he says that being able to identify genetic and other factors that may offer some people protection against COVID-19 is an “exciting prospect” that could help find out who’s most at risk and improve efforts to get the pandemic under control.

Some studies have found a person’s genetic profile, past exposure to other COVID-like viruses, allergies, and even drugs they take for other conditions may all provide some defense – even for people who have not been vaccinated, don’t use masks, or don’t practice social distancing.

A person’s medical history and genetics may help decide their risk from new diseases, meaning “we may be able to help identify people who are at especially high risk from infection,” Dr. Kissler says. “That knowledge could help those people better shield themselves from infection and get quicker access to treatment and vaccines, if necessary. … We don’t yet know, but studies are ongoing for these things.”

Amesh Adalja, MD, an infectious disease specialist with the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, Baltimore, agrees that emerging research on people who’ve avoided infection offers the chance of new public health strategies to combat COVID-19.

“I’m sure there is some subset of people who are [COVID] negative,” he says. “So what explains that phenomenon, especially if that person was out there getting significant exposures?”
 

Have you had COVID without knowing it?

In a media briefing late last month, White House COVID-19 Response Coordinator Ashish Jha, MD, said more than 70% of the U.S. population has had the virus, according to the latest CDC data. That’s up from 33.5% in December.

But the actual number of people in the U.S. who have been infected with SARS-CoV-2, the scientific name for the virus that causes COVID-19, is likely to be much higher due to cases without symptoms that are unreported, experts say.

Since the early days of the pandemic, researchers have tried to put a number on these hidden cases, but that figure has been evolving and a clear consensus has not emerged.

In September 2020, a study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine said “approximately 40% to 45% of those infected with SARS-CoV-2 will remain asymptomatic.”

A follow-up analysis of 95 studies, published last December, reached similar findings, estimating that more than 40% of COVID-19 infections didn’t come with symptoms.

To get a better handle on the issue, CDC officials have been working with the American Red Cross and other blood banks to track COVID-19 antibodies – proteins your body makes after exposure to the virus to fight off an infection – in donors who said they have never had COVID-19.

While that joint effort is still ongoing, early findings say the number of donors with antibodies from COVID-19 infection increased in blood donors from 3.5% in July 2020 to at least 20.2% in May 2021. Since then, those percentages have soared, in part due to the introduction of vaccines, which also make the body produce COVID-19 antibodies.

The most current findings show that 83.3% of donors have combined COVID infection– and vaccine-induced antibodies in their blood. Those findings are based on 1.4 million blood donations.

Health experts say all of these studies are strong evidence that many COVID-19 cases continue to go undetected. In fact, the University of Washington Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation estimates that only 7% of positive COVID-19 cases in the U.S. are being detected. That means case rates are actually 14.5 times higher than the official count of 131,000 new COVID infections each day, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which reports the virus is still killing about 440 Americans daily.

So, why is all this important, in terms of public health?

Experts say people are more likely to be cautious if they know COVID-19 cases are high where they live, work, and play. On the other hand, if they believe case rates in their communities are lower than they actually are, they may be less likely to get vaccinated and boosted, wear masks indoors, avoid crowded indoor spaces, and take other precautions to fend off infection.
 

How do some avoid infection altogether?

In addition to tracking cases that go unreported and don’t have symptoms, infectious disease experts have also been trying to figure out why some people have managed to avoid getting the highly contagious virus.

Several leading lines of research have produced promising early results – suggesting that a person’s genetic makeup, past exposure to less-lethal coronaviruses, allergies, and even certain drugs they take for other conditions may all provide at least some protection against COVID.

“Our study showed that there are many human genes – hundreds of genes – that can impact SARS-CoV-2 infection,” says Neville Sanjana, PhD, a geneticist at New York University and the New York Genome Center who co-led the study. “With a better understanding of host genetic factors, we can find new kinds of therapies that target these host factors to block infection.”

In addition, he says several studies show some drugs that regulate genes, such as the breast cancer drug tamoxifen, also appear to knock down COVID-19 risk. He suggests such drugs, already approved by the Food and Drug Administration, might be “repurposed” to target the virus.

Studies in other countries show that patients taking tamoxifen before the pandemic were protected against severe COVID-19, Dr. Sanjana says. “That was a really cool thing, highlighting the power of harnessing host genetics. The virus critically depends on our genes to complete key parts of its life cycle.”

The NYU research findings echo other studies that have been published in recent months.

In July, a team of researchers led by the National Cancer Institute identified a genetic factor that appears to determine how severe an infection will be. In a study involving 3,000 people, they found that two gene changes, or mutations, that decrease the expression of a gene called OAS1 boosted the risk of hospitalization from COVID-19. OAS1 is part of the immune system’s response to viral infections.

As a result, developing a genetic therapy designed to increase the OAS1 gene’s expression might reduce the risk of severe disease.

“It’s very natural to get infected once you are exposed. There’s no magic bullet for that. But after you get infected, how you’re going to respond to this infection, that’s what is going to be affected by your genetic variants,” said Ludmila Prokunina-Olsson, PhD, the study’s lead researcher and chief of the National Cancer Institute’s Laboratory of Translational Genomics, Bethesda, Md., in an interview with NBC News.

Benjamin tenOever, PhD, a New York University virologist who co-authored the 2020 research, says the new genetic research is promising, but he believes it’s unlikely scientists will be able to identify a single gene responsible for actually preventing a COVID-19 infection.

“On the flip side, we have identified many genes that makes the disease worse,” he says.
 

T cells ‘remember’ past viral infections

As Dr. tenOever and Dr. Sanjana suggest, another intriguing line of research has found that prior viral infections may prime the body’s immune system to fight COVID-19.

Four other common coronaviruses – aside from SARS-CoV-2 – infect people worldwide, typically causing mild to moderate upper respiratory illnesses like the common cold, says Alessandro Sette, PhD, an infectious disease expert and vaccine researcher with the La Jolla (Calif.) Institute for Immunology.

In a recent study published in Science, he and his team found past infection with these other coronaviruses may give some protection against SARS-CoV-2.

T cells – white blood cells that act like immunological ninjas to ferret out and fight infections – appear to maintain a kind of “biological memory” of coronaviruses they have seen before and can mount an attack on similar pathogens, such SARS-CoV-2, Dr. Sette says.

The new work builds on a prior research he helped lead that found 40%-60% of people never exposed to SARS-CoV-2 had T cells that reacted to the virus – with their immune systems recognizing fragments of a virus they had never seen before.

Dr. Sette says his research shows that people whose T cells have this “preexisting memory” of past coronavirus exposures also tend to respond better to vaccination for reasons not yet well understood.

“The question is, at which point will there be enough immunity from vaccination, repeated infections from other coronaviruses, but also some of the variants of the SARS-CoV-2 … where infections become less frequent? We’re not there yet,” he says.

In addition to these exciting genetic and T-cell findings, other research has suggested low-grade inflammation from allergies – a key part of the body’s immune response to foreign substances – may also give some people an extra leg up, in terms of avoiding COVID infection.

Last May, a study of 1,400 households published in The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology found that having a food allergy cut the risk of COVID-19 infection in half.

The researchers said it’s unclear why allergies may reduce the risk of infection, but they noted that people with food allergies express fewer ACE2 receptors on the surface of their airway cells, making it harder for the virus to enter cells.
 

The big picture: Prevention still your best bet

So, what’s the takeaway from all of this emerging research?

New York University’s Dr. tenOever says that while genes, T cells and allergies may offer some protection against COVID, tried-and-true precautions – vaccination, wearing masks, avoiding crowded indoor spaces, and social distancing – are likely to provide a greater defense.

He believes these precautions are likely why he and his family have never contracted COVID-19.

“I was tested weekly, as were my kids at school,” he says. “We definitely never got COVID, despite the fact that we live in New York City and I worked in a hospital every single day of the pandemic.”

Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, an infectious disease specialist and director of clinical epidemiology at Washington University in St. Louis, agrees that the new research on COVID-19 is intriguing but won’t likely result in practical changes in the approach to fighting the virus in the near term.

“Getting a deeper understanding of potential genetic factors or other characteristics – that could really help us understand why the virus just comes and goes without any ill effects in some people, and in other people it produces really serious disease,” he says. “That will really help us eventually to design better vaccines to prevent it or reduce severity or even [treat] people who get severe disease.”

In the meantime, Dr. Al-Aly says, “it’s still best to do everything you can to avoid infection in the first place – even if you’re vaccinated or previously infected, you should really try to avoid reinfection.”

That means sit outside if you can when visiting a restaurant. Wear a mask on a plane, even though it’s not required. And get vaccinated and boosted.

“In the future, there may be more tools to address this pandemic, but that’s really the best advice for now,” Dr. Al-Aly says.

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

Scientists have found three types of long COVID, which have their own symptoms and seem to appear across several coronavirus variants, according to a new preprint study published on MedRxiv that hasn’t yet been peer-reviewed.

Long COVID has been hard to define due to its large number of symptoms, but researchers at King’s College London have identified three distinct profiles – with long-term symptoms focused on neurological, respiratory, or physical conditions. So far, they also found patterns among people infected with the original coronavirus strain, the Alpha variant, and the Delta variant.

“These data show clearly that post-COVID syndrome is not just one condition but appears to have several subtypes,” Claire Steves, PhD, one of the study authors and a senior clinical lecturer in King’s College London’s School of Life Course & Population Sciences, said in a statement.

“Understanding the root causes of these subtypes may help in finding treatment strategies,” she said. “Moreover, these data emphasize the need for long-COVID services to incorporate a personalized approach sensitive to the issues of each individual.”

The research team analyzed ZOE COVID app data for 1,459 people who have had symptoms for more than 84 days, or 12 weeks, according to their definition of long COVID or post-COVID syndrome.

They found that the largest group had a cluster of symptoms in the nervous system, such as fatigue, brain fog, and headaches. It was the most common subtype among the Alpha variant, which was dominant in winter 2020-2021, and the Delta variant, which was dominant in 2021.

The second group had respiratory symptoms, such as chest pain and severe shortness of breath, which could suggest lung damage, the researchers wrote. It was the largest cluster for the original coronavirus strain in spring 2020, when people were unvaccinated.

The third group included people who reported a diverse range of physical symptoms, including heart palpitations, muscle aches and pain, and changes to their skin and hair. This group had some of the “most severe and debilitating multi-organ symptoms,” the researchers wrote.

The researchers found that the subtypes were similar in vaccinated and unvaccinated people based on the variants investigated so far. But the data showed that the risk of long COVID was reduced by vaccination.

In addition, although the three subtypes were present in all the variants, other symptom clusters had subtle differences among the variants, such as symptoms in the stomach and intestines. The differences could be due to other things that changed during the pandemic, such as the time of year, social behaviors, and treatments, the researchers said.

“Machine learning approaches, such as clustering analysis, have made it possible to start exploring and identifying different profiles of post-COVID syndrome,” Marc Modat, PhD, who led the analysis and is a senior lecturer at King’s College London’s School of Biomedical Engineering & Imaging Sciences, said in the statement.

“This opens new avenues of research to better understand COVID-19 and to motivate clinical research that might mitigate the long-term effects of the disease,” he said.

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

Scientists have found three types of long COVID, which have their own symptoms and seem to appear across several coronavirus variants, according to a new preprint study published on MedRxiv that hasn’t yet been peer-reviewed.

Long COVID has been hard to define due to its large number of symptoms, but researchers at King’s College London have identified three distinct profiles – with long-term symptoms focused on neurological, respiratory, or physical conditions. So far, they also found patterns among people infected with the original coronavirus strain, the Alpha variant, and the Delta variant.

“These data show clearly that post-COVID syndrome is not just one condition but appears to have several subtypes,” Claire Steves, PhD, one of the study authors and a senior clinical lecturer in King’s College London’s School of Life Course & Population Sciences, said in a statement.

“Understanding the root causes of these subtypes may help in finding treatment strategies,” she said. “Moreover, these data emphasize the need for long-COVID services to incorporate a personalized approach sensitive to the issues of each individual.”

The research team analyzed ZOE COVID app data for 1,459 people who have had symptoms for more than 84 days, or 12 weeks, according to their definition of long COVID or post-COVID syndrome.

They found that the largest group had a cluster of symptoms in the nervous system, such as fatigue, brain fog, and headaches. It was the most common subtype among the Alpha variant, which was dominant in winter 2020-2021, and the Delta variant, which was dominant in 2021.

The second group had respiratory symptoms, such as chest pain and severe shortness of breath, which could suggest lung damage, the researchers wrote. It was the largest cluster for the original coronavirus strain in spring 2020, when people were unvaccinated.

The third group included people who reported a diverse range of physical symptoms, including heart palpitations, muscle aches and pain, and changes to their skin and hair. This group had some of the “most severe and debilitating multi-organ symptoms,” the researchers wrote.

The researchers found that the subtypes were similar in vaccinated and unvaccinated people based on the variants investigated so far. But the data showed that the risk of long COVID was reduced by vaccination.

In addition, although the three subtypes were present in all the variants, other symptom clusters had subtle differences among the variants, such as symptoms in the stomach and intestines. The differences could be due to other things that changed during the pandemic, such as the time of year, social behaviors, and treatments, the researchers said.

“Machine learning approaches, such as clustering analysis, have made it possible to start exploring and identifying different profiles of post-COVID syndrome,” Marc Modat, PhD, who led the analysis and is a senior lecturer at King’s College London’s School of Biomedical Engineering & Imaging Sciences, said in the statement.

“This opens new avenues of research to better understand COVID-19 and to motivate clinical research that might mitigate the long-term effects of the disease,” he said.

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

Scientists have found three types of long COVID, which have their own symptoms and seem to appear across several coronavirus variants, according to a new preprint study published on MedRxiv that hasn’t yet been peer-reviewed.

Long COVID has been hard to define due to its large number of symptoms, but researchers at King’s College London have identified three distinct profiles – with long-term symptoms focused on neurological, respiratory, or physical conditions. So far, they also found patterns among people infected with the original coronavirus strain, the Alpha variant, and the Delta variant.

“These data show clearly that post-COVID syndrome is not just one condition but appears to have several subtypes,” Claire Steves, PhD, one of the study authors and a senior clinical lecturer in King’s College London’s School of Life Course & Population Sciences, said in a statement.

“Understanding the root causes of these subtypes may help in finding treatment strategies,” she said. “Moreover, these data emphasize the need for long-COVID services to incorporate a personalized approach sensitive to the issues of each individual.”

The research team analyzed ZOE COVID app data for 1,459 people who have had symptoms for more than 84 days, or 12 weeks, according to their definition of long COVID or post-COVID syndrome.

They found that the largest group had a cluster of symptoms in the nervous system, such as fatigue, brain fog, and headaches. It was the most common subtype among the Alpha variant, which was dominant in winter 2020-2021, and the Delta variant, which was dominant in 2021.

The second group had respiratory symptoms, such as chest pain and severe shortness of breath, which could suggest lung damage, the researchers wrote. It was the largest cluster for the original coronavirus strain in spring 2020, when people were unvaccinated.

The third group included people who reported a diverse range of physical symptoms, including heart palpitations, muscle aches and pain, and changes to their skin and hair. This group had some of the “most severe and debilitating multi-organ symptoms,” the researchers wrote.

The researchers found that the subtypes were similar in vaccinated and unvaccinated people based on the variants investigated so far. But the data showed that the risk of long COVID was reduced by vaccination.

In addition, although the three subtypes were present in all the variants, other symptom clusters had subtle differences among the variants, such as symptoms in the stomach and intestines. The differences could be due to other things that changed during the pandemic, such as the time of year, social behaviors, and treatments, the researchers said.

“Machine learning approaches, such as clustering analysis, have made it possible to start exploring and identifying different profiles of post-COVID syndrome,” Marc Modat, PhD, who led the analysis and is a senior lecturer at King’s College London’s School of Biomedical Engineering & Imaging Sciences, said in the statement.

“This opens new avenues of research to better understand COVID-19 and to motivate clinical research that might mitigate the long-term effects of the disease,” he said.

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

As I prepared to write my monthly column, I came across the statistic that 23% of physicians and 40% of nurses plan to leave their practices in the next 2 years.¹

Interestingly, the group that seems to be least impacted by this was health care administrators (with 12% of them planning on leaving their jobs).

I couldn’t stop thinking about these percentages.

I am reminded every day of the commitment and excellence of my colleagues in the health care field, and I do not want to lose them. I am hoping the following information and my thoughts on this topic will be helpful for those thinking about leaving health care.
 

Surgeon general’s burnout report

The surgeon general recently released a report on addressing health care worker burnout.² It includes several very interesting and appropriate observations. I will summarize the most important ones here:

1. Our health depends on the well-being of our health workforce.

2. Direct harm to health care workers can lead to anxiety, depression, insomnia, and interpersonal and relationship struggles.

3. Health care workers experience exhaustion from providing overwhelming care and empathy.

4. Health care workers spend less time with patients and too much time with EHRs.

5. There are health workforce shortages.

The report is comprehensive, and everything in it is correct. The real issue is how does it go from being a report to true actionable items that we as health care professionals benefit from? I think in regards to exhaustion from overwhelming care responsibilities, and empathy fatigue, we need better boundaries.

Those who go into medicine, and especially those who go into primary care, always put the patients’ needs first. When operating in a broken system, it stays broken when individuals cover for the deficiencies in the system. Adding four extra patients every day because there is no one to refer them to with availability is injurious to the health care provider, and those providers who accept these additional patients will eventually be part of the 23% who want to leave their jobs. It feels awful to say no, but until the system stops accommodating there will not be substantial change.
 

The empathy drain

One of the unreported stresses of open access for patients through EHR communications is the empathy drain on physicians. When I see a patient in clinic with chronic symptoms or issues, I spend important time making sure we have a plan and an agreed upon time frame.

With the EHR, patients frequently send multiple messages for the same symptoms between visits. It is okay to redirect the patient and share that these issues will be discussed at length at appointments. My reasoning on this is that I think it is better for me to better care for myself and stay as the doctor for my patients, than always say yes to limitless needs and soon be looking for the off ramp.

The following statistic in the surgeon general’s report really hit home. For every hour of direct patient care, physicians currently spend 2 hours on the EHR system. Most practices allow 10%-20% of time for catch up, where with statistics like this it should be 50%. This concept is fully lost on administrators, or ignored.

It is only when we refuse to continue to accept and follow a broken system that it will change. A minority of internal medicine and family doctors (4.5% in 2018) practice in direct primary care models, where these issues are addressed. Unfortunately, this model as it is currently available is not an option for lower income patients.

A major theme in the surgeon general’s report was that administrative burdens need to be reduced by 75% by 2025. When I look at the report, I see the suggestions, I just don’t see how it will be achieved. Despite almost all clinics moving to the EHR, paperwork in the form of faxes and forms has increased.

A sweeping reform would be needed to eliminate daily faxes from PT offices, visiting nurse services, prior authorization, patients reminders from insurance companies, and disability forms from patients. I am glad that there is acknowledgment of the problem, but this change will take more than 3 years.
 

Takeaways

So what do we do?

Be good to yourself, and your colleagues. The pandemic has isolated us, which accelerates burnout.

Reach out to people you care about.

We are all feeling this. Set boundaries that allow you to care for yourself, and accept that you are doing your best, even if you can’t meet the needs of all your patients all the time.
 

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Dr. Paauw has no conflicts to disclose. Contact him at [email protected].

References

1. Sinsky CA et al. Covid-related stress and work intentions in a sample of US health care workers. Mayo Clin Proc Innov Qual Outcomes. 2021 Dec;5(6):1165-73.

2. Addressing health worker burnout. The U.S. Surgeon General’s advisory on building a thriving health workforce.

As I prepared to write my monthly column, I came across the statistic that 23% of physicians and 40% of nurses plan to leave their practices in the next 2 years.¹

Interestingly, the group that seems to be least impacted by this was health care administrators (with 12% of them planning on leaving their jobs).

I couldn’t stop thinking about these percentages.

I am reminded every day of the commitment and excellence of my colleagues in the health care field, and I do not want to lose them. I am hoping the following information and my thoughts on this topic will be helpful for those thinking about leaving health care.
 

Surgeon general’s burnout report

The surgeon general recently released a report on addressing health care worker burnout.² It includes several very interesting and appropriate observations. I will summarize the most important ones here:

1. Our health depends on the well-being of our health workforce.

2. Direct harm to health care workers can lead to anxiety, depression, insomnia, and interpersonal and relationship struggles.

3. Health care workers experience exhaustion from providing overwhelming care and empathy.

4. Health care workers spend less time with patients and too much time with EHRs.

5. There are health workforce shortages.

The report is comprehensive, and everything in it is correct. The real issue is how does it go from being a report to true actionable items that we as health care professionals benefit from? I think in regards to exhaustion from overwhelming care responsibilities, and empathy fatigue, we need better boundaries.

Those who go into medicine, and especially those who go into primary care, always put the patients’ needs first. When operating in a broken system, it stays broken when individuals cover for the deficiencies in the system. Adding four extra patients every day because there is no one to refer them to with availability is injurious to the health care provider, and those providers who accept these additional patients will eventually be part of the 23% who want to leave their jobs. It feels awful to say no, but until the system stops accommodating there will not be substantial change.
 

The empathy drain

One of the unreported stresses of open access for patients through EHR communications is the empathy drain on physicians. When I see a patient in clinic with chronic symptoms or issues, I spend important time making sure we have a plan and an agreed upon time frame.

With the EHR, patients frequently send multiple messages for the same symptoms between visits. It is okay to redirect the patient and share that these issues will be discussed at length at appointments. My reasoning on this is that I think it is better for me to better care for myself and stay as the doctor for my patients, than always say yes to limitless needs and soon be looking for the off ramp.

The following statistic in the surgeon general’s report really hit home. For every hour of direct patient care, physicians currently spend 2 hours on the EHR system. Most practices allow 10%-20% of time for catch up, where with statistics like this it should be 50%. This concept is fully lost on administrators, or ignored.

It is only when we refuse to continue to accept and follow a broken system that it will change. A minority of internal medicine and family doctors (4.5% in 2018) practice in direct primary care models, where these issues are addressed. Unfortunately, this model as it is currently available is not an option for lower income patients.

A major theme in the surgeon general’s report was that administrative burdens need to be reduced by 75% by 2025. When I look at the report, I see the suggestions, I just don’t see how it will be achieved. Despite almost all clinics moving to the EHR, paperwork in the form of faxes and forms has increased.

A sweeping reform would be needed to eliminate daily faxes from PT offices, visiting nurse services, prior authorization, patients reminders from insurance companies, and disability forms from patients. I am glad that there is acknowledgment of the problem, but this change will take more than 3 years.
 

Takeaways

So what do we do?

Be good to yourself, and your colleagues. The pandemic has isolated us, which accelerates burnout.

Reach out to people you care about.

We are all feeling this. Set boundaries that allow you to care for yourself, and accept that you are doing your best, even if you can’t meet the needs of all your patients all the time.
 

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Dr. Paauw has no conflicts to disclose. Contact him at [email protected].

References

1. Sinsky CA et al. Covid-related stress and work intentions in a sample of US health care workers. Mayo Clin Proc Innov Qual Outcomes. 2021 Dec;5(6):1165-73.

2. Addressing health worker burnout. The U.S. Surgeon General’s advisory on building a thriving health workforce.

As I prepared to write my monthly column, I came across the statistic that 23% of physicians and 40% of nurses plan to leave their practices in the next 2 years.¹

Interestingly, the group that seems to be least impacted by this was health care administrators (with 12% of them planning on leaving their jobs).

I couldn’t stop thinking about these percentages.

I am reminded every day of the commitment and excellence of my colleagues in the health care field, and I do not want to lose them. I am hoping the following information and my thoughts on this topic will be helpful for those thinking about leaving health care.
 

Surgeon general’s burnout report

The surgeon general recently released a report on addressing health care worker burnout.² It includes several very interesting and appropriate observations. I will summarize the most important ones here:

1. Our health depends on the well-being of our health workforce.

2. Direct harm to health care workers can lead to anxiety, depression, insomnia, and interpersonal and relationship struggles.

3. Health care workers experience exhaustion from providing overwhelming care and empathy.

4. Health care workers spend less time with patients and too much time with EHRs.

5. There are health workforce shortages.

The report is comprehensive, and everything in it is correct. The real issue is how does it go from being a report to true actionable items that we as health care professionals benefit from? I think in regards to exhaustion from overwhelming care responsibilities, and empathy fatigue, we need better boundaries.

Those who go into medicine, and especially those who go into primary care, always put the patients’ needs first. When operating in a broken system, it stays broken when individuals cover for the deficiencies in the system. Adding four extra patients every day because there is no one to refer them to with availability is injurious to the health care provider, and those providers who accept these additional patients will eventually be part of the 23% who want to leave their jobs. It feels awful to say no, but until the system stops accommodating there will not be substantial change.
 

The empathy drain

One of the unreported stresses of open access for patients through EHR communications is the empathy drain on physicians. When I see a patient in clinic with chronic symptoms or issues, I spend important time making sure we have a plan and an agreed upon time frame.

With the EHR, patients frequently send multiple messages for the same symptoms between visits. It is okay to redirect the patient and share that these issues will be discussed at length at appointments. My reasoning on this is that I think it is better for me to better care for myself and stay as the doctor for my patients, than always say yes to limitless needs and soon be looking for the off ramp.

The following statistic in the surgeon general’s report really hit home. For every hour of direct patient care, physicians currently spend 2 hours on the EHR system. Most practices allow 10%-20% of time for catch up, where with statistics like this it should be 50%. This concept is fully lost on administrators, or ignored.

It is only when we refuse to continue to accept and follow a broken system that it will change. A minority of internal medicine and family doctors (4.5% in 2018) practice in direct primary care models, where these issues are addressed. Unfortunately, this model as it is currently available is not an option for lower income patients.

A major theme in the surgeon general’s report was that administrative burdens need to be reduced by 75% by 2025. When I look at the report, I see the suggestions, I just don’t see how it will be achieved. Despite almost all clinics moving to the EHR, paperwork in the form of faxes and forms has increased.

A sweeping reform would be needed to eliminate daily faxes from PT offices, visiting nurse services, prior authorization, patients reminders from insurance companies, and disability forms from patients. I am glad that there is acknowledgment of the problem, but this change will take more than 3 years.
 

Takeaways

So what do we do?

Be good to yourself, and your colleagues. The pandemic has isolated us, which accelerates burnout.

Reach out to people you care about.

We are all feeling this. Set boundaries that allow you to care for yourself, and accept that you are doing your best, even if you can’t meet the needs of all your patients all the time.
 

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Dr. Paauw has no conflicts to disclose. Contact him at [email protected].

References

1. Sinsky CA et al. Covid-related stress and work intentions in a sample of US health care workers. Mayo Clin Proc Innov Qual Outcomes. 2021 Dec;5(6):1165-73.

2. Addressing health worker burnout. The U.S. Surgeon General’s advisory on building a thriving health workforce.

People lost a “clinically meaningful” percentage of body weight 12 weeks after starting a fully automated online program developed by researchers at Brown University.

Primary care doctors offered the free obesity treatment program during routine care. Each week, people reported weight changes and activity and calorie consumption; attended online lessons; and received personalized feedback.

The 464 people who took part for at least 1 week lost an average of 5% of their body weight. And those who followed the plan all 12 weeks lost an average of 7%.

The researchers point out this short-term weight loss was achieved without any face-to-face counseling, which can limit weight management in busy primary care settings.

“Obesity is a highly stigmatized condition,” says lead investigator J. Graham Thomas, PhD.

People take part in the Rx Weight Loss program in the privacy of their own homes. He says this not only makes it more convenient but could be an advantage for people who feel uncomfortable managing their weight around others.

Ideally, health care providers could offer the online program as an opportunity to patients “as opposed to something punitive,” says Dr. Thomas, a researcher at the Weight Control and Diabetes Research Center at Miriam Hospital in Providence, R.I.

The study was published online in the journal Obesity.

In three previous controlled clinical trials led by the same research team, the weight-loss program was linked to average weight losses of 4.2% to 5.8%. In the current study, the researchers were not directly involved, and Dr. Thomas says he was encouraged that the doctor-led initiative led to similar results.
 

About 11 pounds lost

Patients were offered the program during routine care by doctors in the Rhode Island Primary Care Physicians Corporation, which includes 100 doctors at 60 sites. To be eligible, people had to be 18-75 years old, have Internet access, be fluent in English, and have a body mass index (BMI) of 25 kg/m² or greater.

The average age of the people in the study was 53, 70% were women, and the average BMI was 36.2.

A BMI of 25 or above means you are overweight, while those with a BMI of 30 or higher are considered obese.

The average 5.1% decrease in body weight at 12 weeks translated to just more than 11 pounds of average weight loss.
 

‘Very encouraging’

The results of the study are “very encouraging,” says Gareth R. Dutton, PhD, who was not affiliated with the study.

Previous strategies had limits, he says.

“Fully automated interventions that have no staff contact with participants often achieve modest weight loss,” says Dr. Dutton, a professor of medicine and investigator in the Nutrition Obesity Research Center at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

Weight-loss programs recommended by primary care doctors have often performed even worse, he says.

“Weight-loss interventions delivered through primary care are challenging because of many barriers, including limited resources and time,” says Dr. Dutton, who is also lead investigator of a study that aims to enroll 400 primary care patients to compare daily self-weighing with standard care.

Letting doctors and their staff refer patients to an evidence-based weight-loss program has great potential, he says.
 

Looking to improve uptake

The Rx Weight Loss program was offered to 1,721 primary care patients overall.

When asked why only 26% of people offered the program agreed to participate, Dr. Thomas replied, “No matter how good the program is, it’s just never going to be the right time for a lot of people to add this to their lives, particularly given the last couple of years where folks are experiencing a lot of challenges and a lot of stressors.”

“Even though it’s an online program, addressing obesity always involves making substantial changes to eating and activity patterns,” he said.
 

Future steps

The investigators plan to look into ways to get more people to take part in the program.

It is not yet available for widespread use by others, but that’s the goal. Dr. Thomas said they learned ways during the study to make the fully automated, online program easier for others to adopt.

Measuring any effect on weight loss at 1 year is the primary aim of the study. “I think we expect to find something similar to what we see in previous studies, which is that a certain amount of weight regain will be the norm” at 1 year, Dr. Thomas said.

“But a certain amount of weight loss and associated health benefits will persist, making it worthwhile even if, on average, some gradual regain occurs.”A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

People lost a “clinically meaningful” percentage of body weight 12 weeks after starting a fully automated online program developed by researchers at Brown University.

Primary care doctors offered the free obesity treatment program during routine care. Each week, people reported weight changes and activity and calorie consumption; attended online lessons; and received personalized feedback.

The 464 people who took part for at least 1 week lost an average of 5% of their body weight. And those who followed the plan all 12 weeks lost an average of 7%.

The researchers point out this short-term weight loss was achieved without any face-to-face counseling, which can limit weight management in busy primary care settings.

“Obesity is a highly stigmatized condition,” says lead investigator J. Graham Thomas, PhD.

People take part in the Rx Weight Loss program in the privacy of their own homes. He says this not only makes it more convenient but could be an advantage for people who feel uncomfortable managing their weight around others.

Ideally, health care providers could offer the online program as an opportunity to patients “as opposed to something punitive,” says Dr. Thomas, a researcher at the Weight Control and Diabetes Research Center at Miriam Hospital in Providence, R.I.

The study was published online in the journal Obesity.

In three previous controlled clinical trials led by the same research team, the weight-loss program was linked to average weight losses of 4.2% to 5.8%. In the current study, the researchers were not directly involved, and Dr. Thomas says he was encouraged that the doctor-led initiative led to similar results.
 

About 11 pounds lost

Patients were offered the program during routine care by doctors in the Rhode Island Primary Care Physicians Corporation, which includes 100 doctors at 60 sites. To be eligible, people had to be 18-75 years old, have Internet access, be fluent in English, and have a body mass index (BMI) of 25 kg/m² or greater.

The average age of the people in the study was 53, 70% were women, and the average BMI was 36.2.

A BMI of 25 or above means you are overweight, while those with a BMI of 30 or higher are considered obese.

The average 5.1% decrease in body weight at 12 weeks translated to just more than 11 pounds of average weight loss.
 

‘Very encouraging’

The results of the study are “very encouraging,” says Gareth R. Dutton, PhD, who was not affiliated with the study.

Previous strategies had limits, he says.

“Fully automated interventions that have no staff contact with participants often achieve modest weight loss,” says Dr. Dutton, a professor of medicine and investigator in the Nutrition Obesity Research Center at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

Weight-loss programs recommended by primary care doctors have often performed even worse, he says.

“Weight-loss interventions delivered through primary care are challenging because of many barriers, including limited resources and time,” says Dr. Dutton, who is also lead investigator of a study that aims to enroll 400 primary care patients to compare daily self-weighing with standard care.

Letting doctors and their staff refer patients to an evidence-based weight-loss program has great potential, he says.
 

Looking to improve uptake

The Rx Weight Loss program was offered to 1,721 primary care patients overall.

When asked why only 26% of people offered the program agreed to participate, Dr. Thomas replied, “No matter how good the program is, it’s just never going to be the right time for a lot of people to add this to their lives, particularly given the last couple of years where folks are experiencing a lot of challenges and a lot of stressors.”

“Even though it’s an online program, addressing obesity always involves making substantial changes to eating and activity patterns,” he said.
 

Future steps

The investigators plan to look into ways to get more people to take part in the program.

It is not yet available for widespread use by others, but that’s the goal. Dr. Thomas said they learned ways during the study to make the fully automated, online program easier for others to adopt.

Measuring any effect on weight loss at 1 year is the primary aim of the study. “I think we expect to find something similar to what we see in previous studies, which is that a certain amount of weight regain will be the norm” at 1 year, Dr. Thomas said.

“But a certain amount of weight loss and associated health benefits will persist, making it worthwhile even if, on average, some gradual regain occurs.”A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

People lost a “clinically meaningful” percentage of body weight 12 weeks after starting a fully automated online program developed by researchers at Brown University.

Primary care doctors offered the free obesity treatment program during routine care. Each week, people reported weight changes and activity and calorie consumption; attended online lessons; and received personalized feedback.

The 464 people who took part for at least 1 week lost an average of 5% of their body weight. And those who followed the plan all 12 weeks lost an average of 7%.

The researchers point out this short-term weight loss was achieved without any face-to-face counseling, which can limit weight management in busy primary care settings.

“Obesity is a highly stigmatized condition,” says lead investigator J. Graham Thomas, PhD.

People take part in the Rx Weight Loss program in the privacy of their own homes. He says this not only makes it more convenient but could be an advantage for people who feel uncomfortable managing their weight around others.

Ideally, health care providers could offer the online program as an opportunity to patients “as opposed to something punitive,” says Dr. Thomas, a researcher at the Weight Control and Diabetes Research Center at Miriam Hospital in Providence, R.I.

The study was published online in the journal Obesity.

In three previous controlled clinical trials led by the same research team, the weight-loss program was linked to average weight losses of 4.2% to 5.8%. In the current study, the researchers were not directly involved, and Dr. Thomas says he was encouraged that the doctor-led initiative led to similar results.
 

About 11 pounds lost

Patients were offered the program during routine care by doctors in the Rhode Island Primary Care Physicians Corporation, which includes 100 doctors at 60 sites. To be eligible, people had to be 18-75 years old, have Internet access, be fluent in English, and have a body mass index (BMI) of 25 kg/m² or greater.

The average age of the people in the study was 53, 70% were women, and the average BMI was 36.2.

A BMI of 25 or above means you are overweight, while those with a BMI of 30 or higher are considered obese.

The average 5.1% decrease in body weight at 12 weeks translated to just more than 11 pounds of average weight loss.
 

‘Very encouraging’

The results of the study are “very encouraging,” says Gareth R. Dutton, PhD, who was not affiliated with the study.

Previous strategies had limits, he says.

“Fully automated interventions that have no staff contact with participants often achieve modest weight loss,” says Dr. Dutton, a professor of medicine and investigator in the Nutrition Obesity Research Center at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

Weight-loss programs recommended by primary care doctors have often performed even worse, he says.

“Weight-loss interventions delivered through primary care are challenging because of many barriers, including limited resources and time,” says Dr. Dutton, who is also lead investigator of a study that aims to enroll 400 primary care patients to compare daily self-weighing with standard care.

Letting doctors and their staff refer patients to an evidence-based weight-loss program has great potential, he says.
 

Looking to improve uptake

The Rx Weight Loss program was offered to 1,721 primary care patients overall.

When asked why only 26% of people offered the program agreed to participate, Dr. Thomas replied, “No matter how good the program is, it’s just never going to be the right time for a lot of people to add this to their lives, particularly given the last couple of years where folks are experiencing a lot of challenges and a lot of stressors.”

“Even though it’s an online program, addressing obesity always involves making substantial changes to eating and activity patterns,” he said.
 

Future steps

The investigators plan to look into ways to get more people to take part in the program.

It is not yet available for widespread use by others, but that’s the goal. Dr. Thomas said they learned ways during the study to make the fully automated, online program easier for others to adopt.

Measuring any effect on weight loss at 1 year is the primary aim of the study. “I think we expect to find something similar to what we see in previous studies, which is that a certain amount of weight regain will be the norm” at 1 year, Dr. Thomas said.

“But a certain amount of weight loss and associated health benefits will persist, making it worthwhile even if, on average, some gradual regain occurs.”A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Gynecologic and obstetric health care needs of transgender and gender-diverse adults, including fertility preservation, ending masculinizing hormones in pregnancy, and support for “chest-feeding” are proposed in a novel draft guideline issued by the U.K.’s Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.

The draft Green-top Guideline on Care of Trans and Gender Diverse Adults in Obstetrics and Gynaecology is open for consultation and comment until Sept. 6. It aims to address the specific needs of transgender and gender-diverse individuals that, according to the guideline, are currently not consistently included in specialist training programs or in continuing professional development.

With a rise in the number of people seeking to transition, obstetricians and gynecologists are seeing more transgender and gender-diverse patients. Phil Rolland, MD, consultant gynecological oncologist from Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cheltenham, and member of the guideline committee, said that, “It is highly likely that if an obstetrician or gynaecologist hasn’t already consulted or treated a trans or gender-diverse patient then it is only a matter of time before they do.”

He stressed the importance of ensuring inclusivity in obstetric and gynecologic care. “We know that trans people are more likely to have poor experiences when accessing health care, and we can do better.”

The U.K.-based guideline follows a similar document from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, put in place in March 2021, as reported by this news organization. It called for greater “awareness, knowledge, and sensitivity” in caring for these patients and noted that “bias from health care professionals leads to inadequate access to, underuse of, and inequities within the health care system for transgender patients.”
 

Guideline addresses fertility preservation, obstetric care, and more

Regarding fertility preservation, discussions around protecting future options should be held before endocrine interventions and/or gender-affirming genital or pelvic surgery procedures, says the guideline. In addition, gynecologic problems that can be experienced need to be explained.

The guideline also addresses obstetric care, advising that trans men on long-acting masculinizing hormone therapy should stop therapy 3 months prior to conception. People who conceive while taking masculinizing hormone therapy should discontinue the therapy as soon as possible.

Birth mode should be discussed with all trans men who plan to conceive, ideally at a prepregnancy counseling appointment, but at minimum, before the third trimester. Choice of feeding manner should also be addressed in the antenatal period, with trans men who wish to chest feed offered chest-feeding support, similar to that given to cis women.

The RCOG guideline comes in the wake of the U.K. government’s new Women’s Health Strategy for England, released in July, which notes that trans men (with female reproductive organs) should be able to access screening services for cervical and breast cancer, a position upheld by the RCOG guideline.

Other key recommendations include that obstetricians and gynecologists, when approached by transgender and gender-diverse people to help with identity-related issues, should liaise with gender-identity specialist services to provide appropriate care.
 

Removing bias, providing affirming care

Asha Kasliwal, MD, consultant in Community Gynaecology and Reproductive Health Care, Manchester, England, and president of the Faculty of Sexual and Reproductive Healthcare, also reflected on how transgender and gender-diverse people often feel uncomfortable accessing care, which could lead to, “many people failing to seek or continue health care because of concerns over how they will be treated,” adding that there were associated reports of poor clinical outcomes.

She highlighted that the draft guideline pointed out the importance of language during consultation with transgender and gender-diverse people, noting that “misuse of language, and particularly deliberate misuse of language associated with the sex assigned at birth (misgendering), may cause profound offence.”

Dr. Kasliwal cited the example of “using the correct pronouns when addressing someone and receiving any information about a person’s gender diversity neutrally and nonjudgementally.”

Edward Morris, MD, president of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, acknowledged that trans and gender-diverse individuals say they often feel judged and misunderstood by the health service. “This can act as a barrier for them when it comes to accessing vital care, and we as health care professionals have a role to play in making them feel listened to and recognized.”

“This draft guideline is our first attempt to ensure we are providing personalised care for all our patients,” said Dr. Morris. “We welcome feedback on this draft to ensure the guideline is the best as it can be for clinicians and the trans and gender-diverse individuals who use our services.”

The draft guideline as peer-review draft, Care of Trans and Gender Diverse Adults in Obstetrics and Gynaecology is available on the RCOG website. Consultation is open until Sept. 6, 2022.

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

Gynecologic and obstetric health care needs of transgender and gender-diverse adults, including fertility preservation, ending masculinizing hormones in pregnancy, and support for “chest-feeding” are proposed in a novel draft guideline issued by the U.K.’s Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.

The draft Green-top Guideline on Care of Trans and Gender Diverse Adults in Obstetrics and Gynaecology is open for consultation and comment until Sept. 6. It aims to address the specific needs of transgender and gender-diverse individuals that, according to the guideline, are currently not consistently included in specialist training programs or in continuing professional development.

With a rise in the number of people seeking to transition, obstetricians and gynecologists are seeing more transgender and gender-diverse patients. Phil Rolland, MD, consultant gynecological oncologist from Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cheltenham, and member of the guideline committee, said that, “It is highly likely that if an obstetrician or gynaecologist hasn’t already consulted or treated a trans or gender-diverse patient then it is only a matter of time before they do.”

He stressed the importance of ensuring inclusivity in obstetric and gynecologic care. “We know that trans people are more likely to have poor experiences when accessing health care, and we can do better.”

The U.K.-based guideline follows a similar document from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, put in place in March 2021, as reported by this news organization. It called for greater “awareness, knowledge, and sensitivity” in caring for these patients and noted that “bias from health care professionals leads to inadequate access to, underuse of, and inequities within the health care system for transgender patients.”
 

Guideline addresses fertility preservation, obstetric care, and more

Regarding fertility preservation, discussions around protecting future options should be held before endocrine interventions and/or gender-affirming genital or pelvic surgery procedures, says the guideline. In addition, gynecologic problems that can be experienced need to be explained.

The guideline also addresses obstetric care, advising that trans men on long-acting masculinizing hormone therapy should stop therapy 3 months prior to conception. People who conceive while taking masculinizing hormone therapy should discontinue the therapy as soon as possible.

Birth mode should be discussed with all trans men who plan to conceive, ideally at a prepregnancy counseling appointment, but at minimum, before the third trimester. Choice of feeding manner should also be addressed in the antenatal period, with trans men who wish to chest feed offered chest-feeding support, similar to that given to cis women.

The RCOG guideline comes in the wake of the U.K. government’s new Women’s Health Strategy for England, released in July, which notes that trans men (with female reproductive organs) should be able to access screening services for cervical and breast cancer, a position upheld by the RCOG guideline.

Other key recommendations include that obstetricians and gynecologists, when approached by transgender and gender-diverse people to help with identity-related issues, should liaise with gender-identity specialist services to provide appropriate care.
 

Removing bias, providing affirming care

Asha Kasliwal, MD, consultant in Community Gynaecology and Reproductive Health Care, Manchester, England, and president of the Faculty of Sexual and Reproductive Healthcare, also reflected on how transgender and gender-diverse people often feel uncomfortable accessing care, which could lead to, “many people failing to seek or continue health care because of concerns over how they will be treated,” adding that there were associated reports of poor clinical outcomes.

She highlighted that the draft guideline pointed out the importance of language during consultation with transgender and gender-diverse people, noting that “misuse of language, and particularly deliberate misuse of language associated with the sex assigned at birth (misgendering), may cause profound offence.”

Dr. Kasliwal cited the example of “using the correct pronouns when addressing someone and receiving any information about a person’s gender diversity neutrally and nonjudgementally.”

Edward Morris, MD, president of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, acknowledged that trans and gender-diverse individuals say they often feel judged and misunderstood by the health service. “This can act as a barrier for them when it comes to accessing vital care, and we as health care professionals have a role to play in making them feel listened to and recognized.”

“This draft guideline is our first attempt to ensure we are providing personalised care for all our patients,” said Dr. Morris. “We welcome feedback on this draft to ensure the guideline is the best as it can be for clinicians and the trans and gender-diverse individuals who use our services.”

The draft guideline as peer-review draft, Care of Trans and Gender Diverse Adults in Obstetrics and Gynaecology is available on the RCOG website. Consultation is open until Sept. 6, 2022.

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

Gynecologic and obstetric health care needs of transgender and gender-diverse adults, including fertility preservation, ending masculinizing hormones in pregnancy, and support for “chest-feeding” are proposed in a novel draft guideline issued by the U.K.’s Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.

The draft Green-top Guideline on Care of Trans and Gender Diverse Adults in Obstetrics and Gynaecology is open for consultation and comment until Sept. 6. It aims to address the specific needs of transgender and gender-diverse individuals that, according to the guideline, are currently not consistently included in specialist training programs or in continuing professional development.

With a rise in the number of people seeking to transition, obstetricians and gynecologists are seeing more transgender and gender-diverse patients. Phil Rolland, MD, consultant gynecological oncologist from Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cheltenham, and member of the guideline committee, said that, “It is highly likely that if an obstetrician or gynaecologist hasn’t already consulted or treated a trans or gender-diverse patient then it is only a matter of time before they do.”

He stressed the importance of ensuring inclusivity in obstetric and gynecologic care. “We know that trans people are more likely to have poor experiences when accessing health care, and we can do better.”

The U.K.-based guideline follows a similar document from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, put in place in March 2021, as reported by this news organization. It called for greater “awareness, knowledge, and sensitivity” in caring for these patients and noted that “bias from health care professionals leads to inadequate access to, underuse of, and inequities within the health care system for transgender patients.”
 

Guideline addresses fertility preservation, obstetric care, and more

Regarding fertility preservation, discussions around protecting future options should be held before endocrine interventions and/or gender-affirming genital or pelvic surgery procedures, says the guideline. In addition, gynecologic problems that can be experienced need to be explained.

The guideline also addresses obstetric care, advising that trans men on long-acting masculinizing hormone therapy should stop therapy 3 months prior to conception. People who conceive while taking masculinizing hormone therapy should discontinue the therapy as soon as possible.

Birth mode should be discussed with all trans men who plan to conceive, ideally at a prepregnancy counseling appointment, but at minimum, before the third trimester. Choice of feeding manner should also be addressed in the antenatal period, with trans men who wish to chest feed offered chest-feeding support, similar to that given to cis women.

The RCOG guideline comes in the wake of the U.K. government’s new Women’s Health Strategy for England, released in July, which notes that trans men (with female reproductive organs) should be able to access screening services for cervical and breast cancer, a position upheld by the RCOG guideline.

Other key recommendations include that obstetricians and gynecologists, when approached by transgender and gender-diverse people to help with identity-related issues, should liaise with gender-identity specialist services to provide appropriate care.
 

Removing bias, providing affirming care

Asha Kasliwal, MD, consultant in Community Gynaecology and Reproductive Health Care, Manchester, England, and president of the Faculty of Sexual and Reproductive Healthcare, also reflected on how transgender and gender-diverse people often feel uncomfortable accessing care, which could lead to, “many people failing to seek or continue health care because of concerns over how they will be treated,” adding that there were associated reports of poor clinical outcomes.

She highlighted that the draft guideline pointed out the importance of language during consultation with transgender and gender-diverse people, noting that “misuse of language, and particularly deliberate misuse of language associated with the sex assigned at birth (misgendering), may cause profound offence.”

Dr. Kasliwal cited the example of “using the correct pronouns when addressing someone and receiving any information about a person’s gender diversity neutrally and nonjudgementally.”

Edward Morris, MD, president of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, acknowledged that trans and gender-diverse individuals say they often feel judged and misunderstood by the health service. “This can act as a barrier for them when it comes to accessing vital care, and we as health care professionals have a role to play in making them feel listened to and recognized.”

“This draft guideline is our first attempt to ensure we are providing personalised care for all our patients,” said Dr. Morris. “We welcome feedback on this draft to ensure the guideline is the best as it can be for clinicians and the trans and gender-diverse individuals who use our services.”

The draft guideline as peer-review draft, Care of Trans and Gender Diverse Adults in Obstetrics and Gynaecology is available on the RCOG website. Consultation is open until Sept. 6, 2022.

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

Lipoprotein(a) has long been thought to be a potential marker of aortic valve disease, and the population-based Rotterdam Study in the Netherlands has reported that Lp(a) has a strong association with new-onset aortic valve calcium (AVC), but not necessarily with progression of aortic valve disease.

Reporting in the European Heart Journal, the study authors analyzed data on 922 participants in the Rotterdam Study whose Lp(a) was measured along with a computed tomography scan upon enrollment, followed by CT scan 14 years later. At baseline, 702 participants didn’t have AVC, but the follow-up scan identified new-onset AVC in 415 (59.1%).

The investigators found an association between Lp(a) concentration and baseline AVC, with an odds ratio of 1.43 for each 50 mg/dL higher Lp(a) (95% confidence interval, 1.15-1.79), as well as new-onset AVC, with an OR of 1.30 for each 50 mg/dL increase in Lp(a) (95% CI, 1.02-1.65). However, the study found no association between rising Lp(a) levels and AVC progression; it found only an association between baseline AVC score and progression (P < .001).
 

‘Trigger’ for calcification but not progression

“This suggests that Lp(a) is an important trigger in the initiation of aortic valve calcification, but once the valve is calcified, disease progression may be primarily driven by other factors such as the baseline calcium burden of the valve and likely other unknown factors,” senior study author Daniel Bos, MD, PhD, said in e-mailed comments.

Dr. Bos and coauthors claim this is the first study to show that even minor AVC progresses independently of Lp(a).

“There are previous studies that showed a possible relationship between Lp(a) [and] progression of aortic valve calcium,” he said. “Our study suggests that the most meaningful benefit of Lp(a) lowering may actually be prior to the onset of aortic valve calcification.”

While no treatments have been approved for lowering Lp(a), the study findings could be meaningful if trials, including the ongoing phase 3 Lp(a) HORIZON trial of the investigational antisense agent pelacarsen (NCT04023552), show promising results, Dr. Bos said. Citing Lp(a) HORIZON, he said, “If the study shows Lp(a) lowering leads to a reduction in incident cardiovascular disease, similar strategies may be applied to prevent, rather than slow down, progression of aortic valve calcification.”

Dr. Bos called the Rotterdam Study results “an important first pointer into that direction.” He added, “We will need randomized trials to provide a definitive answer to the question whether Lp(a) lowering may prevent aortic valve calcium.”

Focus on AVC is study ‘weakness’

The study findings raise a key question for clinical trials of investigative Lp(a)-lowering therapies as well as how to use those therapies to treat aortic valve disease, said Christie Ballantyne, MD, chief of cardiology at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston.

The findings could be “problematic” for these clinical trials, he said. “This study is just looking at calcium progression,” Dr. Ballantyne noted. “What we want to know about clinically is the progression to aortic stenosis, and then in particular to progression from mild disease to moderate or severe disease, because once you get into more severe disease, one has to do an intervention with either surgery or TAVR [transcatheter aortic valve replacement].”

He considered the study’s focus on AVC rather than aortic valve function a weakness and noted that only 14 study participants had TAVR. “We’re going to need much bigger numbers to look into this question of progression, including progression to severe diseases,” he said.

However, the Rotterdam Study showed the importance of CT in evaluating AVC, which can easily be done in other trials to further explore the association between Lp(a) and AVC, Dr. Ballantyne said.

Dr. Bos has no relevant disclosures. Study coauthors disclosed relationships with Amgen, Sanofi, Reservlogix, Athera, Experio, Novartis and Ionis Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Ballantyne disclosed relationships with Amgen and Novartis.

Lipoprotein(a) has long been thought to be a potential marker of aortic valve disease, and the population-based Rotterdam Study in the Netherlands has reported that Lp(a) has a strong association with new-onset aortic valve calcium (AVC), but not necessarily with progression of aortic valve disease.

Reporting in the European Heart Journal, the study authors analyzed data on 922 participants in the Rotterdam Study whose Lp(a) was measured along with a computed tomography scan upon enrollment, followed by CT scan 14 years later. At baseline, 702 participants didn’t have AVC, but the follow-up scan identified new-onset AVC in 415 (59.1%).

The investigators found an association between Lp(a) concentration and baseline AVC, with an odds ratio of 1.43 for each 50 mg/dL higher Lp(a) (95% confidence interval, 1.15-1.79), as well as new-onset AVC, with an OR of 1.30 for each 50 mg/dL increase in Lp(a) (95% CI, 1.02-1.65). However, the study found no association between rising Lp(a) levels and AVC progression; it found only an association between baseline AVC score and progression (P < .001).
 

‘Trigger’ for calcification but not progression

“This suggests that Lp(a) is an important trigger in the initiation of aortic valve calcification, but once the valve is calcified, disease progression may be primarily driven by other factors such as the baseline calcium burden of the valve and likely other unknown factors,” senior study author Daniel Bos, MD, PhD, said in e-mailed comments.

Dr. Bos and coauthors claim this is the first study to show that even minor AVC progresses independently of Lp(a).

“There are previous studies that showed a possible relationship between Lp(a) [and] progression of aortic valve calcium,” he said. “Our study suggests that the most meaningful benefit of Lp(a) lowering may actually be prior to the onset of aortic valve calcification.”

While no treatments have been approved for lowering Lp(a), the study findings could be meaningful if trials, including the ongoing phase 3 Lp(a) HORIZON trial of the investigational antisense agent pelacarsen (NCT04023552), show promising results, Dr. Bos said. Citing Lp(a) HORIZON, he said, “If the study shows Lp(a) lowering leads to a reduction in incident cardiovascular disease, similar strategies may be applied to prevent, rather than slow down, progression of aortic valve calcification.”

Dr. Bos called the Rotterdam Study results “an important first pointer into that direction.” He added, “We will need randomized trials to provide a definitive answer to the question whether Lp(a) lowering may prevent aortic valve calcium.”

Focus on AVC is study ‘weakness’

The study findings raise a key question for clinical trials of investigative Lp(a)-lowering therapies as well as how to use those therapies to treat aortic valve disease, said Christie Ballantyne, MD, chief of cardiology at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston.

The findings could be “problematic” for these clinical trials, he said. “This study is just looking at calcium progression,” Dr. Ballantyne noted. “What we want to know about clinically is the progression to aortic stenosis, and then in particular to progression from mild disease to moderate or severe disease, because once you get into more severe disease, one has to do an intervention with either surgery or TAVR [transcatheter aortic valve replacement].”

He considered the study’s focus on AVC rather than aortic valve function a weakness and noted that only 14 study participants had TAVR. “We’re going to need much bigger numbers to look into this question of progression, including progression to severe diseases,” he said.

However, the Rotterdam Study showed the importance of CT in evaluating AVC, which can easily be done in other trials to further explore the association between Lp(a) and AVC, Dr. Ballantyne said.

Dr. Bos has no relevant disclosures. Study coauthors disclosed relationships with Amgen, Sanofi, Reservlogix, Athera, Experio, Novartis and Ionis Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Ballantyne disclosed relationships with Amgen and Novartis.

Lipoprotein(a) has long been thought to be a potential marker of aortic valve disease, and the population-based Rotterdam Study in the Netherlands has reported that Lp(a) has a strong association with new-onset aortic valve calcium (AVC), but not necessarily with progression of aortic valve disease.

Reporting in the European Heart Journal, the study authors analyzed data on 922 participants in the Rotterdam Study whose Lp(a) was measured along with a computed tomography scan upon enrollment, followed by CT scan 14 years later. At baseline, 702 participants didn’t have AVC, but the follow-up scan identified new-onset AVC in 415 (59.1%).

The investigators found an association between Lp(a) concentration and baseline AVC, with an odds ratio of 1.43 for each 50 mg/dL higher Lp(a) (95% confidence interval, 1.15-1.79), as well as new-onset AVC, with an OR of 1.30 for each 50 mg/dL increase in Lp(a) (95% CI, 1.02-1.65). However, the study found no association between rising Lp(a) levels and AVC progression; it found only an association between baseline AVC score and progression (P < .001).
 

‘Trigger’ for calcification but not progression

“This suggests that Lp(a) is an important trigger in the initiation of aortic valve calcification, but once the valve is calcified, disease progression may be primarily driven by other factors such as the baseline calcium burden of the valve and likely other unknown factors,” senior study author Daniel Bos, MD, PhD, said in e-mailed comments.

Dr. Bos and coauthors claim this is the first study to show that even minor AVC progresses independently of Lp(a).

“There are previous studies that showed a possible relationship between Lp(a) [and] progression of aortic valve calcium,” he said. “Our study suggests that the most meaningful benefit of Lp(a) lowering may actually be prior to the onset of aortic valve calcification.”

While no treatments have been approved for lowering Lp(a), the study findings could be meaningful if trials, including the ongoing phase 3 Lp(a) HORIZON trial of the investigational antisense agent pelacarsen (NCT04023552), show promising results, Dr. Bos said. Citing Lp(a) HORIZON, he said, “If the study shows Lp(a) lowering leads to a reduction in incident cardiovascular disease, similar strategies may be applied to prevent, rather than slow down, progression of aortic valve calcification.”

Dr. Bos called the Rotterdam Study results “an important first pointer into that direction.” He added, “We will need randomized trials to provide a definitive answer to the question whether Lp(a) lowering may prevent aortic valve calcium.”

Focus on AVC is study ‘weakness’

The study findings raise a key question for clinical trials of investigative Lp(a)-lowering therapies as well as how to use those therapies to treat aortic valve disease, said Christie Ballantyne, MD, chief of cardiology at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston.

The findings could be “problematic” for these clinical trials, he said. “This study is just looking at calcium progression,” Dr. Ballantyne noted. “What we want to know about clinically is the progression to aortic stenosis, and then in particular to progression from mild disease to moderate or severe disease, because once you get into more severe disease, one has to do an intervention with either surgery or TAVR [transcatheter aortic valve replacement].”

He considered the study’s focus on AVC rather than aortic valve function a weakness and noted that only 14 study participants had TAVR. “We’re going to need much bigger numbers to look into this question of progression, including progression to severe diseases,” he said.

However, the Rotterdam Study showed the importance of CT in evaluating AVC, which can easily be done in other trials to further explore the association between Lp(a) and AVC, Dr. Ballantyne said.

Dr. Bos has no relevant disclosures. Study coauthors disclosed relationships with Amgen, Sanofi, Reservlogix, Athera, Experio, Novartis and Ionis Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Ballantyne disclosed relationships with Amgen and Novartis.

There was no significant increase in the post-COVID pandemic monthly rate of incident diabetes in children and youth in Ontario, compared with the pre-pandemic rate, in new research.

This contrasts with findings from a U.S. study and a German study, but this is “not the final word” about this possible association, lead author Rayzel Shulman, MD, admits, since the study may have been underpowered.

The population-based, cross-sectional study was published recently as a research letter in JAMA Open.

The researchers found a nonsignificant increase in the monthly rate of new diabetes during the first 18 months of the COVID-19 pandemic, compared with the 3 prior years (relative risk 1.09, 95% confidence interval).
 

New study contrasts with previous reports

This differs from a Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in which COVID-19 infection was associated with a significant increase in new onset of diabetes in children during March 2020 through June 2021, “although some experts have criticized the study methods and conclusion validity,” Dr. Shulman and colleagues write.

Another study, from Germany, reported a significant 1.15-fold increase in type 1 diabetes in children during the pandemic, they note.

The current study may have been underpowered and too small to show a significant association between COVID-19 and new diabetes, the researchers acknowledge. 

And the 1.30 upper limit of the confidence interval shows that it “cannot rule out a possible 1.3-fold increase” in relative risk of a diagnosis of diabetes related to COVID, Dr. Shulman explained to this news organization. 

It will be important to see how the rates have changed since September 2021 (the end of the current study), added Dr. Shulman, an adjunct scientist at the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (ICES) and a physician and scientist at the Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto.

The current study did find a decreased (delayed) rate of diagnosis of new diabetes during the first months of the pandemic when there were lockdowns, followed by a “catch-up” increase in rates later on, as has been reported earlier.

“Our study is definitely not the final word on this,” Dr. Shulman summarized in a statement from ICES. “However, our findings call into question whether a direct association between COVID-19 and new-onset diabetes in children exists.”
 

COVID-diabetes link?

The researchers analyzed health administrative data from January 2017 to September 2021.

They identified 2,700,178 children and youth in Ontario who were under age 18 in 2021, who had a mean age of 9.2, and about half were girls.

Between November 2020 and April 2021, an estimated 3.3% of children in Ontario had a SARS-COV-2 infection.

New diagnoses of diabetes in this age group are mostly type 1 diabetes, based on previous studies.

The rate of incident diabetes was 15%-32% lower during the first 3 months of the pandemic, March-May 2020 (1.67-2.34 cases per 100,000), compared with the pre-pandemic monthly rate during 2017, 2018, and 2019 (2.54-2.59 cases per 100,000).

The rate of incident diabetes was 33%-50% higher during February to July 2021 (3.48-4.18 cases per 100,000), compared with the pre-pandemic rate.

The pre-pandemic and pandemic monthly rates of incident diabetes were similar during the other months.

The group concludes: “The lack of both an observable increase in overall diabetes incidence among children during the 18-month pandemic restrictions [in this Ontario study] and a plausible biological mechanism call into question an association between COVID-19 and new-onset diabetes.”

More research is needed. “Given the variability in monthly [relative risks], additional population-based, longer-term data are needed to examine the direct and indirect effects of COVID-19 and diabetes risk among children,” the authors write.

This study was supported by ICES (which is funded by the Ontario Ministry of Health) and by a grant from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Dr. Shulman reported receiving fees from Dexcom outside the submitted work, and she and three other authors reported receiving grants from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research outside the submitted work.

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

There was no significant increase in the post-COVID pandemic monthly rate of incident diabetes in children and youth in Ontario, compared with the pre-pandemic rate, in new research.

This contrasts with findings from a U.S. study and a German study, but this is “not the final word” about this possible association, lead author Rayzel Shulman, MD, admits, since the study may have been underpowered.

The population-based, cross-sectional study was published recently as a research letter in JAMA Open.

The researchers found a nonsignificant increase in the monthly rate of new diabetes during the first 18 months of the COVID-19 pandemic, compared with the 3 prior years (relative risk 1.09, 95% confidence interval).
 

New study contrasts with previous reports

This differs from a Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in which COVID-19 infection was associated with a significant increase in new onset of diabetes in children during March 2020 through June 2021, “although some experts have criticized the study methods and conclusion validity,” Dr. Shulman and colleagues write.

Another study, from Germany, reported a significant 1.15-fold increase in type 1 diabetes in children during the pandemic, they note.

The current study may have been underpowered and too small to show a significant association between COVID-19 and new diabetes, the researchers acknowledge. 

And the 1.30 upper limit of the confidence interval shows that it “cannot rule out a possible 1.3-fold increase” in relative risk of a diagnosis of diabetes related to COVID, Dr. Shulman explained to this news organization. 

It will be important to see how the rates have changed since September 2021 (the end of the current study), added Dr. Shulman, an adjunct scientist at the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (ICES) and a physician and scientist at the Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto.

The current study did find a decreased (delayed) rate of diagnosis of new diabetes during the first months of the pandemic when there were lockdowns, followed by a “catch-up” increase in rates later on, as has been reported earlier.

“Our study is definitely not the final word on this,” Dr. Shulman summarized in a statement from ICES. “However, our findings call into question whether a direct association between COVID-19 and new-onset diabetes in children exists.”
 

COVID-diabetes link?

The researchers analyzed health administrative data from January 2017 to September 2021.

They identified 2,700,178 children and youth in Ontario who were under age 18 in 2021, who had a mean age of 9.2, and about half were girls.

Between November 2020 and April 2021, an estimated 3.3% of children in Ontario had a SARS-COV-2 infection.

New diagnoses of diabetes in this age group are mostly type 1 diabetes, based on previous studies.

The rate of incident diabetes was 15%-32% lower during the first 3 months of the pandemic, March-May 2020 (1.67-2.34 cases per 100,000), compared with the pre-pandemic monthly rate during 2017, 2018, and 2019 (2.54-2.59 cases per 100,000).

The rate of incident diabetes was 33%-50% higher during February to July 2021 (3.48-4.18 cases per 100,000), compared with the pre-pandemic rate.

The pre-pandemic and pandemic monthly rates of incident diabetes were similar during the other months.

The group concludes: “The lack of both an observable increase in overall diabetes incidence among children during the 18-month pandemic restrictions [in this Ontario study] and a plausible biological mechanism call into question an association between COVID-19 and new-onset diabetes.”

More research is needed. “Given the variability in monthly [relative risks], additional population-based, longer-term data are needed to examine the direct and indirect effects of COVID-19 and diabetes risk among children,” the authors write.

This study was supported by ICES (which is funded by the Ontario Ministry of Health) and by a grant from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Dr. Shulman reported receiving fees from Dexcom outside the submitted work, and she and three other authors reported receiving grants from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research outside the submitted work.

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

There was no significant increase in the post-COVID pandemic monthly rate of incident diabetes in children and youth in Ontario, compared with the pre-pandemic rate, in new research.

This contrasts with findings from a U.S. study and a German study, but this is “not the final word” about this possible association, lead author Rayzel Shulman, MD, admits, since the study may have been underpowered.

The population-based, cross-sectional study was published recently as a research letter in JAMA Open.

The researchers found a nonsignificant increase in the monthly rate of new diabetes during the first 18 months of the COVID-19 pandemic, compared with the 3 prior years (relative risk 1.09, 95% confidence interval).
 

New study contrasts with previous reports

This differs from a Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in which COVID-19 infection was associated with a significant increase in new onset of diabetes in children during March 2020 through June 2021, “although some experts have criticized the study methods and conclusion validity,” Dr. Shulman and colleagues write.

Another study, from Germany, reported a significant 1.15-fold increase in type 1 diabetes in children during the pandemic, they note.

The current study may have been underpowered and too small to show a significant association between COVID-19 and new diabetes, the researchers acknowledge. 

And the 1.30 upper limit of the confidence interval shows that it “cannot rule out a possible 1.3-fold increase” in relative risk of a diagnosis of diabetes related to COVID, Dr. Shulman explained to this news organization. 

It will be important to see how the rates have changed since September 2021 (the end of the current study), added Dr. Shulman, an adjunct scientist at the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (ICES) and a physician and scientist at the Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto.

The current study did find a decreased (delayed) rate of diagnosis of new diabetes during the first months of the pandemic when there were lockdowns, followed by a “catch-up” increase in rates later on, as has been reported earlier.

“Our study is definitely not the final word on this,” Dr. Shulman summarized in a statement from ICES. “However, our findings call into question whether a direct association between COVID-19 and new-onset diabetes in children exists.”
 

COVID-diabetes link?

The researchers analyzed health administrative data from January 2017 to September 2021.

They identified 2,700,178 children and youth in Ontario who were under age 18 in 2021, who had a mean age of 9.2, and about half were girls.

Between November 2020 and April 2021, an estimated 3.3% of children in Ontario had a SARS-COV-2 infection.

New diagnoses of diabetes in this age group are mostly type 1 diabetes, based on previous studies.

The rate of incident diabetes was 15%-32% lower during the first 3 months of the pandemic, March-May 2020 (1.67-2.34 cases per 100,000), compared with the pre-pandemic monthly rate during 2017, 2018, and 2019 (2.54-2.59 cases per 100,000).

The rate of incident diabetes was 33%-50% higher during February to July 2021 (3.48-4.18 cases per 100,000), compared with the pre-pandemic rate.

The pre-pandemic and pandemic monthly rates of incident diabetes were similar during the other months.

The group concludes: “The lack of both an observable increase in overall diabetes incidence among children during the 18-month pandemic restrictions [in this Ontario study] and a plausible biological mechanism call into question an association between COVID-19 and new-onset diabetes.”

More research is needed. “Given the variability in monthly [relative risks], additional population-based, longer-term data are needed to examine the direct and indirect effects of COVID-19 and diabetes risk among children,” the authors write.

This study was supported by ICES (which is funded by the Ontario Ministry of Health) and by a grant from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Dr. Shulman reported receiving fees from Dexcom outside the submitted work, and she and three other authors reported receiving grants from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research outside the submitted work.

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

Midlife women who are of normal weight or are overweight should routinely receive counseling aimed at limiting weight gain and preventing obesity and its associated health risks, a new clinical guideline states.

The recommendation, issued by the Women’s Preventive Services Initiative (WPSI) of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), supports regular lifestyle counseling for women aged 40-60 years with normal or overweight body mass index of 18.5-29.9 kg/m². Counseling could include individualized discussion of healthy eating and physical activity initiated by health professionals involved in preventive care.

Published online in Annals of Internal Medicine, the guideline addresses the prevalence and health burdens of obesity in U.S. women of middle age and seeks to reduce the known harms of obesity with an intervention of minimal anticipated harms. High BMI increases the risk for many chronic conditions including hypertension, dyslipidemia, type 2 diabetes, coronary artery disease, stroke, and all-cause mortality.

The best way to counsel, however, remains unclear. “Although the optimal approach could not be discerned from existing trials, a range of interventions of varying duration, frequency, and intensity showed benefit with potential clinical significance,” wrote the WPSI guideline panel, led by David P. Chelmow, MD, chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond.

The guideline rests on a systematic literature review led by family doctor Amy G. Cantor, MD, MPH, of the Pacific Northwest Evidence-based Practice Center, at Oregon Health & Science University in Portland, suggesting moderate reductions in weight could be achieved by offering advice to this age group.

The federally supported WPSI was launched by ACOG in 2016. The guideline fills a gap in current recommendations in that it targets a specific risk group and specifies individual counseling based on its effectiveness and applicability in primary care settings.

In another benefit of routine counseling, the panel stated, “Normalizing counseling about healthy diet and physical activity by providing it to all midlife women may also mitigate concerns about weight stigma resulting from only counseling women with obesity.”

The panelists noted that during 2017-2018, the prevalence of obesity (BMI ≥ 30.0 kg/m²) was 43.3% among U.S. women aged 40-59 years, while the prevalence of severe obesity (BMI ≥ 40.0 kg/m²) was highest in this age group at 11.5%. “Midlife women gain weight at an average of approximately 1.5 pounds per year, which increases their risk for transitioning from normal or overweight to obese BMI,” the panelists wrote.

The review

Dr. Cantor’s group analyzed seven randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published up to October 2021 from 12 publications involving 51,638 participants. Although the trials were largely small and heterogeneous, they suggested that counseling may result in modest differences in weight change without causing important harms.

Four RCTs showed significant favorable weight changes for counseling over no-counseling control groups, with a mean difference of 0.87 to 2.5 kg, whereas one trial of counseling and two trials of exercise showed no differences. One of two RCTs reported improved quality-of-life measures.

As for harms, while interventions did not increase measures of depression or stress in one trial, self-reported falls (37% vs. 29%, P < .001) and injuries (19% vs. 14%, P = .03) were more frequent with exercise counseling in one trial.

“More research is needed to determine optimal content, frequency, length, and number of sessions required and should include additional patient populations,” Dr. Cantor and associates wrote.

In terms of limitations, the authors acknowledged that trials of behavioral interventions in maintaining or reducing weight in midlife women demonstrate small magnitudes of effect.

Offering a nonparticipant’s perspective on the WPSI guideline for this news organization, JoAnn E. Manson, MD, DrPH, MACP, chief of the division of preventive medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, said its message is of prime importance for women of middle age and it goes beyond concern about pounds lost or gained.

“Midlife and the transition to menopause are high-risk periods for women in terms of typical changes in body composition that increase the risk of adverse cardiometabolic outcomes,” said Dr. Manson, professor of women’s health at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “Counseling women should be a priority for physicians in clinical practice. And it’s not just whether weight gain is reflected on the scales or not but whether there’s an increase in central abdominal fat, a decrease in lean muscle mass, and an increase in adverse glucose tolerance.”

It is essential for women to be vigilant at this time, she added, and their exercise regimens should include strength and resistance training to preserve lean muscle mass and boost metabolic rate. Dr. Manson’s group has issued several statements stressing how important it is for clinicians to take decisive action on the counseling front and how they can do this in very little time during routine practice.

Also in full support of the guideline is Mary L. Rosser, MD, PhD, assistant professor of women’s health in obstetrics and gynecology at Columbia University Irving Medical Center in New York. “Midlife is a wonderful opportunity to encourage patients to assess their overall health status and make changes to impact their future health. Women in middle age tend to experience weight gain due to a variety of factors including aging and lifestyle,” said Dr. Rosser, who was not involved in the writing of the review or guideline.

While aging and genetics cannot be altered, behaviors can, and in her view, favorable behaviors would also include stress reduction and adequate sleep.

“The importance of reducing obesity with early intervention and prevention must focus on all women,” Dr. Rosser said. “We must narrow the inequities gap in care especially for high-risk minority groups and underserved populations. This will reduce disease and death and provide women the gift of active living and feeling better.”

The WPSI authors have made available a summary of the review and guideline for patients.

The systematic review and clinical guideline were funded by the federal Health Resources and Services Administration through ACOG. The authors of the guideline and the review authors disclosed no relevant financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Manson and Dr. Rosser disclosed no relevant competing interests with regard to their comments.

Midlife women who are of normal weight or are overweight should routinely receive counseling aimed at limiting weight gain and preventing obesity and its associated health risks, a new clinical guideline states.

The recommendation, issued by the Women’s Preventive Services Initiative (WPSI) of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), supports regular lifestyle counseling for women aged 40-60 years with normal or overweight body mass index of 18.5-29.9 kg/m². Counseling could include individualized discussion of healthy eating and physical activity initiated by health professionals involved in preventive care.

Published online in Annals of Internal Medicine, the guideline addresses the prevalence and health burdens of obesity in U.S. women of middle age and seeks to reduce the known harms of obesity with an intervention of minimal anticipated harms. High BMI increases the risk for many chronic conditions including hypertension, dyslipidemia, type 2 diabetes, coronary artery disease, stroke, and all-cause mortality.

The best way to counsel, however, remains unclear. “Although the optimal approach could not be discerned from existing trials, a range of interventions of varying duration, frequency, and intensity showed benefit with potential clinical significance,” wrote the WPSI guideline panel, led by David P. Chelmow, MD, chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond.

The guideline rests on a systematic literature review led by family doctor Amy G. Cantor, MD, MPH, of the Pacific Northwest Evidence-based Practice Center, at Oregon Health & Science University in Portland, suggesting moderate reductions in weight could be achieved by offering advice to this age group.

The federally supported WPSI was launched by ACOG in 2016. The guideline fills a gap in current recommendations in that it targets a specific risk group and specifies individual counseling based on its effectiveness and applicability in primary care settings.

In another benefit of routine counseling, the panel stated, “Normalizing counseling about healthy diet and physical activity by providing it to all midlife women may also mitigate concerns about weight stigma resulting from only counseling women with obesity.”

The panelists noted that during 2017-2018, the prevalence of obesity (BMI ≥ 30.0 kg/m²) was 43.3% among U.S. women aged 40-59 years, while the prevalence of severe obesity (BMI ≥ 40.0 kg/m²) was highest in this age group at 11.5%. “Midlife women gain weight at an average of approximately 1.5 pounds per year, which increases their risk for transitioning from normal or overweight to obese BMI,” the panelists wrote.

The review

Dr. Cantor’s group analyzed seven randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published up to October 2021 from 12 publications involving 51,638 participants. Although the trials were largely small and heterogeneous, they suggested that counseling may result in modest differences in weight change without causing important harms.

Four RCTs showed significant favorable weight changes for counseling over no-counseling control groups, with a mean difference of 0.87 to 2.5 kg, whereas one trial of counseling and two trials of exercise showed no differences. One of two RCTs reported improved quality-of-life measures.

As for harms, while interventions did not increase measures of depression or stress in one trial, self-reported falls (37% vs. 29%, P < .001) and injuries (19% vs. 14%, P = .03) were more frequent with exercise counseling in one trial.

“More research is needed to determine optimal content, frequency, length, and number of sessions required and should include additional patient populations,” Dr. Cantor and associates wrote.

In terms of limitations, the authors acknowledged that trials of behavioral interventions in maintaining or reducing weight in midlife women demonstrate small magnitudes of effect.

Offering a nonparticipant’s perspective on the WPSI guideline for this news organization, JoAnn E. Manson, MD, DrPH, MACP, chief of the division of preventive medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, said its message is of prime importance for women of middle age and it goes beyond concern about pounds lost or gained.

“Midlife and the transition to menopause are high-risk periods for women in terms of typical changes in body composition that increase the risk of adverse cardiometabolic outcomes,” said Dr. Manson, professor of women’s health at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “Counseling women should be a priority for physicians in clinical practice. And it’s not just whether weight gain is reflected on the scales or not but whether there’s an increase in central abdominal fat, a decrease in lean muscle mass, and an increase in adverse glucose tolerance.”

It is essential for women to be vigilant at this time, she added, and their exercise regimens should include strength and resistance training to preserve lean muscle mass and boost metabolic rate. Dr. Manson’s group has issued several statements stressing how important it is for clinicians to take decisive action on the counseling front and how they can do this in very little time during routine practice.

Also in full support of the guideline is Mary L. Rosser, MD, PhD, assistant professor of women’s health in obstetrics and gynecology at Columbia University Irving Medical Center in New York. “Midlife is a wonderful opportunity to encourage patients to assess their overall health status and make changes to impact their future health. Women in middle age tend to experience weight gain due to a variety of factors including aging and lifestyle,” said Dr. Rosser, who was not involved in the writing of the review or guideline.

While aging and genetics cannot be altered, behaviors can, and in her view, favorable behaviors would also include stress reduction and adequate sleep.

“The importance of reducing obesity with early intervention and prevention must focus on all women,” Dr. Rosser said. “We must narrow the inequities gap in care especially for high-risk minority groups and underserved populations. This will reduce disease and death and provide women the gift of active living and feeling better.”

The WPSI authors have made available a summary of the review and guideline for patients.

The systematic review and clinical guideline were funded by the federal Health Resources and Services Administration through ACOG. The authors of the guideline and the review authors disclosed no relevant financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Manson and Dr. Rosser disclosed no relevant competing interests with regard to their comments.

Midlife women who are of normal weight or are overweight should routinely receive counseling aimed at limiting weight gain and preventing obesity and its associated health risks, a new clinical guideline states.

The recommendation, issued by the Women’s Preventive Services Initiative (WPSI) of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), supports regular lifestyle counseling for women aged 40-60 years with normal or overweight body mass index of 18.5-29.9 kg/m². Counseling could include individualized discussion of healthy eating and physical activity initiated by health professionals involved in preventive care.

Published online in Annals of Internal Medicine, the guideline addresses the prevalence and health burdens of obesity in U.S. women of middle age and seeks to reduce the known harms of obesity with an intervention of minimal anticipated harms. High BMI increases the risk for many chronic conditions including hypertension, dyslipidemia, type 2 diabetes, coronary artery disease, stroke, and all-cause mortality.

The best way to counsel, however, remains unclear. “Although the optimal approach could not be discerned from existing trials, a range of interventions of varying duration, frequency, and intensity showed benefit with potential clinical significance,” wrote the WPSI guideline panel, led by David P. Chelmow, MD, chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond.

The guideline rests on a systematic literature review led by family doctor Amy G. Cantor, MD, MPH, of the Pacific Northwest Evidence-based Practice Center, at Oregon Health & Science University in Portland, suggesting moderate reductions in weight could be achieved by offering advice to this age group.

The federally supported WPSI was launched by ACOG in 2016. The guideline fills a gap in current recommendations in that it targets a specific risk group and specifies individual counseling based on its effectiveness and applicability in primary care settings.

In another benefit of routine counseling, the panel stated, “Normalizing counseling about healthy diet and physical activity by providing it to all midlife women may also mitigate concerns about weight stigma resulting from only counseling women with obesity.”

The panelists noted that during 2017-2018, the prevalence of obesity (BMI ≥ 30.0 kg/m²) was 43.3% among U.S. women aged 40-59 years, while the prevalence of severe obesity (BMI ≥ 40.0 kg/m²) was highest in this age group at 11.5%. “Midlife women gain weight at an average of approximately 1.5 pounds per year, which increases their risk for transitioning from normal or overweight to obese BMI,” the panelists wrote.

The review

Dr. Cantor’s group analyzed seven randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published up to October 2021 from 12 publications involving 51,638 participants. Although the trials were largely small and heterogeneous, they suggested that counseling may result in modest differences in weight change without causing important harms.

Four RCTs showed significant favorable weight changes for counseling over no-counseling control groups, with a mean difference of 0.87 to 2.5 kg, whereas one trial of counseling and two trials of exercise showed no differences. One of two RCTs reported improved quality-of-life measures.

As for harms, while interventions did not increase measures of depression or stress in one trial, self-reported falls (37% vs. 29%, P < .001) and injuries (19% vs. 14%, P = .03) were more frequent with exercise counseling in one trial.

“More research is needed to determine optimal content, frequency, length, and number of sessions required and should include additional patient populations,” Dr. Cantor and associates wrote.

In terms of limitations, the authors acknowledged that trials of behavioral interventions in maintaining or reducing weight in midlife women demonstrate small magnitudes of effect.

Offering a nonparticipant’s perspective on the WPSI guideline for this news organization, JoAnn E. Manson, MD, DrPH, MACP, chief of the division of preventive medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, said its message is of prime importance for women of middle age and it goes beyond concern about pounds lost or gained.

“Midlife and the transition to menopause are high-risk periods for women in terms of typical changes in body composition that increase the risk of adverse cardiometabolic outcomes,” said Dr. Manson, professor of women’s health at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “Counseling women should be a priority for physicians in clinical practice. And it’s not just whether weight gain is reflected on the scales or not but whether there’s an increase in central abdominal fat, a decrease in lean muscle mass, and an increase in adverse glucose tolerance.”

It is essential for women to be vigilant at this time, she added, and their exercise regimens should include strength and resistance training to preserve lean muscle mass and boost metabolic rate. Dr. Manson’s group has issued several statements stressing how important it is for clinicians to take decisive action on the counseling front and how they can do this in very little time during routine practice.

Also in full support of the guideline is Mary L. Rosser, MD, PhD, assistant professor of women’s health in obstetrics and gynecology at Columbia University Irving Medical Center in New York. “Midlife is a wonderful opportunity to encourage patients to assess their overall health status and make changes to impact their future health. Women in middle age tend to experience weight gain due to a variety of factors including aging and lifestyle,” said Dr. Rosser, who was not involved in the writing of the review or guideline.

While aging and genetics cannot be altered, behaviors can, and in her view, favorable behaviors would also include stress reduction and adequate sleep.

“The importance of reducing obesity with early intervention and prevention must focus on all women,” Dr. Rosser said. “We must narrow the inequities gap in care especially for high-risk minority groups and underserved populations. This will reduce disease and death and provide women the gift of active living and feeling better.”

The WPSI authors have made available a summary of the review and guideline for patients.

The systematic review and clinical guideline were funded by the federal Health Resources and Services Administration through ACOG. The authors of the guideline and the review authors disclosed no relevant financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Manson and Dr. Rosser disclosed no relevant competing interests with regard to their comments.

More patients with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) achieved a low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol of less than 70 mg/dL, and fewer discontinued treatment with ezetimibe plus a moderate-dose statin, than did those on high-intensity statin monotherapy, a noninferiority trial shows.

While it’s now established that drug combinations can achieve better efficacy with lower risks than high-dose monotherapy, the study is the first to show the benefits of the strategy for ASCVD in a randomized trial with long-term follow-up.

The primary endpoint – 3-year composite of cardiovascular death, major cardiovascular events, or nonfatal stroke – occurred in about 9% of patients in each group, showing non-inferiority.

Furthermore, the authors suggest that ezetimibe combination therapy be considered earlier in the treatment of those at high risk of adverse events, rather than doubling the statin dose.

The study was published online  in The Lancet.
 

Less intolerance, less discontinuations

The open-label study, dubbed RACING, randomized 3,780 patients with ASCVD to receive moderate-intensity rosuvastatin 10 mg plus ezetimibe 10 mg or high-intensity 20 mg rosuvastatin monotherapy. Participants’ average age was 64 and 75% were men.

The primary endpoint occurred in 9.1% of patients in the combination therapy group and 9.9% in the high-intensity monotherapy group. The absolute between-group difference was −0.78% (90% confidence interval [CI], −2.39 to 0.83), well below the 2% noninferiority margin.

In the combination therapy group, LDL cholesterol concentrations of less than 70 mg/dL were achieved in 73% of patients at 1 year, 75% at 2 years, and 72% at 3 years. By contrast, in the monotherapy group, the lower concentrations were seen in 55% at 1 year, 60% at 2 years, and 58% at 3 years.

Further, a post hoc analysis showed LDL concentrations of less than 55 mg/dL at 1, 2, and 3 years in 42%, 45%, and 42% of patients in the combination therapy group versus 25%, 29%, and 25% of those in the high-intensity statin monotherapy group.

Eighty-eight patients (4.8%) on combination therapy discontinued medication or received a dose reduction, versus 150 patients (8.2%) on monotherapy.

Rates of myonecrosis were similar in the combination therapy and high-intensity statin groups (11 vs. 13), whereas myalgia was more common with high-intensity statins (29 vs. 17). The open-label design could have led to bias in reporting of patient symptoms, the authors noted. All clinical events, however, were adjudicated by an independent committee masked to treatment assignment.

There might be “some level of difference” when extending the findings to other populations because the trial involved only Koreans, coauthor Myeong-Ki Hong, MD, Yonsei University, Seoul, South Korea, acknowledged in response to a query from this news organization. He thinks the findings can be applied broadly nonetheless, and his team is currently investigating whether certain patients might benefit more than others from the combination.
 

Various options for patients

“The field of hypertension changed [its] guidelines almost 20 years ago to consider the initial use of combination therapy in hard-to-treat patients,” Christie Mitchell Ballantyne, MD, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, said in an interview. He coauthored an accompanying editorial with Baylor colleague Layla A. Abushamat, MD.

“We now have enough evidence of the efficacy and safety of combination therapy to consider early initiation of this approach in patients with challenging lipid disorders who are at increased risk of ASCVD events,” affirmed Dr. Ballantyne.

“This study reinforces important principles in the management and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease, namely that LDL reduction and associated risk reduction can be achieved in various ways,” said Daniel Muñoz, MD, MPA, executive medical director of the Vanderbilt Heart & Vascular Institute, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn.

However, he noted, “The high-intensity statin dose used as a comparator in this study was rosuvastatin 20 mg. In clinical practice, we often target maximally aggressive reduction of LDL via higher doses – that is, rosuvastatin 40 mg or atorvastatin 80 mg.”

The bottom line, said Dr. Muñoz, who was not involved in the study: “There are different ways to achieve LDL-lowering and associated risk reduction in patients with CVD. For patients who warrant but might not tolerate high-intensity statin therapy, this study supports the use of a moderate-intensity statin in combination with ezetimibe.”

The study was funded by Hanmi Pharmaceutical, Seoul, South Korea. One study coauthor received an institutional research grant from the company. No other authors reported relevant financial relationships, nor did Dr. Ballantyne, Dr. Abushamat, or Dr. Muñoz.

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

More patients with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) achieved a low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol of less than 70 mg/dL, and fewer discontinued treatment with ezetimibe plus a moderate-dose statin, than did those on high-intensity statin monotherapy, a noninferiority trial shows.

While it’s now established that drug combinations can achieve better efficacy with lower risks than high-dose monotherapy, the study is the first to show the benefits of the strategy for ASCVD in a randomized trial with long-term follow-up.

The primary endpoint – 3-year composite of cardiovascular death, major cardiovascular events, or nonfatal stroke – occurred in about 9% of patients in each group, showing non-inferiority.

Furthermore, the authors suggest that ezetimibe combination therapy be considered earlier in the treatment of those at high risk of adverse events, rather than doubling the statin dose.

The study was published online  in The Lancet.
 

Less intolerance, less discontinuations

The open-label study, dubbed RACING, randomized 3,780 patients with ASCVD to receive moderate-intensity rosuvastatin 10 mg plus ezetimibe 10 mg or high-intensity 20 mg rosuvastatin monotherapy. Participants’ average age was 64 and 75% were men.

The primary endpoint occurred in 9.1% of patients in the combination therapy group and 9.9% in the high-intensity monotherapy group. The absolute between-group difference was −0.78% (90% confidence interval [CI], −2.39 to 0.83), well below the 2% noninferiority margin.

In the combination therapy group, LDL cholesterol concentrations of less than 70 mg/dL were achieved in 73% of patients at 1 year, 75% at 2 years, and 72% at 3 years. By contrast, in the monotherapy group, the lower concentrations were seen in 55% at 1 year, 60% at 2 years, and 58% at 3 years.

Further, a post hoc analysis showed LDL concentrations of less than 55 mg/dL at 1, 2, and 3 years in 42%, 45%, and 42% of patients in the combination therapy group versus 25%, 29%, and 25% of those in the high-intensity statin monotherapy group.

Eighty-eight patients (4.8%) on combination therapy discontinued medication or received a dose reduction, versus 150 patients (8.2%) on monotherapy.

Rates of myonecrosis were similar in the combination therapy and high-intensity statin groups (11 vs. 13), whereas myalgia was more common with high-intensity statins (29 vs. 17). The open-label design could have led to bias in reporting of patient symptoms, the authors noted. All clinical events, however, were adjudicated by an independent committee masked to treatment assignment.

There might be “some level of difference” when extending the findings to other populations because the trial involved only Koreans, coauthor Myeong-Ki Hong, MD, Yonsei University, Seoul, South Korea, acknowledged in response to a query from this news organization. He thinks the findings can be applied broadly nonetheless, and his team is currently investigating whether certain patients might benefit more than others from the combination.
 

Various options for patients

“The field of hypertension changed [its] guidelines almost 20 years ago to consider the initial use of combination therapy in hard-to-treat patients,” Christie Mitchell Ballantyne, MD, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, said in an interview. He coauthored an accompanying editorial with Baylor colleague Layla A. Abushamat, MD.

“We now have enough evidence of the efficacy and safety of combination therapy to consider early initiation of this approach in patients with challenging lipid disorders who are at increased risk of ASCVD events,” affirmed Dr. Ballantyne.

“This study reinforces important principles in the management and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease, namely that LDL reduction and associated risk reduction can be achieved in various ways,” said Daniel Muñoz, MD, MPA, executive medical director of the Vanderbilt Heart & Vascular Institute, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn.

However, he noted, “The high-intensity statin dose used as a comparator in this study was rosuvastatin 20 mg. In clinical practice, we often target maximally aggressive reduction of LDL via higher doses – that is, rosuvastatin 40 mg or atorvastatin 80 mg.”

The bottom line, said Dr. Muñoz, who was not involved in the study: “There are different ways to achieve LDL-lowering and associated risk reduction in patients with CVD. For patients who warrant but might not tolerate high-intensity statin therapy, this study supports the use of a moderate-intensity statin in combination with ezetimibe.”

The study was funded by Hanmi Pharmaceutical, Seoul, South Korea. One study coauthor received an institutional research grant from the company. No other authors reported relevant financial relationships, nor did Dr. Ballantyne, Dr. Abushamat, or Dr. Muñoz.

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

More patients with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) achieved a low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol of less than 70 mg/dL, and fewer discontinued treatment with ezetimibe plus a moderate-dose statin, than did those on high-intensity statin monotherapy, a noninferiority trial shows.

While it’s now established that drug combinations can achieve better efficacy with lower risks than high-dose monotherapy, the study is the first to show the benefits of the strategy for ASCVD in a randomized trial with long-term follow-up.

The primary endpoint – 3-year composite of cardiovascular death, major cardiovascular events, or nonfatal stroke – occurred in about 9% of patients in each group, showing non-inferiority.

Furthermore, the authors suggest that ezetimibe combination therapy be considered earlier in the treatment of those at high risk of adverse events, rather than doubling the statin dose.

The study was published online  in The Lancet.
 

Less intolerance, less discontinuations

The open-label study, dubbed RACING, randomized 3,780 patients with ASCVD to receive moderate-intensity rosuvastatin 10 mg plus ezetimibe 10 mg or high-intensity 20 mg rosuvastatin monotherapy. Participants’ average age was 64 and 75% were men.

The primary endpoint occurred in 9.1% of patients in the combination therapy group and 9.9% in the high-intensity monotherapy group. The absolute between-group difference was −0.78% (90% confidence interval [CI], −2.39 to 0.83), well below the 2% noninferiority margin.

In the combination therapy group, LDL cholesterol concentrations of less than 70 mg/dL were achieved in 73% of patients at 1 year, 75% at 2 years, and 72% at 3 years. By contrast, in the monotherapy group, the lower concentrations were seen in 55% at 1 year, 60% at 2 years, and 58% at 3 years.

Further, a post hoc analysis showed LDL concentrations of less than 55 mg/dL at 1, 2, and 3 years in 42%, 45%, and 42% of patients in the combination therapy group versus 25%, 29%, and 25% of those in the high-intensity statin monotherapy group.

Eighty-eight patients (4.8%) on combination therapy discontinued medication or received a dose reduction, versus 150 patients (8.2%) on monotherapy.

Rates of myonecrosis were similar in the combination therapy and high-intensity statin groups (11 vs. 13), whereas myalgia was more common with high-intensity statins (29 vs. 17). The open-label design could have led to bias in reporting of patient symptoms, the authors noted. All clinical events, however, were adjudicated by an independent committee masked to treatment assignment.

There might be “some level of difference” when extending the findings to other populations because the trial involved only Koreans, coauthor Myeong-Ki Hong, MD, Yonsei University, Seoul, South Korea, acknowledged in response to a query from this news organization. He thinks the findings can be applied broadly nonetheless, and his team is currently investigating whether certain patients might benefit more than others from the combination.
 

Various options for patients

“The field of hypertension changed [its] guidelines almost 20 years ago to consider the initial use of combination therapy in hard-to-treat patients,” Christie Mitchell Ballantyne, MD, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, said in an interview. He coauthored an accompanying editorial with Baylor colleague Layla A. Abushamat, MD.

“We now have enough evidence of the efficacy and safety of combination therapy to consider early initiation of this approach in patients with challenging lipid disorders who are at increased risk of ASCVD events,” affirmed Dr. Ballantyne.

“This study reinforces important principles in the management and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease, namely that LDL reduction and associated risk reduction can be achieved in various ways,” said Daniel Muñoz, MD, MPA, executive medical director of the Vanderbilt Heart & Vascular Institute, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn.

However, he noted, “The high-intensity statin dose used as a comparator in this study was rosuvastatin 20 mg. In clinical practice, we often target maximally aggressive reduction of LDL via higher doses – that is, rosuvastatin 40 mg or atorvastatin 80 mg.”

The bottom line, said Dr. Muñoz, who was not involved in the study: “There are different ways to achieve LDL-lowering and associated risk reduction in patients with CVD. For patients who warrant but might not tolerate high-intensity statin therapy, this study supports the use of a moderate-intensity statin in combination with ezetimibe.”

The study was funded by Hanmi Pharmaceutical, Seoul, South Korea. One study coauthor received an institutional research grant from the company. No other authors reported relevant financial relationships, nor did Dr. Ballantyne, Dr. Abushamat, or Dr. Muñoz.

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