MDedge Endocrinology

Ongoing follow-up and lifestyle interventions are needed in lean patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), suggests a panel of experts in a recent review.

They also urge screening for NAFLD in individuals who are older than 40 years with type 2 diabetes, even if they are not overweight.

NAFLD is a leading cause of chronic liver disease that affects more than 25% of the United States and worldwide populations, note lead author Michelle T. Long, MD, Boston Medical Center, Boston University, and colleagues.

Evidence-based approaches

The 15 best practice advice statements covered a wide range of clinical areas, first defining lean as a body mass index (BMI) less than 25 in non-Asian persons and less than 23 in Asian persons.

The authors go on to stipulate, for example, that lean individuals in the general population should not be screened for NAFLD but that screening should be considered for individuals older than 40 years with type 2 diabetes.

More broadly, they write that the condition should be considered in lean individuals with metabolic diseases, such as type 2 diabetes, dyslipidemia, and hypertension, as well as elevated values on liver biochemical tests or incidentally noted hepatic steatosis.

After other causes of liver diseases are ruled out, the authors note that clinicians should consider liver biopsy as the reference test if uncertainties remain about liver injury causes and/or liver fibrosis staging.

They also write that the NAFLD fibrosis score and Fibrosis-4 score, along with imaging techniques, may be used as alternatives to biopsy for staging and during follow-up.

The authors, who provide a diagnosis and management algorithm to aid clinicians, suggest that lean patients with NAFLD follow lifestyle interventions, such as exercise, diet modification, and avoidance of fructose- and sugar-sweetened drinks, to achieve weight loss of 3%-5%.

Vitamin E may be considered, they continue, in patients with biopsy-confirmed nonalcoholic steatohepatitis but without type 2 diabetes or cirrhosis. Additionally, oral pioglitazone may be considered in lean persons with biopsy-confirmed nonalcoholic steatohepatitis without cirrhosis.

In contrast, they write that the role of glucagonlike peptide 1 agonists and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors requires further investigation.

The advice also says that lean patients with NAFLD should be routinely evaluated for comorbid conditions, such as type 2 diabetes, dyslipidemia, and hypertension, and risk-stratified for hepatic fibrosis to identify those with advanced fibrosis or cirrhosis.

For lean patients with NAFLD and clinical markers compatible with liver cirrhosis, twice-yearly surveillance for hepatocellular carcinoma is also advised.

Fatty liver disease in lean people with metabolic conditions

Approached for comment, Liyun Yuan, MD, PhD, assistant professor of clinical medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said it is very important to have uniform guidelines for general practitioners and other specialties on NAFLD in lean individuals.

Dr. Yuan, who was not involved in the review, told this news organization that it is crucial to raise awareness of NAFLD, just like awareness of breast cancer screening among women of a certain age was increased, so that individuals are screened for metabolic conditions regardless of whether they have obesity or overweight.

Zobair Younossi, MD, MPH, professor of medicine, Virginia Commonwealth University, Inova Campus, Falls Church, Va., added that there is a lack of awareness that NAFLD occurs in lean individuals, especially in those who have diabetes.

He said in an interview that although it is accurate to define individuals as being lean in terms of their BMI, the best way is to look not only at BMI but also at waist circumference.

Dr. Younossi said that he and his colleagues have shown that when BMI is combined with waist circumference, the prediction of mortality risk in NAFLD is affected, such that lean individuals with an obese waist circumference have a higher risk for all-cause mortality.

Dr. Long is supported in part by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, Gilead Sciences Research Scholars Award, Boston University School of Medicine Department of Medicine Career Investment Award, and Boston University Clinical Translational Science Institute. Dr. Long declares relationships with Novo Nordisk, Echosens Corporation, and Gilead Sciences. Dr. Yuan declares relationships with Genfit, Intercept, and Gilead Sciences. Dr. Younossi declares no relevant relationships.

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

*This article was updated on July 27, 2022.

Ongoing follow-up and lifestyle interventions are needed in lean patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), suggests a panel of experts in a recent review.

They also urge screening for NAFLD in individuals who are older than 40 years with type 2 diabetes, even if they are not overweight.

NAFLD is a leading cause of chronic liver disease that affects more than 25% of the United States and worldwide populations, note lead author Michelle T. Long, MD, Boston Medical Center, Boston University, and colleagues.

Evidence-based approaches

The 15 best practice advice statements covered a wide range of clinical areas, first defining lean as a body mass index (BMI) less than 25 in non-Asian persons and less than 23 in Asian persons.

The authors go on to stipulate, for example, that lean individuals in the general population should not be screened for NAFLD but that screening should be considered for individuals older than 40 years with type 2 diabetes.

More broadly, they write that the condition should be considered in lean individuals with metabolic diseases, such as type 2 diabetes, dyslipidemia, and hypertension, as well as elevated values on liver biochemical tests or incidentally noted hepatic steatosis.

After other causes of liver diseases are ruled out, the authors note that clinicians should consider liver biopsy as the reference test if uncertainties remain about liver injury causes and/or liver fibrosis staging.

They also write that the NAFLD fibrosis score and Fibrosis-4 score, along with imaging techniques, may be used as alternatives to biopsy for staging and during follow-up.

The authors, who provide a diagnosis and management algorithm to aid clinicians, suggest that lean patients with NAFLD follow lifestyle interventions, such as exercise, diet modification, and avoidance of fructose- and sugar-sweetened drinks, to achieve weight loss of 3%-5%.

Vitamin E may be considered, they continue, in patients with biopsy-confirmed nonalcoholic steatohepatitis but without type 2 diabetes or cirrhosis. Additionally, oral pioglitazone may be considered in lean persons with biopsy-confirmed nonalcoholic steatohepatitis without cirrhosis.

In contrast, they write that the role of glucagonlike peptide 1 agonists and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors requires further investigation.

The advice also says that lean patients with NAFLD should be routinely evaluated for comorbid conditions, such as type 2 diabetes, dyslipidemia, and hypertension, and risk-stratified for hepatic fibrosis to identify those with advanced fibrosis or cirrhosis.

For lean patients with NAFLD and clinical markers compatible with liver cirrhosis, twice-yearly surveillance for hepatocellular carcinoma is also advised.

Fatty liver disease in lean people with metabolic conditions

Approached for comment, Liyun Yuan, MD, PhD, assistant professor of clinical medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said it is very important to have uniform guidelines for general practitioners and other specialties on NAFLD in lean individuals.

Dr. Yuan, who was not involved in the review, told this news organization that it is crucial to raise awareness of NAFLD, just like awareness of breast cancer screening among women of a certain age was increased, so that individuals are screened for metabolic conditions regardless of whether they have obesity or overweight.

Zobair Younossi, MD, MPH, professor of medicine, Virginia Commonwealth University, Inova Campus, Falls Church, Va., added that there is a lack of awareness that NAFLD occurs in lean individuals, especially in those who have diabetes.

He said in an interview that although it is accurate to define individuals as being lean in terms of their BMI, the best way is to look not only at BMI but also at waist circumference.

Dr. Younossi said that he and his colleagues have shown that when BMI is combined with waist circumference, the prediction of mortality risk in NAFLD is affected, such that lean individuals with an obese waist circumference have a higher risk for all-cause mortality.

Dr. Long is supported in part by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, Gilead Sciences Research Scholars Award, Boston University School of Medicine Department of Medicine Career Investment Award, and Boston University Clinical Translational Science Institute. Dr. Long declares relationships with Novo Nordisk, Echosens Corporation, and Gilead Sciences. Dr. Yuan declares relationships with Genfit, Intercept, and Gilead Sciences. Dr. Younossi declares no relevant relationships.

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

*This article was updated on July 27, 2022.

Ongoing follow-up and lifestyle interventions are needed in lean patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), suggests a panel of experts in a recent review.

They also urge screening for NAFLD in individuals who are older than 40 years with type 2 diabetes, even if they are not overweight.

NAFLD is a leading cause of chronic liver disease that affects more than 25% of the United States and worldwide populations, note lead author Michelle T. Long, MD, Boston Medical Center, Boston University, and colleagues.

Evidence-based approaches

The 15 best practice advice statements covered a wide range of clinical areas, first defining lean as a body mass index (BMI) less than 25 in non-Asian persons and less than 23 in Asian persons.

The authors go on to stipulate, for example, that lean individuals in the general population should not be screened for NAFLD but that screening should be considered for individuals older than 40 years with type 2 diabetes.

More broadly, they write that the condition should be considered in lean individuals with metabolic diseases, such as type 2 diabetes, dyslipidemia, and hypertension, as well as elevated values on liver biochemical tests or incidentally noted hepatic steatosis.

After other causes of liver diseases are ruled out, the authors note that clinicians should consider liver biopsy as the reference test if uncertainties remain about liver injury causes and/or liver fibrosis staging.

They also write that the NAFLD fibrosis score and Fibrosis-4 score, along with imaging techniques, may be used as alternatives to biopsy for staging and during follow-up.

The authors, who provide a diagnosis and management algorithm to aid clinicians, suggest that lean patients with NAFLD follow lifestyle interventions, such as exercise, diet modification, and avoidance of fructose- and sugar-sweetened drinks, to achieve weight loss of 3%-5%.

Vitamin E may be considered, they continue, in patients with biopsy-confirmed nonalcoholic steatohepatitis but without type 2 diabetes or cirrhosis. Additionally, oral pioglitazone may be considered in lean persons with biopsy-confirmed nonalcoholic steatohepatitis without cirrhosis.

In contrast, they write that the role of glucagonlike peptide 1 agonists and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors requires further investigation.

The advice also says that lean patients with NAFLD should be routinely evaluated for comorbid conditions, such as type 2 diabetes, dyslipidemia, and hypertension, and risk-stratified for hepatic fibrosis to identify those with advanced fibrosis or cirrhosis.

For lean patients with NAFLD and clinical markers compatible with liver cirrhosis, twice-yearly surveillance for hepatocellular carcinoma is also advised.

Fatty liver disease in lean people with metabolic conditions

Approached for comment, Liyun Yuan, MD, PhD, assistant professor of clinical medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said it is very important to have uniform guidelines for general practitioners and other specialties on NAFLD in lean individuals.

Dr. Yuan, who was not involved in the review, told this news organization that it is crucial to raise awareness of NAFLD, just like awareness of breast cancer screening among women of a certain age was increased, so that individuals are screened for metabolic conditions regardless of whether they have obesity or overweight.

Zobair Younossi, MD, MPH, professor of medicine, Virginia Commonwealth University, Inova Campus, Falls Church, Va., added that there is a lack of awareness that NAFLD occurs in lean individuals, especially in those who have diabetes.

He said in an interview that although it is accurate to define individuals as being lean in terms of their BMI, the best way is to look not only at BMI but also at waist circumference.

Dr. Younossi said that he and his colleagues have shown that when BMI is combined with waist circumference, the prediction of mortality risk in NAFLD is affected, such that lean individuals with an obese waist circumference have a higher risk for all-cause mortality.

Dr. Long is supported in part by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, Gilead Sciences Research Scholars Award, Boston University School of Medicine Department of Medicine Career Investment Award, and Boston University Clinical Translational Science Institute. Dr. Long declares relationships with Novo Nordisk, Echosens Corporation, and Gilead Sciences. Dr. Yuan declares relationships with Genfit, Intercept, and Gilead Sciences. Dr. Younossi declares no relevant relationships.

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

*This article was updated on July 27, 2022.

Over the past several years, the number of patients seeking gender-affirming services has exponentially increased.¹ Unfortunately, the number of patients presenting for treatment has exceeded evidence-based guidelines, research, and the number of providers familiar with gender-affirming care. Many institutions and associations such as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) advocate for training of providers; however, many patients will be seen by providers who are not qualified in diagnosing gender dysphoria. As a result, many practitioners rely on the mental health evaluation of gender-diverse individuals prior to prescribing hormonal therapy or before planning surgery.

Practitioners qualified to provide mental health services can include persons within in the field of psychology, psychiatry, social work, licensed professional counseling, nursing, or family medicine (with specific training in mental health).² WPATH also defines specific criteria as part of the mental health assessment. For example, providers should have a master’s degree or higher in clinical behavioral science, competence in using the DSM/ICD, the ability to recognize and diagnose coexisting mental health concerns, and undergo continuing education in the treatment of gender dysphoria.² Unfortunately, the demand for gender-competent mental health professionals exceeds the number available, and many patients are seen by therapists lacking experience within this field.³ This discrepancy can present an additional barrier to the health needs of transgender patients and sometimes inhibit access to hormone therapy, or even more catastrophically, compromise their presurgical assessment and surgical outcome.

For patients seeking chest surgery (mastectomy or breast augmentation), one letter from a mental health provider is necessary. If a patient is interested in pursuing genital surgery or the removal or reproductive organs, two letters from two separate mental health providers are required. Typically, one letter is from the patient’s primary therapist, and the other is often a second opinion. These letters must include a patient’s general characteristics, psychosocial assessment results, duration of the mental health professional’s relationship with the client, an explanation that the criteria for surgery have been met, a statement supporting the patient’s request for surgery and that informed consent was obtained, and a statement that the mental health professional is available for coordination of care.² It is crucial to delineate that while a mental health evaluation is mandated, psychotherapy is not.

A therapist’s letter is not essential prior to initiating hormones; however, it is recommended if practitioners are unfamiliar with gender-diverse patients and current standards of care. If a provider such as a family physician, endocrinologist, or obstetrician/gynecologist is knowledgeable about the diagnostic criteria for gender dysphoria, they can prescribe hormones without a therapist’s letter. Additional considerations include establishing whether a patient has persistent gender dysphoria, has the capacity to give informed consent, and has “reasonably well-controlled” mental illness.³ The prevalence of both depression and anxiety is exceptionally high in this population, whereas rates of bipolar disorder and schizophrenia mirror that of the general population.³ Mental illness is not a contraindication to hormone therapy because there is sufficient evidence to support the benefits of gender-affirming hormones in reducing both anxiety and depression.

In contrast, concurrent severe psychiatric illness (i.e., bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, borderline personality disorder) that is not well controlled could prohibit patients from undergoing gender-affirming surgeries. Even the most well-educated patients do not truly understand the process of surgery and the rigorous postoperative care required, particularly after genital surgery. Many patients underestimate the need for a support system in the postoperative period and cannot predict their emotional response after undergoing such complex procedures. During a surgical consultation, the surgeon can help identify any mental, physical, monetary, or social constraints patients may have and work closely with other providers, including a well-trained mental health professional, to optimize a patient’s surgical recovery. Ideally, patients undergoing surgery are seen at multidisciplinary centers with the capabilities of addressing these concerns.

The patient’s perspective on the need for a therapist is often mixed. Historically, therapist letters have been viewed by patients as a form of “gatekeeping” and an additional barrier they are forced to overcome to receive treatment. However, the role of a mental health provider who specializes in gender-affirming care cannot be overstated. In the context of surgery, I often try to reframe the role the therapist as an integral part of the multidisciplinary team. Mental health assessments preoperatively can better prepare patients for their upcoming surgery. More importantly, this multidisciplinary approach can help identify potential issues with coping strategies or exacerbations of other mental health conditions that may arise in the immediate postoperative period.

There is no question that exceptional gender-affirming care requires a multidisciplinary approach. Establishing strong relationships between hormone prescribers, surgeons, and behavioral health specialists in an essential step toward providing competent patient-centered care.
 

Dr. Brandt is an ob.gyn. and fellowship-trained gender-affirming surgeon in West Reading, Pa.

References

1. Ettner R. Mental health evaluation for gender confirmation surgery. Clin Plastic Surg. 2018;45(3):307-11.

2. Karasic D. Mental health care for the adult transgender patient. In: Ferrando CA, ed. Comprehensive Care of the Transgender Patient. Philadelphia: Elsevier; 2020:8-11.

3. World Professional Association for Transgender Health. Standards of care for the health of transsexual, transgender, and gender nonconforming people. 7th ed. Minneapolis: WPATH; 2012.

Over the past several years, the number of patients seeking gender-affirming services has exponentially increased.¹ Unfortunately, the number of patients presenting for treatment has exceeded evidence-based guidelines, research, and the number of providers familiar with gender-affirming care. Many institutions and associations such as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) advocate for training of providers; however, many patients will be seen by providers who are not qualified in diagnosing gender dysphoria. As a result, many practitioners rely on the mental health evaluation of gender-diverse individuals prior to prescribing hormonal therapy or before planning surgery.

Practitioners qualified to provide mental health services can include persons within in the field of psychology, psychiatry, social work, licensed professional counseling, nursing, or family medicine (with specific training in mental health).² WPATH also defines specific criteria as part of the mental health assessment. For example, providers should have a master’s degree or higher in clinical behavioral science, competence in using the DSM/ICD, the ability to recognize and diagnose coexisting mental health concerns, and undergo continuing education in the treatment of gender dysphoria.² Unfortunately, the demand for gender-competent mental health professionals exceeds the number available, and many patients are seen by therapists lacking experience within this field.³ This discrepancy can present an additional barrier to the health needs of transgender patients and sometimes inhibit access to hormone therapy, or even more catastrophically, compromise their presurgical assessment and surgical outcome.

For patients seeking chest surgery (mastectomy or breast augmentation), one letter from a mental health provider is necessary. If a patient is interested in pursuing genital surgery or the removal or reproductive organs, two letters from two separate mental health providers are required. Typically, one letter is from the patient’s primary therapist, and the other is often a second opinion. These letters must include a patient’s general characteristics, psychosocial assessment results, duration of the mental health professional’s relationship with the client, an explanation that the criteria for surgery have been met, a statement supporting the patient’s request for surgery and that informed consent was obtained, and a statement that the mental health professional is available for coordination of care.² It is crucial to delineate that while a mental health evaluation is mandated, psychotherapy is not.

A therapist’s letter is not essential prior to initiating hormones; however, it is recommended if practitioners are unfamiliar with gender-diverse patients and current standards of care. If a provider such as a family physician, endocrinologist, or obstetrician/gynecologist is knowledgeable about the diagnostic criteria for gender dysphoria, they can prescribe hormones without a therapist’s letter. Additional considerations include establishing whether a patient has persistent gender dysphoria, has the capacity to give informed consent, and has “reasonably well-controlled” mental illness.³ The prevalence of both depression and anxiety is exceptionally high in this population, whereas rates of bipolar disorder and schizophrenia mirror that of the general population.³ Mental illness is not a contraindication to hormone therapy because there is sufficient evidence to support the benefits of gender-affirming hormones in reducing both anxiety and depression.

In contrast, concurrent severe psychiatric illness (i.e., bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, borderline personality disorder) that is not well controlled could prohibit patients from undergoing gender-affirming surgeries. Even the most well-educated patients do not truly understand the process of surgery and the rigorous postoperative care required, particularly after genital surgery. Many patients underestimate the need for a support system in the postoperative period and cannot predict their emotional response after undergoing such complex procedures. During a surgical consultation, the surgeon can help identify any mental, physical, monetary, or social constraints patients may have and work closely with other providers, including a well-trained mental health professional, to optimize a patient’s surgical recovery. Ideally, patients undergoing surgery are seen at multidisciplinary centers with the capabilities of addressing these concerns.

The patient’s perspective on the need for a therapist is often mixed. Historically, therapist letters have been viewed by patients as a form of “gatekeeping” and an additional barrier they are forced to overcome to receive treatment. However, the role of a mental health provider who specializes in gender-affirming care cannot be overstated. In the context of surgery, I often try to reframe the role the therapist as an integral part of the multidisciplinary team. Mental health assessments preoperatively can better prepare patients for their upcoming surgery. More importantly, this multidisciplinary approach can help identify potential issues with coping strategies or exacerbations of other mental health conditions that may arise in the immediate postoperative period.

There is no question that exceptional gender-affirming care requires a multidisciplinary approach. Establishing strong relationships between hormone prescribers, surgeons, and behavioral health specialists in an essential step toward providing competent patient-centered care.
 

Dr. Brandt is an ob.gyn. and fellowship-trained gender-affirming surgeon in West Reading, Pa.

References

1. Ettner R. Mental health evaluation for gender confirmation surgery. Clin Plastic Surg. 2018;45(3):307-11.

2. Karasic D. Mental health care for the adult transgender patient. In: Ferrando CA, ed. Comprehensive Care of the Transgender Patient. Philadelphia: Elsevier; 2020:8-11.

3. World Professional Association for Transgender Health. Standards of care for the health of transsexual, transgender, and gender nonconforming people. 7th ed. Minneapolis: WPATH; 2012.

Over the past several years, the number of patients seeking gender-affirming services has exponentially increased.¹ Unfortunately, the number of patients presenting for treatment has exceeded evidence-based guidelines, research, and the number of providers familiar with gender-affirming care. Many institutions and associations such as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) advocate for training of providers; however, many patients will be seen by providers who are not qualified in diagnosing gender dysphoria. As a result, many practitioners rely on the mental health evaluation of gender-diverse individuals prior to prescribing hormonal therapy or before planning surgery.

Practitioners qualified to provide mental health services can include persons within in the field of psychology, psychiatry, social work, licensed professional counseling, nursing, or family medicine (with specific training in mental health).² WPATH also defines specific criteria as part of the mental health assessment. For example, providers should have a master’s degree or higher in clinical behavioral science, competence in using the DSM/ICD, the ability to recognize and diagnose coexisting mental health concerns, and undergo continuing education in the treatment of gender dysphoria.² Unfortunately, the demand for gender-competent mental health professionals exceeds the number available, and many patients are seen by therapists lacking experience within this field.³ This discrepancy can present an additional barrier to the health needs of transgender patients and sometimes inhibit access to hormone therapy, or even more catastrophically, compromise their presurgical assessment and surgical outcome.

For patients seeking chest surgery (mastectomy or breast augmentation), one letter from a mental health provider is necessary. If a patient is interested in pursuing genital surgery or the removal or reproductive organs, two letters from two separate mental health providers are required. Typically, one letter is from the patient’s primary therapist, and the other is often a second opinion. These letters must include a patient’s general characteristics, psychosocial assessment results, duration of the mental health professional’s relationship with the client, an explanation that the criteria for surgery have been met, a statement supporting the patient’s request for surgery and that informed consent was obtained, and a statement that the mental health professional is available for coordination of care.² It is crucial to delineate that while a mental health evaluation is mandated, psychotherapy is not.

A therapist’s letter is not essential prior to initiating hormones; however, it is recommended if practitioners are unfamiliar with gender-diverse patients and current standards of care. If a provider such as a family physician, endocrinologist, or obstetrician/gynecologist is knowledgeable about the diagnostic criteria for gender dysphoria, they can prescribe hormones without a therapist’s letter. Additional considerations include establishing whether a patient has persistent gender dysphoria, has the capacity to give informed consent, and has “reasonably well-controlled” mental illness.³ The prevalence of both depression and anxiety is exceptionally high in this population, whereas rates of bipolar disorder and schizophrenia mirror that of the general population.³ Mental illness is not a contraindication to hormone therapy because there is sufficient evidence to support the benefits of gender-affirming hormones in reducing both anxiety and depression.

In contrast, concurrent severe psychiatric illness (i.e., bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, borderline personality disorder) that is not well controlled could prohibit patients from undergoing gender-affirming surgeries. Even the most well-educated patients do not truly understand the process of surgery and the rigorous postoperative care required, particularly after genital surgery. Many patients underestimate the need for a support system in the postoperative period and cannot predict their emotional response after undergoing such complex procedures. During a surgical consultation, the surgeon can help identify any mental, physical, monetary, or social constraints patients may have and work closely with other providers, including a well-trained mental health professional, to optimize a patient’s surgical recovery. Ideally, patients undergoing surgery are seen at multidisciplinary centers with the capabilities of addressing these concerns.

The patient’s perspective on the need for a therapist is often mixed. Historically, therapist letters have been viewed by patients as a form of “gatekeeping” and an additional barrier they are forced to overcome to receive treatment. However, the role of a mental health provider who specializes in gender-affirming care cannot be overstated. In the context of surgery, I often try to reframe the role the therapist as an integral part of the multidisciplinary team. Mental health assessments preoperatively can better prepare patients for their upcoming surgery. More importantly, this multidisciplinary approach can help identify potential issues with coping strategies or exacerbations of other mental health conditions that may arise in the immediate postoperative period.

There is no question that exceptional gender-affirming care requires a multidisciplinary approach. Establishing strong relationships between hormone prescribers, surgeons, and behavioral health specialists in an essential step toward providing competent patient-centered care.
 

Dr. Brandt is an ob.gyn. and fellowship-trained gender-affirming surgeon in West Reading, Pa.

References

1. Ettner R. Mental health evaluation for gender confirmation surgery. Clin Plastic Surg. 2018;45(3):307-11.

2. Karasic D. Mental health care for the adult transgender patient. In: Ferrando CA, ed. Comprehensive Care of the Transgender Patient. Philadelphia: Elsevier; 2020:8-11.

3. World Professional Association for Transgender Health. Standards of care for the health of transsexual, transgender, and gender nonconforming people. 7th ed. Minneapolis: WPATH; 2012.

The global prevalence of fatty liver disease not caused by alcohol is considerably higher than previously estimated and is continuing to increase at an alarming rate, report researchers from Canada.

Their analysis suggests nearly one-third of the global general adult population has nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), with men much more likely to have the disease than women.

“Greater awareness of NAFLD and the development of cost-effective risk stratification strategies are needed to address the growing burden NAFLD,” wrote Abdel-Aziz Shaheen, MBBCh, MSc, and colleagues with the University of Calgary (Alta.).

The study was published online in Lancet Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

NAFLD is the most common liver disease worldwide and a leading cause of liver-related illness and death. Yet, high-quality reports on the epidemiology of NAFLD at a global level are scarce and temporal trends of the NAFLD burden, including by gender, have not been described, until now.

Using MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, and Web of Science, the Calgary team identified reports on NAFLD incidence and prevalence in study populations representative of the general adult population published between the date of database inception to May 25, 2021.

In total, 72 publications, with a sample population of more than 1 million adults from 17 countries, were included in the prevalence analysis, and 16 publications, with a sample population of nearly 382,000 individuals from five countries, were included in the incidence analysis.

By their estimates, the overall global prevalence of NAFLD is 32.4%, with prevalence increasing steadily and significantly over time, from 25.5% in or before 2005 to 37.8% in 2016 or later. The overall prevalence is significantly higher in men than in women (39.7% vs. 25.6%).

These figures contrast with recent meta-analyses and systematic reviews that put the global prevalence of NAFLD at between 25.2% and 29.8%. However, these studies had “considerable” limitations with “potentially biased inferences,” Dr. Shaheen and colleagues noted.

By region, their data put the prevalence of NAFLD at 31.6% in Asia, 32.6% in Europe, 47.8% in North America, and 56.8% in Africa.

Dr. Shaheen and colleagues estimate the overall incidence of NAFLD to be 46.9 cases per 1,000 person-years, with a higher incidence in men than women (70.8 vs. 29.6 cases per 1000 person-years), in line with the gender differences in prevalence.

They caution that there was “considerable” heterogeneity between studies in both NAFLD prevalence and incidence (I₂ = 99.9%) and few “high-quality” studies.

Despite these limitations, Dr. Shaheen and colleagues said the rise in NAFLD prevalence “should drive enhanced awareness of NAFLD at the level of primary care physicians, public health specialists, and health policy makers to encourage the development of more effective preventive policies.”

Funding for the study was provided by the Canadian Institutes of Health. Dr. Shaheen has received research grants from Gilead and Intercept, and honoraria from SCOPE Canada.

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

The global prevalence of fatty liver disease not caused by alcohol is considerably higher than previously estimated and is continuing to increase at an alarming rate, report researchers from Canada.

Their analysis suggests nearly one-third of the global general adult population has nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), with men much more likely to have the disease than women.

“Greater awareness of NAFLD and the development of cost-effective risk stratification strategies are needed to address the growing burden NAFLD,” wrote Abdel-Aziz Shaheen, MBBCh, MSc, and colleagues with the University of Calgary (Alta.).

The study was published online in Lancet Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

NAFLD is the most common liver disease worldwide and a leading cause of liver-related illness and death. Yet, high-quality reports on the epidemiology of NAFLD at a global level are scarce and temporal trends of the NAFLD burden, including by gender, have not been described, until now.

Using MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, and Web of Science, the Calgary team identified reports on NAFLD incidence and prevalence in study populations representative of the general adult population published between the date of database inception to May 25, 2021.

In total, 72 publications, with a sample population of more than 1 million adults from 17 countries, were included in the prevalence analysis, and 16 publications, with a sample population of nearly 382,000 individuals from five countries, were included in the incidence analysis.

By their estimates, the overall global prevalence of NAFLD is 32.4%, with prevalence increasing steadily and significantly over time, from 25.5% in or before 2005 to 37.8% in 2016 or later. The overall prevalence is significantly higher in men than in women (39.7% vs. 25.6%).

These figures contrast with recent meta-analyses and systematic reviews that put the global prevalence of NAFLD at between 25.2% and 29.8%. However, these studies had “considerable” limitations with “potentially biased inferences,” Dr. Shaheen and colleagues noted.

By region, their data put the prevalence of NAFLD at 31.6% in Asia, 32.6% in Europe, 47.8% in North America, and 56.8% in Africa.

Dr. Shaheen and colleagues estimate the overall incidence of NAFLD to be 46.9 cases per 1,000 person-years, with a higher incidence in men than women (70.8 vs. 29.6 cases per 1000 person-years), in line with the gender differences in prevalence.

They caution that there was “considerable” heterogeneity between studies in both NAFLD prevalence and incidence (I₂ = 99.9%) and few “high-quality” studies.

Despite these limitations, Dr. Shaheen and colleagues said the rise in NAFLD prevalence “should drive enhanced awareness of NAFLD at the level of primary care physicians, public health specialists, and health policy makers to encourage the development of more effective preventive policies.”

Funding for the study was provided by the Canadian Institutes of Health. Dr. Shaheen has received research grants from Gilead and Intercept, and honoraria from SCOPE Canada.

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

The global prevalence of fatty liver disease not caused by alcohol is considerably higher than previously estimated and is continuing to increase at an alarming rate, report researchers from Canada.

Their analysis suggests nearly one-third of the global general adult population has nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), with men much more likely to have the disease than women.

“Greater awareness of NAFLD and the development of cost-effective risk stratification strategies are needed to address the growing burden NAFLD,” wrote Abdel-Aziz Shaheen, MBBCh, MSc, and colleagues with the University of Calgary (Alta.).

The study was published online in Lancet Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

NAFLD is the most common liver disease worldwide and a leading cause of liver-related illness and death. Yet, high-quality reports on the epidemiology of NAFLD at a global level are scarce and temporal trends of the NAFLD burden, including by gender, have not been described, until now.

Using MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, and Web of Science, the Calgary team identified reports on NAFLD incidence and prevalence in study populations representative of the general adult population published between the date of database inception to May 25, 2021.

In total, 72 publications, with a sample population of more than 1 million adults from 17 countries, were included in the prevalence analysis, and 16 publications, with a sample population of nearly 382,000 individuals from five countries, were included in the incidence analysis.

By their estimates, the overall global prevalence of NAFLD is 32.4%, with prevalence increasing steadily and significantly over time, from 25.5% in or before 2005 to 37.8% in 2016 or later. The overall prevalence is significantly higher in men than in women (39.7% vs. 25.6%).

These figures contrast with recent meta-analyses and systematic reviews that put the global prevalence of NAFLD at between 25.2% and 29.8%. However, these studies had “considerable” limitations with “potentially biased inferences,” Dr. Shaheen and colleagues noted.

By region, their data put the prevalence of NAFLD at 31.6% in Asia, 32.6% in Europe, 47.8% in North America, and 56.8% in Africa.

Dr. Shaheen and colleagues estimate the overall incidence of NAFLD to be 46.9 cases per 1,000 person-years, with a higher incidence in men than women (70.8 vs. 29.6 cases per 1000 person-years), in line with the gender differences in prevalence.

They caution that there was “considerable” heterogeneity between studies in both NAFLD prevalence and incidence (I₂ = 99.9%) and few “high-quality” studies.

Despite these limitations, Dr. Shaheen and colleagues said the rise in NAFLD prevalence “should drive enhanced awareness of NAFLD at the level of primary care physicians, public health specialists, and health policy makers to encourage the development of more effective preventive policies.”

Funding for the study was provided by the Canadian Institutes of Health. Dr. Shaheen has received research grants from Gilead and Intercept, and honoraria from SCOPE Canada.

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

If 80% of individuals with hypertension were screened, 80% received treatment, and 80% then reached guideline-specified targets, up to 200 million cases of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and 130 million deaths could be averted by 2050, a modeling study suggests.

Achievement of the 80-80-80 target “could be one of the single most important global public health accomplishments of the coming decades,” according to the authors.

“We need to reprioritize hypertension care in our practices,” principal investigator David A. Watkins, MD, MPH, University of Washington, Seattle, told this news organization. “Only about one in five persons with hypertension around the world has their blood pressure well controlled. Oftentimes, clinicians are focused on addressing patients’ other health needs, many of which can be pressing in the short term, and we forget to talk about blood pressure, which has more than earned its reputation as ‘the silent killer.’ ”

The modeling study was published online  in Nature Medicine, with lead author Sarah J. Pickersgill, MPH, also from the University of Washington.
 

Two interventions, three scenarios

Dr. Watkins and colleagues based their analysis on two approaches to blood pressure (BP) control shown to be beneficial: drug treatment to a systolic BP of either 130 mm Hg or 140 mm Hg or less, depending on local guidelines, and dietary sodium reduction, as recommended by the World Health Organization.

The team modeled the impacts of these interventions in 182 countries according to three scenarios:

• Business as usual (control): allowing hypertension to increase at historic rates of change and mean sodium intake to remain at current levels
• Progress: matching historically high-performing countries (for example, accelerating hypertension control by about 3% per year at intermediate levels of intervention coverage) while lowering mean sodium intake by 15% by 2030
• Aspirational: hypertension control achieved faster than historically high-performing countries (about 4% per year) and mean sodium intake decreased by 30% by 2027

The analysis suggests that in the progressive scenario, all countries could achieve 80-80-80 targets by 2050 and most countries by 2040; the aspirational scenario would have all countries meeting them by 2040. That would result in reductions in all-cause mortality of 4%-7% (76 million to 130 million deaths averted) with progressive and aspirational interventions, respectively, compared with the control scenario.

There would also be a slower rise in expected CVD from population growth and aging (110 million to 200 million cases averted). That is, the probability of dying from any CVD cause between the ages of 30 and 80 years would be reduced by 16% in the progressive scenario and 26% in the aspirational scenario.

Of note, about 83%-85% of the potential mortality reductions would result from scaling up hypertension treatment in the progressive and aspirational scenarios, respectively, with the remaining 15%-17% coming from sodium reduction, the researchers state.

Further, they propose, scaling up BP interventions could reduce CVD inequalities across countries, with low-income and lower-middle-income countries likely experiencing the largest reductions in disease rates and mortality.
 

Implementation barriers

“Health systems in many low- and middle-income countries have not traditionally been set up to succeed in chronic disease management in primary care,” Dr. Watkins noted. For interventions to be successful, he said, “several barriers need to be addressed, including: low population awareness of chronic diseases like hypertension and diabetes, which leads to low rates of screening and treatment; high out-of-pocket cost and low availability of medicines for chronic diseases; and need for adherence support and provider incentives for improving quality of chronic disease care in primary care settings.”

“Based on the analysis, achieving the 80-80-80 seems feasible, though actually getting there may be much more complicated. I wonder whether countries have the resources to implement the needed policies,” Rodrigo M. Carrillo-Larco, MD, researcher, department of epidemiology and biostatistics, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, told this news organization.

“It may be challenging, particularly after COVID-19, which revealed deficiencies in many health care systems, and care for hypertension may have been disturbed,” said Dr. Carrillo-Larco, who is not connected with the analysis.

That said, simplified BP screening approaches could help maximize the number of people screened overall, potentially identifying those with hypertension and raising awareness, he proposed. His team’s recent study showed that such approaches vary from country to country but are generally reliable and can be used effectively for population screening.

In addition, Dr. Carrillo-Larco said, any efforts by clinicians to improve adherence and help patients achieve BP control “would also have positive effects at the population level.”

The study was supported by a grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, with additional funding by a grant to Dr. Watkins from Resolve to Save Lives. No conflicts of interest were declared.

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

If 80% of individuals with hypertension were screened, 80% received treatment, and 80% then reached guideline-specified targets, up to 200 million cases of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and 130 million deaths could be averted by 2050, a modeling study suggests.

Achievement of the 80-80-80 target “could be one of the single most important global public health accomplishments of the coming decades,” according to the authors.

“We need to reprioritize hypertension care in our practices,” principal investigator David A. Watkins, MD, MPH, University of Washington, Seattle, told this news organization. “Only about one in five persons with hypertension around the world has their blood pressure well controlled. Oftentimes, clinicians are focused on addressing patients’ other health needs, many of which can be pressing in the short term, and we forget to talk about blood pressure, which has more than earned its reputation as ‘the silent killer.’ ”

The modeling study was published online  in Nature Medicine, with lead author Sarah J. Pickersgill, MPH, also from the University of Washington.
 

Two interventions, three scenarios

Dr. Watkins and colleagues based their analysis on two approaches to blood pressure (BP) control shown to be beneficial: drug treatment to a systolic BP of either 130 mm Hg or 140 mm Hg or less, depending on local guidelines, and dietary sodium reduction, as recommended by the World Health Organization.

The team modeled the impacts of these interventions in 182 countries according to three scenarios:

• Business as usual (control): allowing hypertension to increase at historic rates of change and mean sodium intake to remain at current levels
• Progress: matching historically high-performing countries (for example, accelerating hypertension control by about 3% per year at intermediate levels of intervention coverage) while lowering mean sodium intake by 15% by 2030
• Aspirational: hypertension control achieved faster than historically high-performing countries (about 4% per year) and mean sodium intake decreased by 30% by 2027

The analysis suggests that in the progressive scenario, all countries could achieve 80-80-80 targets by 2050 and most countries by 2040; the aspirational scenario would have all countries meeting them by 2040. That would result in reductions in all-cause mortality of 4%-7% (76 million to 130 million deaths averted) with progressive and aspirational interventions, respectively, compared with the control scenario.

There would also be a slower rise in expected CVD from population growth and aging (110 million to 200 million cases averted). That is, the probability of dying from any CVD cause between the ages of 30 and 80 years would be reduced by 16% in the progressive scenario and 26% in the aspirational scenario.

Of note, about 83%-85% of the potential mortality reductions would result from scaling up hypertension treatment in the progressive and aspirational scenarios, respectively, with the remaining 15%-17% coming from sodium reduction, the researchers state.

Further, they propose, scaling up BP interventions could reduce CVD inequalities across countries, with low-income and lower-middle-income countries likely experiencing the largest reductions in disease rates and mortality.
 

Implementation barriers

“Health systems in many low- and middle-income countries have not traditionally been set up to succeed in chronic disease management in primary care,” Dr. Watkins noted. For interventions to be successful, he said, “several barriers need to be addressed, including: low population awareness of chronic diseases like hypertension and diabetes, which leads to low rates of screening and treatment; high out-of-pocket cost and low availability of medicines for chronic diseases; and need for adherence support and provider incentives for improving quality of chronic disease care in primary care settings.”

“Based on the analysis, achieving the 80-80-80 seems feasible, though actually getting there may be much more complicated. I wonder whether countries have the resources to implement the needed policies,” Rodrigo M. Carrillo-Larco, MD, researcher, department of epidemiology and biostatistics, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, told this news organization.

“It may be challenging, particularly after COVID-19, which revealed deficiencies in many health care systems, and care for hypertension may have been disturbed,” said Dr. Carrillo-Larco, who is not connected with the analysis.

That said, simplified BP screening approaches could help maximize the number of people screened overall, potentially identifying those with hypertension and raising awareness, he proposed. His team’s recent study showed that such approaches vary from country to country but are generally reliable and can be used effectively for population screening.

In addition, Dr. Carrillo-Larco said, any efforts by clinicians to improve adherence and help patients achieve BP control “would also have positive effects at the population level.”

The study was supported by a grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, with additional funding by a grant to Dr. Watkins from Resolve to Save Lives. No conflicts of interest were declared.

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

If 80% of individuals with hypertension were screened, 80% received treatment, and 80% then reached guideline-specified targets, up to 200 million cases of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and 130 million deaths could be averted by 2050, a modeling study suggests.

Achievement of the 80-80-80 target “could be one of the single most important global public health accomplishments of the coming decades,” according to the authors.

“We need to reprioritize hypertension care in our practices,” principal investigator David A. Watkins, MD, MPH, University of Washington, Seattle, told this news organization. “Only about one in five persons with hypertension around the world has their blood pressure well controlled. Oftentimes, clinicians are focused on addressing patients’ other health needs, many of which can be pressing in the short term, and we forget to talk about blood pressure, which has more than earned its reputation as ‘the silent killer.’ ”

The modeling study was published online  in Nature Medicine, with lead author Sarah J. Pickersgill, MPH, also from the University of Washington.
 

Two interventions, three scenarios

Dr. Watkins and colleagues based their analysis on two approaches to blood pressure (BP) control shown to be beneficial: drug treatment to a systolic BP of either 130 mm Hg or 140 mm Hg or less, depending on local guidelines, and dietary sodium reduction, as recommended by the World Health Organization.

The team modeled the impacts of these interventions in 182 countries according to three scenarios:

• Business as usual (control): allowing hypertension to increase at historic rates of change and mean sodium intake to remain at current levels
• Progress: matching historically high-performing countries (for example, accelerating hypertension control by about 3% per year at intermediate levels of intervention coverage) while lowering mean sodium intake by 15% by 2030
• Aspirational: hypertension control achieved faster than historically high-performing countries (about 4% per year) and mean sodium intake decreased by 30% by 2027

The analysis suggests that in the progressive scenario, all countries could achieve 80-80-80 targets by 2050 and most countries by 2040; the aspirational scenario would have all countries meeting them by 2040. That would result in reductions in all-cause mortality of 4%-7% (76 million to 130 million deaths averted) with progressive and aspirational interventions, respectively, compared with the control scenario.

There would also be a slower rise in expected CVD from population growth and aging (110 million to 200 million cases averted). That is, the probability of dying from any CVD cause between the ages of 30 and 80 years would be reduced by 16% in the progressive scenario and 26% in the aspirational scenario.

Of note, about 83%-85% of the potential mortality reductions would result from scaling up hypertension treatment in the progressive and aspirational scenarios, respectively, with the remaining 15%-17% coming from sodium reduction, the researchers state.

Further, they propose, scaling up BP interventions could reduce CVD inequalities across countries, with low-income and lower-middle-income countries likely experiencing the largest reductions in disease rates and mortality.
 

Implementation barriers

“Health systems in many low- and middle-income countries have not traditionally been set up to succeed in chronic disease management in primary care,” Dr. Watkins noted. For interventions to be successful, he said, “several barriers need to be addressed, including: low population awareness of chronic diseases like hypertension and diabetes, which leads to low rates of screening and treatment; high out-of-pocket cost and low availability of medicines for chronic diseases; and need for adherence support and provider incentives for improving quality of chronic disease care in primary care settings.”

“Based on the analysis, achieving the 80-80-80 seems feasible, though actually getting there may be much more complicated. I wonder whether countries have the resources to implement the needed policies,” Rodrigo M. Carrillo-Larco, MD, researcher, department of epidemiology and biostatistics, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, told this news organization.

“It may be challenging, particularly after COVID-19, which revealed deficiencies in many health care systems, and care for hypertension may have been disturbed,” said Dr. Carrillo-Larco, who is not connected with the analysis.

That said, simplified BP screening approaches could help maximize the number of people screened overall, potentially identifying those with hypertension and raising awareness, he proposed. His team’s recent study showed that such approaches vary from country to country but are generally reliable and can be used effectively for population screening.

In addition, Dr. Carrillo-Larco said, any efforts by clinicians to improve adherence and help patients achieve BP control “would also have positive effects at the population level.”

The study was supported by a grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, with additional funding by a grant to Dr. Watkins from Resolve to Save Lives. No conflicts of interest were declared.

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

For the seventh consecutive year, the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., took the top spot in the annual honor roll of best hospitals, published July 26 by U.S. News & World Report.

The 2022 rankings, which marks the 33rd edition, showcase several methodology changes, including new ratings for ovarian, prostate, and uterine cancer surgeries that “provide patients ... with previously unavailable information to assist them in making a critical health care decision,” a news release from the publication explains.

Additional expanded health equity measures assess “which hospitals provide more care to low-income patients and which have racial disparities in certain surgical outcomes,” said the release. Finally, a new metric called “home time” determines how successfully each hospital helps patients return home.
 

Mayo Clinic remains No. 1

For the 2022-2023 rankings and ratings, U.S. News compared more than 4,500 medical centers across the country in 15 specialties and 20 procedures and conditions. Of these, 493 were recognized as Best Regional Hospitals as a result of their overall strong performance.

The list was then narrowed to the top 20 hospitals, outlined in the honor roll below, that deliver “exceptional treatment across multiple areas of care.”

Following Mayo Clinic in the annual ranking’s top spot, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles rises from No. 6 to No. 2, and New York University Langone Hospitals finish third, up from eighth in 2021.

Cleveland Clinic in Ohio holds the No. 4 spot, down two from 2021, while Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore and UCLA Medical Center in Los Angeles tie for fifth place. Rounding out the top 10, in order, are: New York–Presbyterian Hospital–Columbia and Cornell, New York; Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston; Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago; Stanford (Calif.) Health Care–Stanford Hospital.

The following hospitals complete the top 20 in the United States:

• 11. Barnes-Jewish Hospital, St. Louis
• 12. UCSF Medical Center, San Francisco
• 13. Hospitals of the University of Pennsylvania–Penn Presbyterian, Philadelphia
• 14. Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston
• 15. Houston Methodist Hospital
• 16. Mount Sinai Hospital, New York
• 17. University of Michigan Health–Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor
• 18. Mayo Clinic–Phoenix
• 19. Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn.
• 20. Rush University Medical Center, Chicago

For the specialty rankings, the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, remains No. 1 in cancer care, the Cleveland Clinic is No. 1 in cardiology and heart surgery, and the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York is No. 1 in orthopedics.
 

Top five for cancer

• 1. University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
• 2. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York
• 3. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.
• 4. Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women’s Cancer Center, Boston
• 5. UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles

Top five for cardiology and heart surgery

• 1. Cleveland Clinic
• 2. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.
• 3. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles
• 4. New York–Presbyterian Hospital–Columbia and Cornell, New York
• 5. New York University Langone Hospitals

Top five for orthopedics

• 1. Hospital for Special Surgery, New York
• 2. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.
• 3. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles
• 4. New York University Langone Hospitals
• 5. (tie) Rush University Medical Center, Chicago
• 5. (tie) UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles

According to the news release, the procedures and conditions ratings are based entirely on objective patient care measures like survival rates, patient experience, home time, and level of nursing care. The Best Hospitals rankings consider a variety of data provided by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, American Hospital Association, professional organizations, and medical specialists.

The full report is available online.

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

For the seventh consecutive year, the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., took the top spot in the annual honor roll of best hospitals, published July 26 by U.S. News & World Report.

The 2022 rankings, which marks the 33rd edition, showcase several methodology changes, including new ratings for ovarian, prostate, and uterine cancer surgeries that “provide patients ... with previously unavailable information to assist them in making a critical health care decision,” a news release from the publication explains.

Additional expanded health equity measures assess “which hospitals provide more care to low-income patients and which have racial disparities in certain surgical outcomes,” said the release. Finally, a new metric called “home time” determines how successfully each hospital helps patients return home.
 

Mayo Clinic remains No. 1

For the 2022-2023 rankings and ratings, U.S. News compared more than 4,500 medical centers across the country in 15 specialties and 20 procedures and conditions. Of these, 493 were recognized as Best Regional Hospitals as a result of their overall strong performance.

The list was then narrowed to the top 20 hospitals, outlined in the honor roll below, that deliver “exceptional treatment across multiple areas of care.”

Following Mayo Clinic in the annual ranking’s top spot, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles rises from No. 6 to No. 2, and New York University Langone Hospitals finish third, up from eighth in 2021.

Cleveland Clinic in Ohio holds the No. 4 spot, down two from 2021, while Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore and UCLA Medical Center in Los Angeles tie for fifth place. Rounding out the top 10, in order, are: New York–Presbyterian Hospital–Columbia and Cornell, New York; Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston; Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago; Stanford (Calif.) Health Care–Stanford Hospital.

The following hospitals complete the top 20 in the United States:

• 11. Barnes-Jewish Hospital, St. Louis
• 12. UCSF Medical Center, San Francisco
• 13. Hospitals of the University of Pennsylvania–Penn Presbyterian, Philadelphia
• 14. Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston
• 15. Houston Methodist Hospital
• 16. Mount Sinai Hospital, New York
• 17. University of Michigan Health–Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor
• 18. Mayo Clinic–Phoenix
• 19. Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn.
• 20. Rush University Medical Center, Chicago

For the specialty rankings, the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, remains No. 1 in cancer care, the Cleveland Clinic is No. 1 in cardiology and heart surgery, and the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York is No. 1 in orthopedics.
 

Top five for cancer

• 1. University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
• 2. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York
• 3. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.
• 4. Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women’s Cancer Center, Boston
• 5. UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles

Top five for cardiology and heart surgery

• 1. Cleveland Clinic
• 2. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.
• 3. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles
• 4. New York–Presbyterian Hospital–Columbia and Cornell, New York
• 5. New York University Langone Hospitals

Top five for orthopedics

• 1. Hospital for Special Surgery, New York
• 2. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.
• 3. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles
• 4. New York University Langone Hospitals
• 5. (tie) Rush University Medical Center, Chicago
• 5. (tie) UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles

According to the news release, the procedures and conditions ratings are based entirely on objective patient care measures like survival rates, patient experience, home time, and level of nursing care. The Best Hospitals rankings consider a variety of data provided by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, American Hospital Association, professional organizations, and medical specialists.

The full report is available online.

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

For the seventh consecutive year, the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., took the top spot in the annual honor roll of best hospitals, published July 26 by U.S. News & World Report.

The 2022 rankings, which marks the 33rd edition, showcase several methodology changes, including new ratings for ovarian, prostate, and uterine cancer surgeries that “provide patients ... with previously unavailable information to assist them in making a critical health care decision,” a news release from the publication explains.

Additional expanded health equity measures assess “which hospitals provide more care to low-income patients and which have racial disparities in certain surgical outcomes,” said the release. Finally, a new metric called “home time” determines how successfully each hospital helps patients return home.
 

Mayo Clinic remains No. 1

For the 2022-2023 rankings and ratings, U.S. News compared more than 4,500 medical centers across the country in 15 specialties and 20 procedures and conditions. Of these, 493 were recognized as Best Regional Hospitals as a result of their overall strong performance.

The list was then narrowed to the top 20 hospitals, outlined in the honor roll below, that deliver “exceptional treatment across multiple areas of care.”

Following Mayo Clinic in the annual ranking’s top spot, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles rises from No. 6 to No. 2, and New York University Langone Hospitals finish third, up from eighth in 2021.

Cleveland Clinic in Ohio holds the No. 4 spot, down two from 2021, while Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore and UCLA Medical Center in Los Angeles tie for fifth place. Rounding out the top 10, in order, are: New York–Presbyterian Hospital–Columbia and Cornell, New York; Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston; Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago; Stanford (Calif.) Health Care–Stanford Hospital.

The following hospitals complete the top 20 in the United States:

• 11. Barnes-Jewish Hospital, St. Louis
• 12. UCSF Medical Center, San Francisco
• 13. Hospitals of the University of Pennsylvania–Penn Presbyterian, Philadelphia
• 14. Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston
• 15. Houston Methodist Hospital
• 16. Mount Sinai Hospital, New York
• 17. University of Michigan Health–Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor
• 18. Mayo Clinic–Phoenix
• 19. Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn.
• 20. Rush University Medical Center, Chicago

For the specialty rankings, the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, remains No. 1 in cancer care, the Cleveland Clinic is No. 1 in cardiology and heart surgery, and the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York is No. 1 in orthopedics.
 

Top five for cancer

• 1. University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
• 2. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York
• 3. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.
• 4. Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women’s Cancer Center, Boston
• 5. UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles

Top five for cardiology and heart surgery

• 1. Cleveland Clinic
• 2. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.
• 3. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles
• 4. New York–Presbyterian Hospital–Columbia and Cornell, New York
• 5. New York University Langone Hospitals

Top five for orthopedics

• 1. Hospital for Special Surgery, New York
• 2. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.
• 3. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles
• 4. New York University Langone Hospitals
• 5. (tie) Rush University Medical Center, Chicago
• 5. (tie) UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles

According to the news release, the procedures and conditions ratings are based entirely on objective patient care measures like survival rates, patient experience, home time, and level of nursing care. The Best Hospitals rankings consider a variety of data provided by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, American Hospital Association, professional organizations, and medical specialists.

The full report is available online.

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

More than half of studies testing anticancer drugs against each other have rules with regard to dose modification and growth support that favor the experimental drug arm, a new analysis suggests.

“We found it sobering that this practice is so common,” Timothée Olivier, MD, with Geneva University Hospital and the University of California, San Francisco, said in an interview.

Trials may be “rigged” in a way where the new therapy appears more effective than if the trial would have been designed with fairer rules, he explained.

This leaves open the question of whether new drugs are truly superior to older ones or if instead different outcomes are caused by more aggressive dosing or growth factor support, the investigators said.

Dr. Olivier, with UCSF coinvestigators Alyson Haslam, PhD, and Vinay Prasad, MD, reported their findings online in the European Journal of Cancer.

‘Highly concerning’

Different drug modification rules or growth factor support guidance may affect the results of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of testing new cancer agents.

For their study, Dr. Olivier and colleagues did a cross-sectional analysis of all 62 head-to-head registration RCTs that led to Food and Drug Administration approval between 2009 and 2021.

All of the trials examined anticancer drugs in the advanced or metastatic setting where a comparison was made between arms regarding either dose modification rules or myeloid growth factors recommendations.

The researchers assessed imbalance in drug modification rules, myeloid growth factor recommendations, or both, according to prespecified rules.

They discovered that 40 of the 62 trials (65%) had unequal rules for dose medication, granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) use, or both.

Six trials (10%) had rules favoring the control arm, while 34 (55%) had rules favoring the experimental arm. Among these, 50% had unequal drug modification rules, 41% had unequal G-CSF rules, and 9% had both.

Dr. Olivier said in an interview the results are “highly concerning because when you are investigating the effect of a new drug, you don’t want to have a false sense of a drug’s effect because of other factors not directly related to the drug’s efficacy.”

“If you introduce unfair rules about dose modification or supporting medication that favors the new drug, then you don’t know if a positive trial is due to the effect of the new drug or to the effect of differential dosing or supporting medication,” he added.
 

Blame industry?

Dr. Olivier said the fact that most registration trials are industry-sponsored is likely the primary explanation of the findings.

“Industry-sponsored trials may be designed so that the new drug has the best chance to get the largest ‘win,’ because this means more market share and more profit for the company that manufactures the drug. This is not a criticism of the industry, which runs on a business model that naturally aims to gain more market share and more profit,” Dr. Olivier said.

“However, it is the role and duty of regulators to reconcile industry incentives with the patients’ best interests, and there is accumulating data showing the regulators are failing to do so,” he added.

Addressing this problem will likely take buy-in from multiple stakeholders.

Awareness of the problem is a first step and understanding the influence of commercial incentives in drug development is also key, Dr. Olivier said.

Institutional review boards and drug regulators could also systematically evaluate drug dosing modification and supportive medication rules before a trial gets underway.

Regulators could also incentivize companies to implement balanced rules between arms by not granting drug approval based on trials suffering from such flaws.

“However, financial conflict of interest is present at many levels of drug development, including in drug regulation,” Dr. Olivier noted.

He pointed to a recent study that found when hematology-oncology medical reviewers working at the FDA leave the agency, more than half end up working or consulting for the pharmaceutical industry.

Dr. Olivier wondered: “How can one fairly and independently appraise a medical intervention if one’s current or future revenue depends on its source?”

The study was funded by Arnold Ventures, through a grant paid to UCSF. Dr. Olivier and Dr. Haslam had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Prasad reported receiving royalties from Arnold Ventures.

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

More than half of studies testing anticancer drugs against each other have rules with regard to dose modification and growth support that favor the experimental drug arm, a new analysis suggests.

“We found it sobering that this practice is so common,” Timothée Olivier, MD, with Geneva University Hospital and the University of California, San Francisco, said in an interview.

Trials may be “rigged” in a way where the new therapy appears more effective than if the trial would have been designed with fairer rules, he explained.

This leaves open the question of whether new drugs are truly superior to older ones or if instead different outcomes are caused by more aggressive dosing or growth factor support, the investigators said.

Dr. Olivier, with UCSF coinvestigators Alyson Haslam, PhD, and Vinay Prasad, MD, reported their findings online in the European Journal of Cancer.

‘Highly concerning’

Different drug modification rules or growth factor support guidance may affect the results of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of testing new cancer agents.

For their study, Dr. Olivier and colleagues did a cross-sectional analysis of all 62 head-to-head registration RCTs that led to Food and Drug Administration approval between 2009 and 2021.

All of the trials examined anticancer drugs in the advanced or metastatic setting where a comparison was made between arms regarding either dose modification rules or myeloid growth factors recommendations.

The researchers assessed imbalance in drug modification rules, myeloid growth factor recommendations, or both, according to prespecified rules.

They discovered that 40 of the 62 trials (65%) had unequal rules for dose medication, granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) use, or both.

Six trials (10%) had rules favoring the control arm, while 34 (55%) had rules favoring the experimental arm. Among these, 50% had unequal drug modification rules, 41% had unequal G-CSF rules, and 9% had both.

Dr. Olivier said in an interview the results are “highly concerning because when you are investigating the effect of a new drug, you don’t want to have a false sense of a drug’s effect because of other factors not directly related to the drug’s efficacy.”

“If you introduce unfair rules about dose modification or supporting medication that favors the new drug, then you don’t know if a positive trial is due to the effect of the new drug or to the effect of differential dosing or supporting medication,” he added.
 

Blame industry?

Dr. Olivier said the fact that most registration trials are industry-sponsored is likely the primary explanation of the findings.

“Industry-sponsored trials may be designed so that the new drug has the best chance to get the largest ‘win,’ because this means more market share and more profit for the company that manufactures the drug. This is not a criticism of the industry, which runs on a business model that naturally aims to gain more market share and more profit,” Dr. Olivier said.

“However, it is the role and duty of regulators to reconcile industry incentives with the patients’ best interests, and there is accumulating data showing the regulators are failing to do so,” he added.

Addressing this problem will likely take buy-in from multiple stakeholders.

Awareness of the problem is a first step and understanding the influence of commercial incentives in drug development is also key, Dr. Olivier said.

Institutional review boards and drug regulators could also systematically evaluate drug dosing modification and supportive medication rules before a trial gets underway.

Regulators could also incentivize companies to implement balanced rules between arms by not granting drug approval based on trials suffering from such flaws.

“However, financial conflict of interest is present at many levels of drug development, including in drug regulation,” Dr. Olivier noted.

He pointed to a recent study that found when hematology-oncology medical reviewers working at the FDA leave the agency, more than half end up working or consulting for the pharmaceutical industry.

Dr. Olivier wondered: “How can one fairly and independently appraise a medical intervention if one’s current or future revenue depends on its source?”

The study was funded by Arnold Ventures, through a grant paid to UCSF. Dr. Olivier and Dr. Haslam had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Prasad reported receiving royalties from Arnold Ventures.

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

More than half of studies testing anticancer drugs against each other have rules with regard to dose modification and growth support that favor the experimental drug arm, a new analysis suggests.

“We found it sobering that this practice is so common,” Timothée Olivier, MD, with Geneva University Hospital and the University of California, San Francisco, said in an interview.

Trials may be “rigged” in a way where the new therapy appears more effective than if the trial would have been designed with fairer rules, he explained.

This leaves open the question of whether new drugs are truly superior to older ones or if instead different outcomes are caused by more aggressive dosing or growth factor support, the investigators said.

Dr. Olivier, with UCSF coinvestigators Alyson Haslam, PhD, and Vinay Prasad, MD, reported their findings online in the European Journal of Cancer.

‘Highly concerning’

Different drug modification rules or growth factor support guidance may affect the results of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of testing new cancer agents.

For their study, Dr. Olivier and colleagues did a cross-sectional analysis of all 62 head-to-head registration RCTs that led to Food and Drug Administration approval between 2009 and 2021.

All of the trials examined anticancer drugs in the advanced or metastatic setting where a comparison was made between arms regarding either dose modification rules or myeloid growth factors recommendations.

The researchers assessed imbalance in drug modification rules, myeloid growth factor recommendations, or both, according to prespecified rules.

They discovered that 40 of the 62 trials (65%) had unequal rules for dose medication, granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) use, or both.

Six trials (10%) had rules favoring the control arm, while 34 (55%) had rules favoring the experimental arm. Among these, 50% had unequal drug modification rules, 41% had unequal G-CSF rules, and 9% had both.

Dr. Olivier said in an interview the results are “highly concerning because when you are investigating the effect of a new drug, you don’t want to have a false sense of a drug’s effect because of other factors not directly related to the drug’s efficacy.”

“If you introduce unfair rules about dose modification or supporting medication that favors the new drug, then you don’t know if a positive trial is due to the effect of the new drug or to the effect of differential dosing or supporting medication,” he added.
 

Blame industry?

Dr. Olivier said the fact that most registration trials are industry-sponsored is likely the primary explanation of the findings.

“Industry-sponsored trials may be designed so that the new drug has the best chance to get the largest ‘win,’ because this means more market share and more profit for the company that manufactures the drug. This is not a criticism of the industry, which runs on a business model that naturally aims to gain more market share and more profit,” Dr. Olivier said.

“However, it is the role and duty of regulators to reconcile industry incentives with the patients’ best interests, and there is accumulating data showing the regulators are failing to do so,” he added.

Addressing this problem will likely take buy-in from multiple stakeholders.

Awareness of the problem is a first step and understanding the influence of commercial incentives in drug development is also key, Dr. Olivier said.

Institutional review boards and drug regulators could also systematically evaluate drug dosing modification and supportive medication rules before a trial gets underway.

Regulators could also incentivize companies to implement balanced rules between arms by not granting drug approval based on trials suffering from such flaws.

“However, financial conflict of interest is present at many levels of drug development, including in drug regulation,” Dr. Olivier noted.

He pointed to a recent study that found when hematology-oncology medical reviewers working at the FDA leave the agency, more than half end up working or consulting for the pharmaceutical industry.

Dr. Olivier wondered: “How can one fairly and independently appraise a medical intervention if one’s current or future revenue depends on its source?”

The study was funded by Arnold Ventures, through a grant paid to UCSF. Dr. Olivier and Dr. Haslam had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Prasad reported receiving royalties from Arnold Ventures.

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

Researchers from France have identified two distinct phenotypes of fulminant COVID-19–related myocarditis in adults, with different clinical presentations, immunologic profiles, and outcomes.

Differentiation between the two bioclinical entities is important to understand for patient management and further pathophysiological studies, they said.

The first phenotype occurs early (within a few days) in acute SARS-CoV-2 infection, with active viral replication (polymerase chain reaction positive) in adults who meet criteria for multisystem inflammatory syndrome (MIS-A+).

Floaria Bicher/iStock/Getty Images Plus

In this early phenotype, there is “limited systemic inflammation without skin and mucosal involvement, but myocardial dysfunction is fulminant and frequently associated with large pericardial effusions. These cases more often require extracorporeal membrane oxygenation [ECMO],” Guy Gorochov, MD, PhD, Sorbonne University, Paris, said in an interview.

The second is a delayed, postinfectious, immune-driven phenotype that occurs in adults who fail to meet the criteria for MIS-A (MIS-A–).

This phenotype occurs weeks after SARS-CoV-2 infection, usually beyond detectable active viral replication (PCR–) in the context of specific immune response and severe systemic inflammation with skin and mucosal involvement. Myocardial dysfunction is more progressive and rarely associated with large pericardial effusions, Dr. Gorochov explained.

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

Evolving understanding

The findings are based on a retrospective analysis of 38 patients without a history of COVID-19 vaccination who were admitted to the intensive care unit from March 2020 to June 2021 for suspected fulminant COVID-19 myocarditis.

Patients were confirmed to have SARS-CoV-2 infection by PCR and/or by serologic testing. As noted in other studies, the patients were predominantly young men (66%; median age, 27.5 years). Twenty-five (66%) patients were MIS-A+ and 13 (34%) were MIS-A–.

In general, the MIS-A– patients were sicker and had worse outcomes.

Specifically, compared with the MIS-A+ patients, MIS-A– patients had a shorter time between the onset of COVID-19 symptoms and the development of myocarditis, a shorter time to ICU admission, and more severe presentations assessed using lower left ventricular ejection fraction and sequential organ failure assessment scores.

MIS-A– patients also had higher lactate levels, were more likely to need venoarterial ECMO (92% vs 16%), had higher ICU mortality (31% vs. 4%), and a had lower probability of survival at 3 months (68% vs. 96%), compared with their MIS-A+ peers.

Immunologic differences

The immunologic profiles of these two distinct clinical phenotypes also differed.

In MIS-A– early-type COVID-19 myocarditis, RNA polymerase III autoantibodies are frequently positive and serum levels of antiviral interferon-alpha and granulocyte-attracting interleukin-8 are elevated.

In contrast, in MIS-A+ delayed-type COVID-19 myocarditis, RNA polymerase III autoantibodies are negative and serum levels of IL-17 and IL-22 are highly elevated.

“We suggest that IL-17 and IL-22 are novel criteria that should help to assess in adults the recently recognized MIS-A,” Dr. Gorochov told this news organization. “It should be tested whether IL-17 and IL-22 are also elevated in children with MIS-C.”

The researchers also observed “extremely” high serum IL-10 levels in both patient groups. This has been previously associated with severe myocardial injury and an increase in the risk for death in severe COVID-19 patients.

The researchers said the phenotypic clustering of patients with fulminant COVID-19–related myocarditis “seems relevant” for their management.

MIS-A– cases, owing to the high risk for evolution toward refractory cardiogenic shock, should be “urgently” referred to a center with venoarterial ECMO and closely monitored to prevent a “too-late” cannulation, especially under cardiopulmonary resuscitation, known to be associated with poor outcomes, they advised.

They noted that the five patients who died in their series had late venoarterial ECMO implantation, while undergoing multiple organ failures or resuscitation.

Conversely, the risk for evolution to refractory cardiogenic shock is lower in MIS-A+ cases. However, identifying MIS-A+ cases is “all the more important given that numerous data support the efficacy of corticosteroids and/or intravenous immunoglobulins in MIS-C,” Dr. Gorochov and colleagues wrote.

The authors of a linked editorial said the French team should be “commended on their work in furthering our understanding of fulminant myocarditis related to COVID-19 infection.”

Ajith Nair, MD, Baylor College of Medicine, and Anita Deswal, MD, MPH, University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, both in Houston, noted that fulminant myocarditis is rare and can result from either of two mechanisms: viral tropism or an immune-mediated mechanism.

“It remains to be seen whether using antiviral therapy versus immunomodulatory therapy on the basis of clinical and cytokine profiles will yield benefits,” they wrote.

“Fulminant myocarditis invariably requires hemodynamic support and carries a high mortality risk if it is recognized late. However, the long-term prognosis in patients who survive the critical period is favorable, with recovery of myocardial function,” they added.

“This study highlights the ever-shifting understanding of the pathophysiology and therapeutic approaches to fulminant myocarditis,” Dr. Nair and Dr. Deswal concluded.

This research was supported in part by the Foundation of France, French National Research Agency, Sorbonne University, and Clinical Research Hospital. The researchers have filed a patent application based on these results. Dr. Nair and Dr. Deswal have no relevant disclosures.

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

Researchers from France have identified two distinct phenotypes of fulminant COVID-19–related myocarditis in adults, with different clinical presentations, immunologic profiles, and outcomes.

Differentiation between the two bioclinical entities is important to understand for patient management and further pathophysiological studies, they said.

The first phenotype occurs early (within a few days) in acute SARS-CoV-2 infection, with active viral replication (polymerase chain reaction positive) in adults who meet criteria for multisystem inflammatory syndrome (MIS-A+).

Floaria Bicher/iStock/Getty Images Plus

In this early phenotype, there is “limited systemic inflammation without skin and mucosal involvement, but myocardial dysfunction is fulminant and frequently associated with large pericardial effusions. These cases more often require extracorporeal membrane oxygenation [ECMO],” Guy Gorochov, MD, PhD, Sorbonne University, Paris, said in an interview.

The second is a delayed, postinfectious, immune-driven phenotype that occurs in adults who fail to meet the criteria for MIS-A (MIS-A–).

This phenotype occurs weeks after SARS-CoV-2 infection, usually beyond detectable active viral replication (PCR–) in the context of specific immune response and severe systemic inflammation with skin and mucosal involvement. Myocardial dysfunction is more progressive and rarely associated with large pericardial effusions, Dr. Gorochov explained.

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

Evolving understanding

The findings are based on a retrospective analysis of 38 patients without a history of COVID-19 vaccination who were admitted to the intensive care unit from March 2020 to June 2021 for suspected fulminant COVID-19 myocarditis.

Patients were confirmed to have SARS-CoV-2 infection by PCR and/or by serologic testing. As noted in other studies, the patients were predominantly young men (66%; median age, 27.5 years). Twenty-five (66%) patients were MIS-A+ and 13 (34%) were MIS-A–.

In general, the MIS-A– patients were sicker and had worse outcomes.

Specifically, compared with the MIS-A+ patients, MIS-A– patients had a shorter time between the onset of COVID-19 symptoms and the development of myocarditis, a shorter time to ICU admission, and more severe presentations assessed using lower left ventricular ejection fraction and sequential organ failure assessment scores.

MIS-A– patients also had higher lactate levels, were more likely to need venoarterial ECMO (92% vs 16%), had higher ICU mortality (31% vs. 4%), and a had lower probability of survival at 3 months (68% vs. 96%), compared with their MIS-A+ peers.

Immunologic differences

The immunologic profiles of these two distinct clinical phenotypes also differed.

In MIS-A– early-type COVID-19 myocarditis, RNA polymerase III autoantibodies are frequently positive and serum levels of antiviral interferon-alpha and granulocyte-attracting interleukin-8 are elevated.

In contrast, in MIS-A+ delayed-type COVID-19 myocarditis, RNA polymerase III autoantibodies are negative and serum levels of IL-17 and IL-22 are highly elevated.

“We suggest that IL-17 and IL-22 are novel criteria that should help to assess in adults the recently recognized MIS-A,” Dr. Gorochov told this news organization. “It should be tested whether IL-17 and IL-22 are also elevated in children with MIS-C.”

The researchers also observed “extremely” high serum IL-10 levels in both patient groups. This has been previously associated with severe myocardial injury and an increase in the risk for death in severe COVID-19 patients.

The researchers said the phenotypic clustering of patients with fulminant COVID-19–related myocarditis “seems relevant” for their management.

MIS-A– cases, owing to the high risk for evolution toward refractory cardiogenic shock, should be “urgently” referred to a center with venoarterial ECMO and closely monitored to prevent a “too-late” cannulation, especially under cardiopulmonary resuscitation, known to be associated with poor outcomes, they advised.

They noted that the five patients who died in their series had late venoarterial ECMO implantation, while undergoing multiple organ failures or resuscitation.

Conversely, the risk for evolution to refractory cardiogenic shock is lower in MIS-A+ cases. However, identifying MIS-A+ cases is “all the more important given that numerous data support the efficacy of corticosteroids and/or intravenous immunoglobulins in MIS-C,” Dr. Gorochov and colleagues wrote.

The authors of a linked editorial said the French team should be “commended on their work in furthering our understanding of fulminant myocarditis related to COVID-19 infection.”

Ajith Nair, MD, Baylor College of Medicine, and Anita Deswal, MD, MPH, University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, both in Houston, noted that fulminant myocarditis is rare and can result from either of two mechanisms: viral tropism or an immune-mediated mechanism.

“It remains to be seen whether using antiviral therapy versus immunomodulatory therapy on the basis of clinical and cytokine profiles will yield benefits,” they wrote.

“Fulminant myocarditis invariably requires hemodynamic support and carries a high mortality risk if it is recognized late. However, the long-term prognosis in patients who survive the critical period is favorable, with recovery of myocardial function,” they added.

“This study highlights the ever-shifting understanding of the pathophysiology and therapeutic approaches to fulminant myocarditis,” Dr. Nair and Dr. Deswal concluded.

This research was supported in part by the Foundation of France, French National Research Agency, Sorbonne University, and Clinical Research Hospital. The researchers have filed a patent application based on these results. Dr. Nair and Dr. Deswal have no relevant disclosures.

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

Researchers from France have identified two distinct phenotypes of fulminant COVID-19–related myocarditis in adults, with different clinical presentations, immunologic profiles, and outcomes.

Differentiation between the two bioclinical entities is important to understand for patient management and further pathophysiological studies, they said.

The first phenotype occurs early (within a few days) in acute SARS-CoV-2 infection, with active viral replication (polymerase chain reaction positive) in adults who meet criteria for multisystem inflammatory syndrome (MIS-A+).

Floaria Bicher/iStock/Getty Images Plus

In this early phenotype, there is “limited systemic inflammation without skin and mucosal involvement, but myocardial dysfunction is fulminant and frequently associated with large pericardial effusions. These cases more often require extracorporeal membrane oxygenation [ECMO],” Guy Gorochov, MD, PhD, Sorbonne University, Paris, said in an interview.

The second is a delayed, postinfectious, immune-driven phenotype that occurs in adults who fail to meet the criteria for MIS-A (MIS-A–).

This phenotype occurs weeks after SARS-CoV-2 infection, usually beyond detectable active viral replication (PCR–) in the context of specific immune response and severe systemic inflammation with skin and mucosal involvement. Myocardial dysfunction is more progressive and rarely associated with large pericardial effusions, Dr. Gorochov explained.

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

Evolving understanding

The findings are based on a retrospective analysis of 38 patients without a history of COVID-19 vaccination who were admitted to the intensive care unit from March 2020 to June 2021 for suspected fulminant COVID-19 myocarditis.

Patients were confirmed to have SARS-CoV-2 infection by PCR and/or by serologic testing. As noted in other studies, the patients were predominantly young men (66%; median age, 27.5 years). Twenty-five (66%) patients were MIS-A+ and 13 (34%) were MIS-A–.

In general, the MIS-A– patients were sicker and had worse outcomes.

Specifically, compared with the MIS-A+ patients, MIS-A– patients had a shorter time between the onset of COVID-19 symptoms and the development of myocarditis, a shorter time to ICU admission, and more severe presentations assessed using lower left ventricular ejection fraction and sequential organ failure assessment scores.

MIS-A– patients also had higher lactate levels, were more likely to need venoarterial ECMO (92% vs 16%), had higher ICU mortality (31% vs. 4%), and a had lower probability of survival at 3 months (68% vs. 96%), compared with their MIS-A+ peers.

Immunologic differences

The immunologic profiles of these two distinct clinical phenotypes also differed.

In MIS-A– early-type COVID-19 myocarditis, RNA polymerase III autoantibodies are frequently positive and serum levels of antiviral interferon-alpha and granulocyte-attracting interleukin-8 are elevated.

In contrast, in MIS-A+ delayed-type COVID-19 myocarditis, RNA polymerase III autoantibodies are negative and serum levels of IL-17 and IL-22 are highly elevated.

“We suggest that IL-17 and IL-22 are novel criteria that should help to assess in adults the recently recognized MIS-A,” Dr. Gorochov told this news organization. “It should be tested whether IL-17 and IL-22 are also elevated in children with MIS-C.”

The researchers also observed “extremely” high serum IL-10 levels in both patient groups. This has been previously associated with severe myocardial injury and an increase in the risk for death in severe COVID-19 patients.

The researchers said the phenotypic clustering of patients with fulminant COVID-19–related myocarditis “seems relevant” for their management.

MIS-A– cases, owing to the high risk for evolution toward refractory cardiogenic shock, should be “urgently” referred to a center with venoarterial ECMO and closely monitored to prevent a “too-late” cannulation, especially under cardiopulmonary resuscitation, known to be associated with poor outcomes, they advised.

They noted that the five patients who died in their series had late venoarterial ECMO implantation, while undergoing multiple organ failures or resuscitation.

Conversely, the risk for evolution to refractory cardiogenic shock is lower in MIS-A+ cases. However, identifying MIS-A+ cases is “all the more important given that numerous data support the efficacy of corticosteroids and/or intravenous immunoglobulins in MIS-C,” Dr. Gorochov and colleagues wrote.

The authors of a linked editorial said the French team should be “commended on their work in furthering our understanding of fulminant myocarditis related to COVID-19 infection.”

Ajith Nair, MD, Baylor College of Medicine, and Anita Deswal, MD, MPH, University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, both in Houston, noted that fulminant myocarditis is rare and can result from either of two mechanisms: viral tropism or an immune-mediated mechanism.

“It remains to be seen whether using antiviral therapy versus immunomodulatory therapy on the basis of clinical and cytokine profiles will yield benefits,” they wrote.

“Fulminant myocarditis invariably requires hemodynamic support and carries a high mortality risk if it is recognized late. However, the long-term prognosis in patients who survive the critical period is favorable, with recovery of myocardial function,” they added.

“This study highlights the ever-shifting understanding of the pathophysiology and therapeutic approaches to fulminant myocarditis,” Dr. Nair and Dr. Deswal concluded.

This research was supported in part by the Foundation of France, French National Research Agency, Sorbonne University, and Clinical Research Hospital. The researchers have filed a patent application based on these results. Dr. Nair and Dr. Deswal have no relevant disclosures.

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

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

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

Vishnu Kumar/Thinkstock

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Omicron changes the game

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vishnu Kumar/Thinkstock

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Omicron changes the game

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vishnu Kumar/Thinkstock

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Omicron changes the game

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

KatarzynaBialasiewicz/Thinkstock

Difficulties with data, interpretation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘More needed besides transparency’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

KatarzynaBialasiewicz/Thinkstock

Difficulties with data, interpretation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘More needed besides transparency’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

KatarzynaBialasiewicz/Thinkstock

Difficulties with data, interpretation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘More needed besides transparency’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A U.S. study describes the immune response to COVID-19 infection that damages the brain’s blood vessels and may lead to short- and long-term neurologic symptoms.

It seems that the virus does not infect the brain directly. The scientists found evidence that antibodies – proteins produced by the immune system in response to viruses and other invaders – are involved in an attack on the cells lining the brain’s blood vessels, leading to inflammation and damage. The study was published in the journal Brain.
 

Brain tissue autopsy

“Patients often develop neurological complications with COVID-19, but the underlying pathophysiological process is not well understood,” Avindra Nath, MD, stated in a National Institutes of Health news release. Dr. Nath, who specializes in neuroimmunology, is the clinical director at the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) and the senior author of the study. “We had previously shown blood vessel damage and inflammation in patients’ brains at autopsy, but we didn’t understand the cause of the damage. I think in this paper we’ve gained important insight into the cascade of events.”

In this study, Dr. Nath and his team examined brain tissue from a subset of patients from their previous study. The nine individuals, ages 24-73 years, died shortly after contracting COVID-19. They were chosen because structural brain scans showed signs of blood vessel damage in the brain. The samples were compared with those from 10 controls. The team looked at neuroinflammation and immune responses using immunohistochemistry.

As in their earlier study, researchers found signs of leaky blood vessels based on the presence of blood proteins that normally do not cross the blood-brain barrier. This suggests that the tight junctions between the endothelial cells in the blood-brain barrier have been damaged.
 

Neurologic symptoms’ molecular basis

Dr. Nath and his colleagues discovered deposits of immune complexes on the surface of the cells. This finding is evidence that damage to endothelial cells was likely due to an immune response.

These observations suggest an antibody-mediated attack that activates endothelial cells. When endothelial cells are activated, they express proteins called adhesion molecules that cause platelets to stick together.

“Activation of the endothelial cells brings platelets that stick to the blood vessel walls, causing clots to form and leakage to occur. At the same time, the tight junctions between the endothelial cells get disrupted, causing them to leak,” Dr. Nath explained. “Once leakage occurs, immune cells such as macrophages may come to repair the damage, setting up inflammation. This, in turn, causes damage to neurons.”

Researchers found that in areas with damage to the endothelial cells, more than 300 genes showed decreased expression, whereas six genes were increased. These genes were associated with oxidative stress, DNA damage, and metabolic dysregulation. As the NIH news release notes, this may provide clues to the molecular basis of neurologic symptoms related to COVID-19 and offer potential therapeutic targets.

Together, these findings give insight into the immune response damaging the brain after COVID-19 infection. But it remains unclear what antigen the immune response is targeting, because the virus itself was not detected in the brain. It is possible that antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein could bind to the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 receptor used by the virus to enter cells. More research is needed to explore this hypothesis.
 

‘Brain fog’ explained?

The study may also have implications for understanding and treating long-term neurologic symptoms after COVID-19, which include headache, fatigue, loss of taste and smell, sleep problems, and “brain fog.” Had the patients in the study survived, the researchers believe they would likely have developed long COVID.

“It is quite possible that this same immune response persists in long COVID patients, resulting in neuronal injury,” said Dr. Nath. “There could be a small, indolent immune response that is continuing, which means that immune-modulating therapies might help these patients. So, these findings have very important therapeutic implications.”

The results suggest that treatments designed to prevent the development of the immune complexes observed in the study could be potential therapies for post-COVID neurologic symptoms.

This study was supported by the NINDS Division of Intramural Research (NS003130) and K23NS109284, the Roy J. Carver Foundation, and the Iowa Neuroscience Institute.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com. This article was translated from Medscape French edition.

A U.S. study describes the immune response to COVID-19 infection that damages the brain’s blood vessels and may lead to short- and long-term neurologic symptoms.

It seems that the virus does not infect the brain directly. The scientists found evidence that antibodies – proteins produced by the immune system in response to viruses and other invaders – are involved in an attack on the cells lining the brain’s blood vessels, leading to inflammation and damage. The study was published in the journal Brain.
 

Brain tissue autopsy

“Patients often develop neurological complications with COVID-19, but the underlying pathophysiological process is not well understood,” Avindra Nath, MD, stated in a National Institutes of Health news release. Dr. Nath, who specializes in neuroimmunology, is the clinical director at the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) and the senior author of the study. “We had previously shown blood vessel damage and inflammation in patients’ brains at autopsy, but we didn’t understand the cause of the damage. I think in this paper we’ve gained important insight into the cascade of events.”

In this study, Dr. Nath and his team examined brain tissue from a subset of patients from their previous study. The nine individuals, ages 24-73 years, died shortly after contracting COVID-19. They were chosen because structural brain scans showed signs of blood vessel damage in the brain. The samples were compared with those from 10 controls. The team looked at neuroinflammation and immune responses using immunohistochemistry.

As in their earlier study, researchers found signs of leaky blood vessels based on the presence of blood proteins that normally do not cross the blood-brain barrier. This suggests that the tight junctions between the endothelial cells in the blood-brain barrier have been damaged.
 

Neurologic symptoms’ molecular basis

Dr. Nath and his colleagues discovered deposits of immune complexes on the surface of the cells. This finding is evidence that damage to endothelial cells was likely due to an immune response.

These observations suggest an antibody-mediated attack that activates endothelial cells. When endothelial cells are activated, they express proteins called adhesion molecules that cause platelets to stick together.

“Activation of the endothelial cells brings platelets that stick to the blood vessel walls, causing clots to form and leakage to occur. At the same time, the tight junctions between the endothelial cells get disrupted, causing them to leak,” Dr. Nath explained. “Once leakage occurs, immune cells such as macrophages may come to repair the damage, setting up inflammation. This, in turn, causes damage to neurons.”

Researchers found that in areas with damage to the endothelial cells, more than 300 genes showed decreased expression, whereas six genes were increased. These genes were associated with oxidative stress, DNA damage, and metabolic dysregulation. As the NIH news release notes, this may provide clues to the molecular basis of neurologic symptoms related to COVID-19 and offer potential therapeutic targets.

Together, these findings give insight into the immune response damaging the brain after COVID-19 infection. But it remains unclear what antigen the immune response is targeting, because the virus itself was not detected in the brain. It is possible that antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein could bind to the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 receptor used by the virus to enter cells. More research is needed to explore this hypothesis.
 

‘Brain fog’ explained?

The study may also have implications for understanding and treating long-term neurologic symptoms after COVID-19, which include headache, fatigue, loss of taste and smell, sleep problems, and “brain fog.” Had the patients in the study survived, the researchers believe they would likely have developed long COVID.

“It is quite possible that this same immune response persists in long COVID patients, resulting in neuronal injury,” said Dr. Nath. “There could be a small, indolent immune response that is continuing, which means that immune-modulating therapies might help these patients. So, these findings have very important therapeutic implications.”

The results suggest that treatments designed to prevent the development of the immune complexes observed in the study could be potential therapies for post-COVID neurologic symptoms.

This study was supported by the NINDS Division of Intramural Research (NS003130) and K23NS109284, the Roy J. Carver Foundation, and the Iowa Neuroscience Institute.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com. This article was translated from Medscape French edition.

A U.S. study describes the immune response to COVID-19 infection that damages the brain’s blood vessels and may lead to short- and long-term neurologic symptoms.

It seems that the virus does not infect the brain directly. The scientists found evidence that antibodies – proteins produced by the immune system in response to viruses and other invaders – are involved in an attack on the cells lining the brain’s blood vessels, leading to inflammation and damage. The study was published in the journal Brain.
 

Brain tissue autopsy

“Patients often develop neurological complications with COVID-19, but the underlying pathophysiological process is not well understood,” Avindra Nath, MD, stated in a National Institutes of Health news release. Dr. Nath, who specializes in neuroimmunology, is the clinical director at the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) and the senior author of the study. “We had previously shown blood vessel damage and inflammation in patients’ brains at autopsy, but we didn’t understand the cause of the damage. I think in this paper we’ve gained important insight into the cascade of events.”

In this study, Dr. Nath and his team examined brain tissue from a subset of patients from their previous study. The nine individuals, ages 24-73 years, died shortly after contracting COVID-19. They were chosen because structural brain scans showed signs of blood vessel damage in the brain. The samples were compared with those from 10 controls. The team looked at neuroinflammation and immune responses using immunohistochemistry.

As in their earlier study, researchers found signs of leaky blood vessels based on the presence of blood proteins that normally do not cross the blood-brain barrier. This suggests that the tight junctions between the endothelial cells in the blood-brain barrier have been damaged.
 

Neurologic symptoms’ molecular basis

Dr. Nath and his colleagues discovered deposits of immune complexes on the surface of the cells. This finding is evidence that damage to endothelial cells was likely due to an immune response.

These observations suggest an antibody-mediated attack that activates endothelial cells. When endothelial cells are activated, they express proteins called adhesion molecules that cause platelets to stick together.

“Activation of the endothelial cells brings platelets that stick to the blood vessel walls, causing clots to form and leakage to occur. At the same time, the tight junctions between the endothelial cells get disrupted, causing them to leak,” Dr. Nath explained. “Once leakage occurs, immune cells such as macrophages may come to repair the damage, setting up inflammation. This, in turn, causes damage to neurons.”

Researchers found that in areas with damage to the endothelial cells, more than 300 genes showed decreased expression, whereas six genes were increased. These genes were associated with oxidative stress, DNA damage, and metabolic dysregulation. As the NIH news release notes, this may provide clues to the molecular basis of neurologic symptoms related to COVID-19 and offer potential therapeutic targets.

Together, these findings give insight into the immune response damaging the brain after COVID-19 infection. But it remains unclear what antigen the immune response is targeting, because the virus itself was not detected in the brain. It is possible that antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein could bind to the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 receptor used by the virus to enter cells. More research is needed to explore this hypothesis.
 

‘Brain fog’ explained?

The study may also have implications for understanding and treating long-term neurologic symptoms after COVID-19, which include headache, fatigue, loss of taste and smell, sleep problems, and “brain fog.” Had the patients in the study survived, the researchers believe they would likely have developed long COVID.

“It is quite possible that this same immune response persists in long COVID patients, resulting in neuronal injury,” said Dr. Nath. “There could be a small, indolent immune response that is continuing, which means that immune-modulating therapies might help these patients. So, these findings have very important therapeutic implications.”

The results suggest that treatments designed to prevent the development of the immune complexes observed in the study could be potential therapies for post-COVID neurologic symptoms.

This study was supported by the NINDS Division of Intramural Research (NS003130) and K23NS109284, the Roy J. Carver Foundation, and the Iowa Neuroscience Institute.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com. This article was translated from Medscape French edition.