MDedge Endocrinology

The prevalence of metabolic syndrome varies according to how it is defined, but approximately 30% of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) patients met the criteria in a cohort study of 724 individuals, as did approximately 23%-63% of patients across multiple studies, investigators from Spain report.

Previous studies of people with PsA in particular suggest they are at an increased risk of cardiovascular disease and have a higher prevalence of metabolic syndrome, prompting recommendations on cardiovascular risk management for patients with PsA, wrote the authors, Ana Urruticoechea-Arana, MD, of the department of rheumatology, Hospital Can Misses, Ibiza, Spain, and colleagues.

However, assessing the prevalence of metabolic syndrome remains a challenge because the definition varies across studies, they noted.

For a more thorough assessment of the prevalence of metabolic syndrome in this population, the researchers conducted a study using two sources: a systematic literature review of 18 studies published up to March 2019, and data on patients with PsA enrolled in the CARMA (Spanish Cardiovascular in Rheumatology) project, a longitudinal cohort observational study of adults with inflammatory diseases in Spain. The findings were published March 1 in the Journal of Clinical Rheumatology.

The literature review included a total of a total of 2,452 patients with PsA, with a mean age between 42 and 59 years, and a mean disease duration ranging from 3 to 14 years.

The definitions of metabolic syndrome varied; the most common was the definition from the National Cholesterol Education Program (NECP ATP III). Other definitions used in the studies included those issued by the International Diabetes Federation, the World Health Organization, and the American Heart Association.

Across these studies, the rate of metabolic syndrome ranged from 23.5% to 62.9%. Prevalence was similar between men and women. One study that included patients with a PsA disease duration of only 3 years showed a prevalence of 38%, similar to the average prevalence overall. Another study showed a significantly higher prevalence of metabolic syndrome in patients with PsA and cutaneous psoriasis, compared with those without psoriasis (40.8% vs. 13.16%; P = .006).

The CARMA study included 724 patients with PsA; 45.4% were women and 21.8% were smokers. The mean age of the population in this study was 51 years, and the mean disease duration was 9 years. Overall, 222 patients (30.7%) met at least three criteria for metabolic syndrome, based on the NCEP ATP III definition. The most common abnormal findings for traditional cardiovascular risk factors in the CARMA cohort were high blood pressure (66.8%), hyperglycemia (42.6%), and hypertriglyceridemia (30.6%).

Despite the variation in prevalence of metabolic syndrome, depending on the definition used, the authors wrote, “It can be stated that the rate of [metabolic syndrome] in patients with PsA is in general very high, especially if we take into account the mean age of patients included in the studies.”

“These findings support the hypotheses that this increase in the inflammatory pathway in PsA may contribute a higher risk of cardiovascular events and [metabolic syndrome] in patients with PsA than patients with psoriasis alone, the risk being even higher in severe PsA,” and that insulin resistance, metabolic syndrome, and atherosclerotic events “may have a common inflammatory basis,” the researchers wrote in their discussion of the results.

The study findings were limited by several factors, most importantly the variation in definitions of metabolic syndrome in the literature review, which limits the generalizability of the results, the researchers said. Limitations of the CARMA study include the focus only on patients who were being cared for in hospitals, which might yield an overestimation of metabolic syndrome, they added.

However, the results support findings from previous studies and highlight the need for proper assessment of body weight and cardiovascular risk factors in patients with PsA at the onset of disease, they said.

“Furthermore, it is necessary to conduct more research to standardize (and modify as appropriate) the definition of [metabolic syndrome] and establish the best strategy for managing it in these patients,” they concluded.

The study was funded by an independent grant from UCB Pharma. One author disclosed receiving grants from Pfizer, Abbvie, Novartis, Roche, UCB, Sanofi, BMS, Lilly, MSD, and Janssen. Lead author Dr. Urruticoechea-Arana and the other authors had no disclosures.

The prevalence of metabolic syndrome varies according to how it is defined, but approximately 30% of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) patients met the criteria in a cohort study of 724 individuals, as did approximately 23%-63% of patients across multiple studies, investigators from Spain report.

Previous studies of people with PsA in particular suggest they are at an increased risk of cardiovascular disease and have a higher prevalence of metabolic syndrome, prompting recommendations on cardiovascular risk management for patients with PsA, wrote the authors, Ana Urruticoechea-Arana, MD, of the department of rheumatology, Hospital Can Misses, Ibiza, Spain, and colleagues.

However, assessing the prevalence of metabolic syndrome remains a challenge because the definition varies across studies, they noted.

For a more thorough assessment of the prevalence of metabolic syndrome in this population, the researchers conducted a study using two sources: a systematic literature review of 18 studies published up to March 2019, and data on patients with PsA enrolled in the CARMA (Spanish Cardiovascular in Rheumatology) project, a longitudinal cohort observational study of adults with inflammatory diseases in Spain. The findings were published March 1 in the Journal of Clinical Rheumatology.

The literature review included a total of a total of 2,452 patients with PsA, with a mean age between 42 and 59 years, and a mean disease duration ranging from 3 to 14 years.

The definitions of metabolic syndrome varied; the most common was the definition from the National Cholesterol Education Program (NECP ATP III). Other definitions used in the studies included those issued by the International Diabetes Federation, the World Health Organization, and the American Heart Association.

Across these studies, the rate of metabolic syndrome ranged from 23.5% to 62.9%. Prevalence was similar between men and women. One study that included patients with a PsA disease duration of only 3 years showed a prevalence of 38%, similar to the average prevalence overall. Another study showed a significantly higher prevalence of metabolic syndrome in patients with PsA and cutaneous psoriasis, compared with those without psoriasis (40.8% vs. 13.16%; P = .006).

The CARMA study included 724 patients with PsA; 45.4% were women and 21.8% were smokers. The mean age of the population in this study was 51 years, and the mean disease duration was 9 years. Overall, 222 patients (30.7%) met at least three criteria for metabolic syndrome, based on the NCEP ATP III definition. The most common abnormal findings for traditional cardiovascular risk factors in the CARMA cohort were high blood pressure (66.8%), hyperglycemia (42.6%), and hypertriglyceridemia (30.6%).

Despite the variation in prevalence of metabolic syndrome, depending on the definition used, the authors wrote, “It can be stated that the rate of [metabolic syndrome] in patients with PsA is in general very high, especially if we take into account the mean age of patients included in the studies.”

“These findings support the hypotheses that this increase in the inflammatory pathway in PsA may contribute a higher risk of cardiovascular events and [metabolic syndrome] in patients with PsA than patients with psoriasis alone, the risk being even higher in severe PsA,” and that insulin resistance, metabolic syndrome, and atherosclerotic events “may have a common inflammatory basis,” the researchers wrote in their discussion of the results.

The study findings were limited by several factors, most importantly the variation in definitions of metabolic syndrome in the literature review, which limits the generalizability of the results, the researchers said. Limitations of the CARMA study include the focus only on patients who were being cared for in hospitals, which might yield an overestimation of metabolic syndrome, they added.

However, the results support findings from previous studies and highlight the need for proper assessment of body weight and cardiovascular risk factors in patients with PsA at the onset of disease, they said.

“Furthermore, it is necessary to conduct more research to standardize (and modify as appropriate) the definition of [metabolic syndrome] and establish the best strategy for managing it in these patients,” they concluded.

The study was funded by an independent grant from UCB Pharma. One author disclosed receiving grants from Pfizer, Abbvie, Novartis, Roche, UCB, Sanofi, BMS, Lilly, MSD, and Janssen. Lead author Dr. Urruticoechea-Arana and the other authors had no disclosures.

The prevalence of metabolic syndrome varies according to how it is defined, but approximately 30% of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) patients met the criteria in a cohort study of 724 individuals, as did approximately 23%-63% of patients across multiple studies, investigators from Spain report.

Previous studies of people with PsA in particular suggest they are at an increased risk of cardiovascular disease and have a higher prevalence of metabolic syndrome, prompting recommendations on cardiovascular risk management for patients with PsA, wrote the authors, Ana Urruticoechea-Arana, MD, of the department of rheumatology, Hospital Can Misses, Ibiza, Spain, and colleagues.

However, assessing the prevalence of metabolic syndrome remains a challenge because the definition varies across studies, they noted.

For a more thorough assessment of the prevalence of metabolic syndrome in this population, the researchers conducted a study using two sources: a systematic literature review of 18 studies published up to March 2019, and data on patients with PsA enrolled in the CARMA (Spanish Cardiovascular in Rheumatology) project, a longitudinal cohort observational study of adults with inflammatory diseases in Spain. The findings were published March 1 in the Journal of Clinical Rheumatology.

The literature review included a total of a total of 2,452 patients with PsA, with a mean age between 42 and 59 years, and a mean disease duration ranging from 3 to 14 years.

The definitions of metabolic syndrome varied; the most common was the definition from the National Cholesterol Education Program (NECP ATP III). Other definitions used in the studies included those issued by the International Diabetes Federation, the World Health Organization, and the American Heart Association.

Across these studies, the rate of metabolic syndrome ranged from 23.5% to 62.9%. Prevalence was similar between men and women. One study that included patients with a PsA disease duration of only 3 years showed a prevalence of 38%, similar to the average prevalence overall. Another study showed a significantly higher prevalence of metabolic syndrome in patients with PsA and cutaneous psoriasis, compared with those without psoriasis (40.8% vs. 13.16%; P = .006).

The CARMA study included 724 patients with PsA; 45.4% were women and 21.8% were smokers. The mean age of the population in this study was 51 years, and the mean disease duration was 9 years. Overall, 222 patients (30.7%) met at least three criteria for metabolic syndrome, based on the NCEP ATP III definition. The most common abnormal findings for traditional cardiovascular risk factors in the CARMA cohort were high blood pressure (66.8%), hyperglycemia (42.6%), and hypertriglyceridemia (30.6%).

Despite the variation in prevalence of metabolic syndrome, depending on the definition used, the authors wrote, “It can be stated that the rate of [metabolic syndrome] in patients with PsA is in general very high, especially if we take into account the mean age of patients included in the studies.”

“These findings support the hypotheses that this increase in the inflammatory pathway in PsA may contribute a higher risk of cardiovascular events and [metabolic syndrome] in patients with PsA than patients with psoriasis alone, the risk being even higher in severe PsA,” and that insulin resistance, metabolic syndrome, and atherosclerotic events “may have a common inflammatory basis,” the researchers wrote in their discussion of the results.

The study findings were limited by several factors, most importantly the variation in definitions of metabolic syndrome in the literature review, which limits the generalizability of the results, the researchers said. Limitations of the CARMA study include the focus only on patients who were being cared for in hospitals, which might yield an overestimation of metabolic syndrome, they added.

However, the results support findings from previous studies and highlight the need for proper assessment of body weight and cardiovascular risk factors in patients with PsA at the onset of disease, they said.

“Furthermore, it is necessary to conduct more research to standardize (and modify as appropriate) the definition of [metabolic syndrome] and establish the best strategy for managing it in these patients,” they concluded.

The study was funded by an independent grant from UCB Pharma. One author disclosed receiving grants from Pfizer, Abbvie, Novartis, Roche, UCB, Sanofi, BMS, Lilly, MSD, and Janssen. Lead author Dr. Urruticoechea-Arana and the other authors had no disclosures.

“Living with diabetes is not smooth sailing…From the onset of the disease in a child or adolescent through all the days that follow, there is nothing ordinary about it,” according to Aide aux Jeunes Diabétiques (AJD), a French association providing support for children and adolescents with diabetes. What is the psychological impact of the disease on patients and their loved ones? When we look at the life of a person with diabetes, are there key stages that call for more focused attention?

Nadine Hoffmeister, a psychologist at AJD, offers support to patients with diabetes and their parents as they navigate and deal with in-patient treatment for the disease. She recently spoke with this news organization.

Q: Are psychological issues more prevalent in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) than in the general population?

Dr. Hoffmeister: Having a chronic disease is not something that should be viewed as automatically making the person more susceptible to psychological issues. When we think about kids with T1D, it’s important to keep in mind that the risk for depression and the risk for eating disorders are, in general, higher in adolescence.

Of course, it can’t be denied that having diabetes can make one more vulnerable to experiencing mental distress. Clearly, the risk for eating disorders is there, given the constant focus on managing one’s diet. And there’s a greater risk for depression, because life with diabetes can really be trying. That said, how much impact the disease has depends in large part on the environment, the monitoring, and the collaboration of everyone involved.
 

Q: Are there key stages in the life of patients with T1D that call for targeted psychological support? 

Dr. Hoffmeister: The thing about T1D is that it can affect anyone at any age – a small child, a teenager, a young adult. So, in that sense, all ‘firsts’ are key stages. They start, of course, with the first ‘first’: diagnosis. For children diagnosed at an early age, there’s the first day of nursery school or kindergarten, the first piece of birthday cake. Then we get to kids starting middle school and high school, places where they’re now left to their own devices. This is when, for the first time, they’ll have an opportunity to take a trip without their parents and siblings, to go to a party.

And then, there’s the first time using a particular treatment. For example, switching from injections to a pump requires not only an adjustment in terms of physically operating a new device, but a reorientation in terms of mentally settling into a new routine, a new way of administering medication, and so on. They have to learn how to get along with this machine that’s attached to them all the time. They have to view it as being a part of them, view it as a partner, a teammate, a friend. It’s not that easy.

Later on, one of the major stages is, of course, adolescence. Critical developments in the separation–individuation process are taking place. They start to feel the need to break free, to become autonomous, as they seek to fully come to terms with their disease.

Parents usually worry about this stage, adolescence. They’re scared that their child won’t be as vigilant, that they’ll be scatterbrained or careless when it comes to staying on top of all those things that need to be done to keep T1D under control. Most of the time, this stage goes better than they thought. Still, the fact remains that it’s difficult to find a happy medium between adolescence and diabetes. Indeed, there’s a bit of a paradox here. On the one hand, we have adolescence which, by definition, is a time of spontaneity, independence, of trying new things. On the other hand, we have diabetes and its limits and constraints, its care and treatment, day in and day out. We have to pay close attention to how the child navigates and makes their way through this stage of their life.

During adolescence, there’s also a heightened awareness and concern about how others look at you, see you – everywhere, not only in classrooms and hallways. If the way someone looks at them seems aggressive or intrusive, the child may start to feel scared. The risk then becomes that they’ll start feeling awkward or ashamed or embarrassed. We have to keep this in mind and help lead the child away from those feelings. Otherwise, they can end up with low self-esteem, they can start to withdraw.

It can sometimes get to the point where they choose to neglect their treatment so as to conform to the way others see them. Adults can easily lose sight of these kinds of things. So, it’s imperative that we talk to the child. If they’re having trouble following their treatment plan, maybe there’s something going on at school. So, let’s ask them: “How do you like your classes and teachers?” “How are you doing with your injections? Are you finding that they’re getting easier and easier to do?” And always keeping in mind the real possibility that the child may be feeling awkward, ashamed, embarrassed.
 

Q: Is enough being done to pick up on and address these children’s needs?

Dr. Hoffmeister: I think that these efforts are becoming more and more widespread. Still, there are disparities. When it comes to patients with chronic diseases, it’s not always easy to implement mental health care into the treatment plan. In some cases, there might not be a hospital nearby. And as we know, there are no spots available in medical and psychiatric centers. Of course, outside of hospital settings, we’re seeing the unfortunate situation of fewer and fewer middle schools and high schools having nurses on site.

And then, what options there are for getting support vary greatly from hospital to hospital. Some don’t have psychologists. Others have full schedules and not enough staff. That said, more and more teams are trying to set up regular appointments right from the time of diagnosis. This is a really good approach to take, even though the circumstances may not be ideal. After all, the person has just been told that they have diabetes; they’re not really in the best state of mind to have any kind of discussion.
 

Q: And so, it makes sense that AJD would offer the kind of mental health support that you’re now providing there.

Dr. Hoffmeister: Exactly. My position was created 4 years ago. I’m not at the hospital. I’m an external. The goal is to be able to offer this psychological support to everyone. I do consultations over the phone so that no matter where a person is in France, they’ll have access to this support. There’s great demand, and the requests are only increasing. I think this has to do with the fact that people are being diagnosed younger and younger. It’s a very complicated situation for the parents. No matter how young their child is, they want to get that support underway as soon as possible.

Q: You speak about the patients getting support. But doesn’t some kind of help have to be given to their parents and loved ones as well?

Dr. Hoffmeister: Yes. I’d say that 60% to 70% of the work I do at AJD is for parents. I also have some older adolescents and some younger kids whom I call to keep up with. But children aren’t very interested in discussing plans over the phone. For parents, the thing about diabetes is that they find themselves in these situations where their child is in the hospital for, say, a week, then is discharged, and all of a sudden, they find themselves at home as the ones in charge of their child’s treatment.

When it’s a little kid, the parents are the ones who are taking care of all the steps, the injections, the pumps. They’re dealing with the distress of a child going through episodes of nocturnal hypoglycemia. They’re experiencing varying degrees of anxiety in carrying out all of these responsibilities and, at the same time, the bond they have with their child is becoming stronger and stronger. So, there’s that anxiety. In this situation, parents may also feel a need for control. And they’re also feeling exhausted; the mental load of dealing with diabetes is very, very intense. To work through all this, many parents reach out for psychological support.

Then later on, when the child has gotten a little older, the parents find it difficult to get to the point of being able to just let go. But once the parents get to know their child better, get to know how their child experiences diabetes, they’ll get to that point. What they come to learn is that the child can take care of things, the child can feel what’s going on in their body, the child can be trusted.
 

Q: How can we help and support children with diabetes?

Dr. Hoffmeister: One of the most important things is to teach the child to come to terms with the disease and how it affects their body. In other words, the idea here is to adapt diabetes to one’s life, not the other way around. The goal is to not let diabetes take over.

When faced with standardized medical protocols, during a session with a psychologist, the child can talk about their life, give an idea of what a day in their life looks like. For example, the school cafeteria is a place where children get the opportunity to socialize and interact with their peers. We want to have that lunch period be as normal as possible for the child with diabetes. In some schools, lunchtime becomes a challenge. So, not seeing any other solution, mom stops working so the child can come home to eat. These are the kinds of situations where efforts to make the child feel included have failed. They’re tough to deal with, all around. And so this is why we do all we can to keep things as normal as possible for these children.
 

Q: What would you say is the one initiative out there that’s giving young patients with T1D the most help and support?

Dr. Hoffmeister: AJD offers stays at Care Management and Rehabilitation (SSR) sites. For kids and teenagers with diabetes, these places are like summer camps where every aspect of treatment is taken care of.

There’s a medical team monitoring their disease and a team of counselors always on hand. It’s a time when children may very well bring up things that are on their mind. All in all, the children have a safe and welcoming environment where treatment is provided and they can feel free to open up and talk.

If a problem crops up, I’m always on call to jump online. And throughout the stay, the medical team is keeping in touch to discuss the child’s care.

AJD is also an interdisciplinary association. We regularly organize practice exchange groups that bring together health care professionals and families from all over France. In this way, we’re able to collaborate and come up with resources, such as information packets and kits – for the newly diagnosed, for those starting intensive insulin therapy, and so on. These resources take into account medical protocols related to diabetes. They’re also designed with family life in mind. And having this set of resources works toward standardizing treatments.

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

“Living with diabetes is not smooth sailing…From the onset of the disease in a child or adolescent through all the days that follow, there is nothing ordinary about it,” according to Aide aux Jeunes Diabétiques (AJD), a French association providing support for children and adolescents with diabetes. What is the psychological impact of the disease on patients and their loved ones? When we look at the life of a person with diabetes, are there key stages that call for more focused attention?

Nadine Hoffmeister, a psychologist at AJD, offers support to patients with diabetes and their parents as they navigate and deal with in-patient treatment for the disease. She recently spoke with this news organization.

Q: Are psychological issues more prevalent in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) than in the general population?

Dr. Hoffmeister: Having a chronic disease is not something that should be viewed as automatically making the person more susceptible to psychological issues. When we think about kids with T1D, it’s important to keep in mind that the risk for depression and the risk for eating disorders are, in general, higher in adolescence.

Of course, it can’t be denied that having diabetes can make one more vulnerable to experiencing mental distress. Clearly, the risk for eating disorders is there, given the constant focus on managing one’s diet. And there’s a greater risk for depression, because life with diabetes can really be trying. That said, how much impact the disease has depends in large part on the environment, the monitoring, and the collaboration of everyone involved.
 

Q: Are there key stages in the life of patients with T1D that call for targeted psychological support? 

Dr. Hoffmeister: The thing about T1D is that it can affect anyone at any age – a small child, a teenager, a young adult. So, in that sense, all ‘firsts’ are key stages. They start, of course, with the first ‘first’: diagnosis. For children diagnosed at an early age, there’s the first day of nursery school or kindergarten, the first piece of birthday cake. Then we get to kids starting middle school and high school, places where they’re now left to their own devices. This is when, for the first time, they’ll have an opportunity to take a trip without their parents and siblings, to go to a party.

And then, there’s the first time using a particular treatment. For example, switching from injections to a pump requires not only an adjustment in terms of physically operating a new device, but a reorientation in terms of mentally settling into a new routine, a new way of administering medication, and so on. They have to learn how to get along with this machine that’s attached to them all the time. They have to view it as being a part of them, view it as a partner, a teammate, a friend. It’s not that easy.

Later on, one of the major stages is, of course, adolescence. Critical developments in the separation–individuation process are taking place. They start to feel the need to break free, to become autonomous, as they seek to fully come to terms with their disease.

Parents usually worry about this stage, adolescence. They’re scared that their child won’t be as vigilant, that they’ll be scatterbrained or careless when it comes to staying on top of all those things that need to be done to keep T1D under control. Most of the time, this stage goes better than they thought. Still, the fact remains that it’s difficult to find a happy medium between adolescence and diabetes. Indeed, there’s a bit of a paradox here. On the one hand, we have adolescence which, by definition, is a time of spontaneity, independence, of trying new things. On the other hand, we have diabetes and its limits and constraints, its care and treatment, day in and day out. We have to pay close attention to how the child navigates and makes their way through this stage of their life.

During adolescence, there’s also a heightened awareness and concern about how others look at you, see you – everywhere, not only in classrooms and hallways. If the way someone looks at them seems aggressive or intrusive, the child may start to feel scared. The risk then becomes that they’ll start feeling awkward or ashamed or embarrassed. We have to keep this in mind and help lead the child away from those feelings. Otherwise, they can end up with low self-esteem, they can start to withdraw.

It can sometimes get to the point where they choose to neglect their treatment so as to conform to the way others see them. Adults can easily lose sight of these kinds of things. So, it’s imperative that we talk to the child. If they’re having trouble following their treatment plan, maybe there’s something going on at school. So, let’s ask them: “How do you like your classes and teachers?” “How are you doing with your injections? Are you finding that they’re getting easier and easier to do?” And always keeping in mind the real possibility that the child may be feeling awkward, ashamed, embarrassed.
 

Q: Is enough being done to pick up on and address these children’s needs?

Dr. Hoffmeister: I think that these efforts are becoming more and more widespread. Still, there are disparities. When it comes to patients with chronic diseases, it’s not always easy to implement mental health care into the treatment plan. In some cases, there might not be a hospital nearby. And as we know, there are no spots available in medical and psychiatric centers. Of course, outside of hospital settings, we’re seeing the unfortunate situation of fewer and fewer middle schools and high schools having nurses on site.

And then, what options there are for getting support vary greatly from hospital to hospital. Some don’t have psychologists. Others have full schedules and not enough staff. That said, more and more teams are trying to set up regular appointments right from the time of diagnosis. This is a really good approach to take, even though the circumstances may not be ideal. After all, the person has just been told that they have diabetes; they’re not really in the best state of mind to have any kind of discussion.
 

Q: And so, it makes sense that AJD would offer the kind of mental health support that you’re now providing there.

Dr. Hoffmeister: Exactly. My position was created 4 years ago. I’m not at the hospital. I’m an external. The goal is to be able to offer this psychological support to everyone. I do consultations over the phone so that no matter where a person is in France, they’ll have access to this support. There’s great demand, and the requests are only increasing. I think this has to do with the fact that people are being diagnosed younger and younger. It’s a very complicated situation for the parents. No matter how young their child is, they want to get that support underway as soon as possible.

Q: You speak about the patients getting support. But doesn’t some kind of help have to be given to their parents and loved ones as well?

Dr. Hoffmeister: Yes. I’d say that 60% to 70% of the work I do at AJD is for parents. I also have some older adolescents and some younger kids whom I call to keep up with. But children aren’t very interested in discussing plans over the phone. For parents, the thing about diabetes is that they find themselves in these situations where their child is in the hospital for, say, a week, then is discharged, and all of a sudden, they find themselves at home as the ones in charge of their child’s treatment.

When it’s a little kid, the parents are the ones who are taking care of all the steps, the injections, the pumps. They’re dealing with the distress of a child going through episodes of nocturnal hypoglycemia. They’re experiencing varying degrees of anxiety in carrying out all of these responsibilities and, at the same time, the bond they have with their child is becoming stronger and stronger. So, there’s that anxiety. In this situation, parents may also feel a need for control. And they’re also feeling exhausted; the mental load of dealing with diabetes is very, very intense. To work through all this, many parents reach out for psychological support.

Then later on, when the child has gotten a little older, the parents find it difficult to get to the point of being able to just let go. But once the parents get to know their child better, get to know how their child experiences diabetes, they’ll get to that point. What they come to learn is that the child can take care of things, the child can feel what’s going on in their body, the child can be trusted.
 

Q: How can we help and support children with diabetes?

Dr. Hoffmeister: One of the most important things is to teach the child to come to terms with the disease and how it affects their body. In other words, the idea here is to adapt diabetes to one’s life, not the other way around. The goal is to not let diabetes take over.

When faced with standardized medical protocols, during a session with a psychologist, the child can talk about their life, give an idea of what a day in their life looks like. For example, the school cafeteria is a place where children get the opportunity to socialize and interact with their peers. We want to have that lunch period be as normal as possible for the child with diabetes. In some schools, lunchtime becomes a challenge. So, not seeing any other solution, mom stops working so the child can come home to eat. These are the kinds of situations where efforts to make the child feel included have failed. They’re tough to deal with, all around. And so this is why we do all we can to keep things as normal as possible for these children.
 

Q: What would you say is the one initiative out there that’s giving young patients with T1D the most help and support?

Dr. Hoffmeister: AJD offers stays at Care Management and Rehabilitation (SSR) sites. For kids and teenagers with diabetes, these places are like summer camps where every aspect of treatment is taken care of.

There’s a medical team monitoring their disease and a team of counselors always on hand. It’s a time when children may very well bring up things that are on their mind. All in all, the children have a safe and welcoming environment where treatment is provided and they can feel free to open up and talk.

If a problem crops up, I’m always on call to jump online. And throughout the stay, the medical team is keeping in touch to discuss the child’s care.

AJD is also an interdisciplinary association. We regularly organize practice exchange groups that bring together health care professionals and families from all over France. In this way, we’re able to collaborate and come up with resources, such as information packets and kits – for the newly diagnosed, for those starting intensive insulin therapy, and so on. These resources take into account medical protocols related to diabetes. They’re also designed with family life in mind. And having this set of resources works toward standardizing treatments.

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

“Living with diabetes is not smooth sailing…From the onset of the disease in a child or adolescent through all the days that follow, there is nothing ordinary about it,” according to Aide aux Jeunes Diabétiques (AJD), a French association providing support for children and adolescents with diabetes. What is the psychological impact of the disease on patients and their loved ones? When we look at the life of a person with diabetes, are there key stages that call for more focused attention?

Nadine Hoffmeister, a psychologist at AJD, offers support to patients with diabetes and their parents as they navigate and deal with in-patient treatment for the disease. She recently spoke with this news organization.

Q: Are psychological issues more prevalent in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) than in the general population?

Dr. Hoffmeister: Having a chronic disease is not something that should be viewed as automatically making the person more susceptible to psychological issues. When we think about kids with T1D, it’s important to keep in mind that the risk for depression and the risk for eating disorders are, in general, higher in adolescence.

Of course, it can’t be denied that having diabetes can make one more vulnerable to experiencing mental distress. Clearly, the risk for eating disorders is there, given the constant focus on managing one’s diet. And there’s a greater risk for depression, because life with diabetes can really be trying. That said, how much impact the disease has depends in large part on the environment, the monitoring, and the collaboration of everyone involved.
 

Q: Are there key stages in the life of patients with T1D that call for targeted psychological support? 

Dr. Hoffmeister: The thing about T1D is that it can affect anyone at any age – a small child, a teenager, a young adult. So, in that sense, all ‘firsts’ are key stages. They start, of course, with the first ‘first’: diagnosis. For children diagnosed at an early age, there’s the first day of nursery school or kindergarten, the first piece of birthday cake. Then we get to kids starting middle school and high school, places where they’re now left to their own devices. This is when, for the first time, they’ll have an opportunity to take a trip without their parents and siblings, to go to a party.

And then, there’s the first time using a particular treatment. For example, switching from injections to a pump requires not only an adjustment in terms of physically operating a new device, but a reorientation in terms of mentally settling into a new routine, a new way of administering medication, and so on. They have to learn how to get along with this machine that’s attached to them all the time. They have to view it as being a part of them, view it as a partner, a teammate, a friend. It’s not that easy.

Later on, one of the major stages is, of course, adolescence. Critical developments in the separation–individuation process are taking place. They start to feel the need to break free, to become autonomous, as they seek to fully come to terms with their disease.

Parents usually worry about this stage, adolescence. They’re scared that their child won’t be as vigilant, that they’ll be scatterbrained or careless when it comes to staying on top of all those things that need to be done to keep T1D under control. Most of the time, this stage goes better than they thought. Still, the fact remains that it’s difficult to find a happy medium between adolescence and diabetes. Indeed, there’s a bit of a paradox here. On the one hand, we have adolescence which, by definition, is a time of spontaneity, independence, of trying new things. On the other hand, we have diabetes and its limits and constraints, its care and treatment, day in and day out. We have to pay close attention to how the child navigates and makes their way through this stage of their life.

During adolescence, there’s also a heightened awareness and concern about how others look at you, see you – everywhere, not only in classrooms and hallways. If the way someone looks at them seems aggressive or intrusive, the child may start to feel scared. The risk then becomes that they’ll start feeling awkward or ashamed or embarrassed. We have to keep this in mind and help lead the child away from those feelings. Otherwise, they can end up with low self-esteem, they can start to withdraw.

It can sometimes get to the point where they choose to neglect their treatment so as to conform to the way others see them. Adults can easily lose sight of these kinds of things. So, it’s imperative that we talk to the child. If they’re having trouble following their treatment plan, maybe there’s something going on at school. So, let’s ask them: “How do you like your classes and teachers?” “How are you doing with your injections? Are you finding that they’re getting easier and easier to do?” And always keeping in mind the real possibility that the child may be feeling awkward, ashamed, embarrassed.
 

Q: Is enough being done to pick up on and address these children’s needs?

Dr. Hoffmeister: I think that these efforts are becoming more and more widespread. Still, there are disparities. When it comes to patients with chronic diseases, it’s not always easy to implement mental health care into the treatment plan. In some cases, there might not be a hospital nearby. And as we know, there are no spots available in medical and psychiatric centers. Of course, outside of hospital settings, we’re seeing the unfortunate situation of fewer and fewer middle schools and high schools having nurses on site.

And then, what options there are for getting support vary greatly from hospital to hospital. Some don’t have psychologists. Others have full schedules and not enough staff. That said, more and more teams are trying to set up regular appointments right from the time of diagnosis. This is a really good approach to take, even though the circumstances may not be ideal. After all, the person has just been told that they have diabetes; they’re not really in the best state of mind to have any kind of discussion.
 

Q: And so, it makes sense that AJD would offer the kind of mental health support that you’re now providing there.

Dr. Hoffmeister: Exactly. My position was created 4 years ago. I’m not at the hospital. I’m an external. The goal is to be able to offer this psychological support to everyone. I do consultations over the phone so that no matter where a person is in France, they’ll have access to this support. There’s great demand, and the requests are only increasing. I think this has to do with the fact that people are being diagnosed younger and younger. It’s a very complicated situation for the parents. No matter how young their child is, they want to get that support underway as soon as possible.

Q: You speak about the patients getting support. But doesn’t some kind of help have to be given to their parents and loved ones as well?

Dr. Hoffmeister: Yes. I’d say that 60% to 70% of the work I do at AJD is for parents. I also have some older adolescents and some younger kids whom I call to keep up with. But children aren’t very interested in discussing plans over the phone. For parents, the thing about diabetes is that they find themselves in these situations where their child is in the hospital for, say, a week, then is discharged, and all of a sudden, they find themselves at home as the ones in charge of their child’s treatment.

When it’s a little kid, the parents are the ones who are taking care of all the steps, the injections, the pumps. They’re dealing with the distress of a child going through episodes of nocturnal hypoglycemia. They’re experiencing varying degrees of anxiety in carrying out all of these responsibilities and, at the same time, the bond they have with their child is becoming stronger and stronger. So, there’s that anxiety. In this situation, parents may also feel a need for control. And they’re also feeling exhausted; the mental load of dealing with diabetes is very, very intense. To work through all this, many parents reach out for psychological support.

Then later on, when the child has gotten a little older, the parents find it difficult to get to the point of being able to just let go. But once the parents get to know their child better, get to know how their child experiences diabetes, they’ll get to that point. What they come to learn is that the child can take care of things, the child can feel what’s going on in their body, the child can be trusted.
 

Q: How can we help and support children with diabetes?

Dr. Hoffmeister: One of the most important things is to teach the child to come to terms with the disease and how it affects their body. In other words, the idea here is to adapt diabetes to one’s life, not the other way around. The goal is to not let diabetes take over.

When faced with standardized medical protocols, during a session with a psychologist, the child can talk about their life, give an idea of what a day in their life looks like. For example, the school cafeteria is a place where children get the opportunity to socialize and interact with their peers. We want to have that lunch period be as normal as possible for the child with diabetes. In some schools, lunchtime becomes a challenge. So, not seeing any other solution, mom stops working so the child can come home to eat. These are the kinds of situations where efforts to make the child feel included have failed. They’re tough to deal with, all around. And so this is why we do all we can to keep things as normal as possible for these children.
 

Q: What would you say is the one initiative out there that’s giving young patients with T1D the most help and support?

Dr. Hoffmeister: AJD offers stays at Care Management and Rehabilitation (SSR) sites. For kids and teenagers with diabetes, these places are like summer camps where every aspect of treatment is taken care of.

There’s a medical team monitoring their disease and a team of counselors always on hand. It’s a time when children may very well bring up things that are on their mind. All in all, the children have a safe and welcoming environment where treatment is provided and they can feel free to open up and talk.

If a problem crops up, I’m always on call to jump online. And throughout the stay, the medical team is keeping in touch to discuss the child’s care.

AJD is also an interdisciplinary association. We regularly organize practice exchange groups that bring together health care professionals and families from all over France. In this way, we’re able to collaborate and come up with resources, such as information packets and kits – for the newly diagnosed, for those starting intensive insulin therapy, and so on. These resources take into account medical protocols related to diabetes. They’re also designed with family life in mind. And having this set of resources works toward standardizing treatments.

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

The debate on whether the popular class of antihypertensive drugs, angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), may be associated with an increased risk for cancer has been reopened with the publication of a new meta-analysis.

The analysis found an increasing risk for cancer, and specifically lung cancer, with increasing cumulative exposure to these drugs.

The findings are reported in a study published online in PLOS ONE.

The author of this new meta-analysis is Ilke Sipahi, MD, a cardiologist from Acibadem University Medical School, Istanbul, who previously raised this issue in an initial meta-analysis published in 2010.

“The new meta-analysis is important because it is the first study to investigate whether there is a dose response in the association between ARBs and cancer,” Dr. Sipahi told this news organization.

“I found a clear signal of increased risk of cancer as exposure to ARBs increased, and the association started to become significant when the maximum dose was taken for 3 years,” he added.

Dr. Sipahi explained that in the first meta-analysis published in Lancet Oncology, he and his colleagues reported an increased cancer risk with ARBs based on observations from high-exposure trials – those that included higher doses of ARBs with a long duration of follow-up.

Following this publication, an investigation by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration refuted the risk, and a collaboration of ARB trial investigators also performed an analysis published in the Journal of Hypertension (2011. doi: 10.1097/HJH.0b013e328344a7de), which again did not show an increased risk for cancer with use of ARBs.

Dr. Sipahi claims that those analyses by the FDA and the ARB Trialists Collaboration, which were all trial-level meta-analyses, diluted the “high exposure” data (including higher doses taken for longer periods of time) with a large amount of other data on much lower exposures (lower doses and/or shorter time periods).

“The overall risk would then inevitably become nonsignificant. These analyses also did not look at different exposure levels,” he says.

“For cancer, the degree of exposure is obviously very important. The risk associated with smoking 2 or 3 cigarettes a day for a year is very different from that of smoking 2 packs a day for 40 years. The same principle applies to taking a medication,” Dr. Sipahi asserts.

From these latest data, he estimates that 120 patients needed to be treated with the maximal daily dose of an ARB for 4.7 years for one excess cancer diagnosis, and 464 patients needed to be treated for one excess lung cancer.

“Given that at least 200 million individuals are being treated with an ARB globally, approximately 1.7 million excess cancers (and 430,000 lung cancers) in 4.6 years could be potentially caused by this class of drugs,” he suggests.

For the current analysis, Dr. Sipahi used trial-level data taken from the paper by the ARB Trialists Collaboration and investigated the effect of exposure to ARBs – including both the dose taken and the length of treatment – on risk for cancer. He performed metaregression analyses that he says has not been done before.

“I mathematically quantitated the degree of exposure in each trial. And when the degree of exposure was correlated with risk of cancer, there was a significant association.”

The new meta-analysis includes 15 randomized controlled trials. The two coprimary outcomes were the relationship between cumulative exposure to ARBs and risk for all cancers combined and the relationship between cumulative exposure and risk for lung cancer.

In the trials, 74,021 patients were randomly assigned to an ARB, resulting in a total cumulative exposure of 172,389 person-years of exposure to daily high dose (or equivalent), and 61,197 patients were randomly assigned to control.

Results showed a highly significant correlation between the degree of cumulative exposure to ARBs and risk for all cancers combined (slope = 0.07; 95% confidence interval, 0.03-0.11; P < .001) and also lung cancer (slope = 0.16; 95% CI, 0.05-0.27; P = .003).

In trials where the cumulative exposure was greater than 3 years of exposure to daily high dose, there was a statistically significant increase in risk for all cancers combined (risk ratio, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.03-1.19; P = .006).

There was also a statistically significant increase in risk for lung cancers in trials where the cumulative exposure was greater than 2.5 years (RR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.02-1.44; P = .03).

In trials with lower cumulative exposure to ARBs, there was no increased risk either for all cancers combined or lung cancer.

Dr. Sipahi reports that the cumulative exposure-risk relationship with ARBs was independent of background angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor treatment or the type of control (placebo or nonplacebo control).

But he acknowledges that since this is a trial-level analysis, the effects of patient characteristics such as age and smoking status could not be examined because of lack of patient-level data.

Dr. Sipahi says he does not know the mechanism behind these findings, but he draws attention to the recent withdrawal of several thousand lots of ARB formulations because of the presence of potentially carcinogenic impurities that have been suggested to be a byproduct of ARB synthesis.

He also claims that unlike some other classes of antihypertensives, ARBs have not been shown to reduce the risk for MI, leading him to conclude that “other classes of antihypertensives with good safety and efficacy data (such as ACE-inhibitors, calcium-channel blockers or others) should become the preferred first-line agents in the treatment of hypertension.”

Dr. Sipahi wants the FDA to reinvestigate the issue of ARBs and cancer risk using individual patient data. “They already have the patient-level data from the trials. They should look at it more carefully and look at exposure levels and how they relate to cancer risk,” he said. “And the fact that there have been studies linking high ARB exposure levels to increased cancer risk should at least get a warning on the drug labels.”
 

A ‘clear increase’ in risk

Dr. Sipahi also points out that a link between ARBs and cancer has been found in another meta-analysis performed in 2013 by senior FDA analyst Thomas Marciniak, MD.

“Because he worked at the FDA, [Dr.] Marciniak had access to individual patent data. This is the best type of analysis and generally produces more accurate results than a trial-level meta-analysis,” Dr. Sipahi commented.

Dr. Marciniak’s analysis, which is available on the FDA website as part of another document, was not officially published elsewhere, and no further action has been taken on the issue.

Contacted by this news organization, Dr. Marciniak, who has now retired from the FDA, said he not only conducted a patient-level meta-analysis but also followed up adverse effects reported in the trials that could have been a symptom of cancer to establish further whether the patient was later diagnosed with cancer or not.

“I used every scrap of information sent in, including serious adverse event reports. I saw a clear increase in lung cancer risk with the ARBs,” Dr. Marciniak said. He did not, however, perform a dose-response relationship analysis.

Asked why his analysis and those from Dr. Sipahi reach different conclusions to those from the ARB Trialists Collaboration and the official FDA investigations, Dr. Marciniak said: “It may be that there were too many low-exposure trials that just washed out the difference. But trial data generally do not capture adverse events such as cancer, which takes a long time to develop, very well, and if you’re not really looking for it, you’re probably not going to find it.”

Dr. Marciniak said that Dr. Sipahi’s current findings are in line with his results. “Finding a dose response, to me, is extremely compelling, and I think the signal here is real,” he commented. “I think this new paper from Dr. Sipahi verifies what I found. I think the FDA should now release all individual patient data it has.”

Contacted for comment, an FDA spokesperson said, “Generally the FDA does not comment on specific studies but evaluates them as part of the body of evidence to further our understanding about a particular issue and assist in our mission to protect public health.”

They added: “The FDA has ongoing assessment, surveillance, compliance, and pharmaceutical quality efforts across every product area, and we will continue to work with drug manufacturers to ensure safe, effective, and high-quality drugs for the American public. When we identify new and previously unrecognized risks to safety and quality, we react swiftly to resolve the problem, as we have done in responding to the recent findings of nitrosamines in certain medicines.”
 

Analysis ‘should be taken seriously’

Commenting on this new study, Steve Nissen, MD, a key figure in analyzing such complex data and who has himself uncovered problems with high-profile drugs in the past, says the current analysis should be taken seriously. 

Dr. Nissen, who was Dr. Sipahi’s senior during his post-doc position at the Cleveland Clinic, wrote an editorial accompanying Dr. Sipahi’s first paper and calling for urgent regulatory review of the evidence.

He says the new findings add to previous evidence suggesting a possible risk for cancer with ARBs.

“[Dr.] Sipahi is a capable researcher, and this analysis needs to be taken seriously, but it needs to be verified. It is not possible to draw a strong conclusion on this analysis, as it is not based on individual patient data, but I don’t think it should be ignored,” Dr. Nissen stated.

“I will say again what I said 12 years ago – that the regulatory agencies need to carefully review all their data in a very detailed way. The FDA and EMA have access to the individual patient data and are both very capable of doing the required analyses.”
 

Limitations of trial-level analysis

Asked to evaluate the statistics in the current paper, Andrew Althouse, PhD, an assistant professor of medicine at the University of Pittsburgh, and a clinical trial statistician, explained that the best way to do a thorough analysis of the relationship between ARB exposure and risk for incident cancer would involve the use of patient-level data.

“As such data were not available to Dr. Sipahi, I believe he is doing as well as he can. But without full access to individual patient-level data from the respective trials, it is difficult to support any firm conclusions,” Dr. Althouse said in an interview.

He suggested that the meta-regression analyses used in the paper were unable to properly estimate the relationship between ARB exposure and risk for incident cancer. 

“Taken at face value, the current analysis suggests that [in] trials with longer follow-up duration (and therefore greater cumulative exposure to ARB for the treatment group), the risk of developing cancer for patients in the ARB group versus the non-ARB group was progressively higher. But this study doesn’t take into account the actual amount of follow-up time for individual patients or potential differences in the amount of follow-up time between the two groups in each trial,” he noted.

Dr. Althouse says this raises the possibility of “competing risks” or the idea that if ARBs reduce cardiovascular disease and cardiovascular death, then there would be more patients remaining in that arm who could go on to develop cancer. “So a crude count of the number of cancer cases may look as though patients receiving ARBs are ‘more likely’ to develop cancer, but this is a mirage.”

He added: “When there are some patients dying during the study, the only way to tell whether the intervention actually increased the risk of other health-related complications is to have an analysis that properly accounts for each patient’s time-at-risk of the outcome. Unfortunately, properly analyzing this requires the use of patient-level data.”
 

Cardiologists skeptical?

Cardiology experts asked for thoughts on the new meta-analysis were also cautious to read too much into the findings.

Franz Messerli, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Bern, Switzerland, commented: “Perhaps one would simply ignore this rambling, cherrypicking-based condemnation of ARBs if it were not for the powerful negative connotation of the word cancer. Thus, the meta-analysis of Dr. Sipahi purporting that ARBs could be increasing the development of cancers in a cumulative way is of concern to both physicians and patients.”

But, raising a similar point to Dr. Althouse about competing risks, Dr. Messerli said: “We have to consider that as one gets older, the cardiovascular disease state and cancer state will compete with each other for the outcome of death. The better that therapies protect against cardiovascular death, the more they will increase life expectancy and thus the risk of cancer.”

He also added that “in head-to-head comparisons with ACE inhibitors, ARBs showed similar efficacy in terms of death, CV mortality, MI, stroke, and end-stage kidney disease, so can we agree that the attempt of Dr. Sipahi to disparage ARBs as a class is much ado about nothing?”

Dr. Nissen, however, said he views the idea of competing risk as “a bit of a stretch” in this case. “Although ARBs are effective antihypertensive drugs, I would say there is very little evidence that they would prolong survival versus other antihypertensives.”

Dr. Sipahi also claims that this argument is not relevant to the current analysis. “ARBs did not increase survival in any of the high-exposure trials that showed an excess in cancers. Therefore, competing outcomes, or ‘survival bias’ to be more specific, is not a possibility here,” he says.

George Bakris, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Chicago Medicine, noted that while the current study shows a slight increase in cancer incidence, especially lung cancer, among those taking ARBs for more than 3 years, it “totally ignores the overwhelming cardiovascular risk reduction seen in the trials.”

“Moreover,” he adds, “the author notes that the findings were independent of ACE-inhibitors, but he can’t rule out smoking and age as factors, two major risk factors for cancer and lung cancer, specifically. Thus, as typical of these types of analyses, the associations are probably true/true unrelated or, at best, partially related.”

Dr. Bakris referred to the potentially carcinogenic nitrosamine and azido compounds found in several ARB formulations that have resulted in recalls.

“At any stage of drug synthesis throughout each product’s lifetime, these impurities may evolve if an amine reacts with a nitrosating agent coexisting under appropriate conditions,” he said. “Drug regulatory authorities worldwide have established stringent guidelines on nitrosamine contamination for all drug products. The studies noted in the author’s analysis were done well before these guidelines were implemented. Hence, many of the issues raised by the authors using trials from 10-20 years ago are not of significant concern.”

Still, the cardiology experts all agreed on one thing – that patients should continue to take ARBs as prescribed.  

Noting that worldwide authorities are now addressing the issue of possible carcinogen contamination, Dr. Bakris stressed that patients “should not panic and should not stop their meds.”

Dr. Nissen added: “What we don’t want is for patents who are taking ARBs to stop taking these medications – hypertension is a deadly disorder, and these drugs have proven cardiovascular benefits.”

Dr. Sipahi received no specific funding for this work. He reports receiving lecture honoraria from Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, Sandoz, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Bayer, Pfizer, Ranbaxy, Servier, and ARIS and served on advisory boards for Novartis, Sanofi, Servier, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Bayer and I.E. Ulagay. The other commenters do not report any relevant disclosures.

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

The debate on whether the popular class of antihypertensive drugs, angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), may be associated with an increased risk for cancer has been reopened with the publication of a new meta-analysis.

The analysis found an increasing risk for cancer, and specifically lung cancer, with increasing cumulative exposure to these drugs.

The findings are reported in a study published online in PLOS ONE.

The author of this new meta-analysis is Ilke Sipahi, MD, a cardiologist from Acibadem University Medical School, Istanbul, who previously raised this issue in an initial meta-analysis published in 2010.

“The new meta-analysis is important because it is the first study to investigate whether there is a dose response in the association between ARBs and cancer,” Dr. Sipahi told this news organization.

“I found a clear signal of increased risk of cancer as exposure to ARBs increased, and the association started to become significant when the maximum dose was taken for 3 years,” he added.

Dr. Sipahi explained that in the first meta-analysis published in Lancet Oncology, he and his colleagues reported an increased cancer risk with ARBs based on observations from high-exposure trials – those that included higher doses of ARBs with a long duration of follow-up.

Following this publication, an investigation by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration refuted the risk, and a collaboration of ARB trial investigators also performed an analysis published in the Journal of Hypertension (2011. doi: 10.1097/HJH.0b013e328344a7de), which again did not show an increased risk for cancer with use of ARBs.

Dr. Sipahi claims that those analyses by the FDA and the ARB Trialists Collaboration, which were all trial-level meta-analyses, diluted the “high exposure” data (including higher doses taken for longer periods of time) with a large amount of other data on much lower exposures (lower doses and/or shorter time periods).

“The overall risk would then inevitably become nonsignificant. These analyses also did not look at different exposure levels,” he says.

“For cancer, the degree of exposure is obviously very important. The risk associated with smoking 2 or 3 cigarettes a day for a year is very different from that of smoking 2 packs a day for 40 years. The same principle applies to taking a medication,” Dr. Sipahi asserts.

From these latest data, he estimates that 120 patients needed to be treated with the maximal daily dose of an ARB for 4.7 years for one excess cancer diagnosis, and 464 patients needed to be treated for one excess lung cancer.

“Given that at least 200 million individuals are being treated with an ARB globally, approximately 1.7 million excess cancers (and 430,000 lung cancers) in 4.6 years could be potentially caused by this class of drugs,” he suggests.

For the current analysis, Dr. Sipahi used trial-level data taken from the paper by the ARB Trialists Collaboration and investigated the effect of exposure to ARBs – including both the dose taken and the length of treatment – on risk for cancer. He performed metaregression analyses that he says has not been done before.

“I mathematically quantitated the degree of exposure in each trial. And when the degree of exposure was correlated with risk of cancer, there was a significant association.”

The new meta-analysis includes 15 randomized controlled trials. The two coprimary outcomes were the relationship between cumulative exposure to ARBs and risk for all cancers combined and the relationship between cumulative exposure and risk for lung cancer.

In the trials, 74,021 patients were randomly assigned to an ARB, resulting in a total cumulative exposure of 172,389 person-years of exposure to daily high dose (or equivalent), and 61,197 patients were randomly assigned to control.

Results showed a highly significant correlation between the degree of cumulative exposure to ARBs and risk for all cancers combined (slope = 0.07; 95% confidence interval, 0.03-0.11; P < .001) and also lung cancer (slope = 0.16; 95% CI, 0.05-0.27; P = .003).

In trials where the cumulative exposure was greater than 3 years of exposure to daily high dose, there was a statistically significant increase in risk for all cancers combined (risk ratio, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.03-1.19; P = .006).

There was also a statistically significant increase in risk for lung cancers in trials where the cumulative exposure was greater than 2.5 years (RR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.02-1.44; P = .03).

In trials with lower cumulative exposure to ARBs, there was no increased risk either for all cancers combined or lung cancer.

Dr. Sipahi reports that the cumulative exposure-risk relationship with ARBs was independent of background angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor treatment or the type of control (placebo or nonplacebo control).

But he acknowledges that since this is a trial-level analysis, the effects of patient characteristics such as age and smoking status could not be examined because of lack of patient-level data.

Dr. Sipahi says he does not know the mechanism behind these findings, but he draws attention to the recent withdrawal of several thousand lots of ARB formulations because of the presence of potentially carcinogenic impurities that have been suggested to be a byproduct of ARB synthesis.

He also claims that unlike some other classes of antihypertensives, ARBs have not been shown to reduce the risk for MI, leading him to conclude that “other classes of antihypertensives with good safety and efficacy data (such as ACE-inhibitors, calcium-channel blockers or others) should become the preferred first-line agents in the treatment of hypertension.”

Dr. Sipahi wants the FDA to reinvestigate the issue of ARBs and cancer risk using individual patient data. “They already have the patient-level data from the trials. They should look at it more carefully and look at exposure levels and how they relate to cancer risk,” he said. “And the fact that there have been studies linking high ARB exposure levels to increased cancer risk should at least get a warning on the drug labels.”
 

A ‘clear increase’ in risk

Dr. Sipahi also points out that a link between ARBs and cancer has been found in another meta-analysis performed in 2013 by senior FDA analyst Thomas Marciniak, MD.

“Because he worked at the FDA, [Dr.] Marciniak had access to individual patent data. This is the best type of analysis and generally produces more accurate results than a trial-level meta-analysis,” Dr. Sipahi commented.

Dr. Marciniak’s analysis, which is available on the FDA website as part of another document, was not officially published elsewhere, and no further action has been taken on the issue.

Contacted by this news organization, Dr. Marciniak, who has now retired from the FDA, said he not only conducted a patient-level meta-analysis but also followed up adverse effects reported in the trials that could have been a symptom of cancer to establish further whether the patient was later diagnosed with cancer or not.

“I used every scrap of information sent in, including serious adverse event reports. I saw a clear increase in lung cancer risk with the ARBs,” Dr. Marciniak said. He did not, however, perform a dose-response relationship analysis.

Asked why his analysis and those from Dr. Sipahi reach different conclusions to those from the ARB Trialists Collaboration and the official FDA investigations, Dr. Marciniak said: “It may be that there were too many low-exposure trials that just washed out the difference. But trial data generally do not capture adverse events such as cancer, which takes a long time to develop, very well, and if you’re not really looking for it, you’re probably not going to find it.”

Dr. Marciniak said that Dr. Sipahi’s current findings are in line with his results. “Finding a dose response, to me, is extremely compelling, and I think the signal here is real,” he commented. “I think this new paper from Dr. Sipahi verifies what I found. I think the FDA should now release all individual patient data it has.”

Contacted for comment, an FDA spokesperson said, “Generally the FDA does not comment on specific studies but evaluates them as part of the body of evidence to further our understanding about a particular issue and assist in our mission to protect public health.”

They added: “The FDA has ongoing assessment, surveillance, compliance, and pharmaceutical quality efforts across every product area, and we will continue to work with drug manufacturers to ensure safe, effective, and high-quality drugs for the American public. When we identify new and previously unrecognized risks to safety and quality, we react swiftly to resolve the problem, as we have done in responding to the recent findings of nitrosamines in certain medicines.”
 

Analysis ‘should be taken seriously’

Commenting on this new study, Steve Nissen, MD, a key figure in analyzing such complex data and who has himself uncovered problems with high-profile drugs in the past, says the current analysis should be taken seriously. 

Dr. Nissen, who was Dr. Sipahi’s senior during his post-doc position at the Cleveland Clinic, wrote an editorial accompanying Dr. Sipahi’s first paper and calling for urgent regulatory review of the evidence.

He says the new findings add to previous evidence suggesting a possible risk for cancer with ARBs.

“[Dr.] Sipahi is a capable researcher, and this analysis needs to be taken seriously, but it needs to be verified. It is not possible to draw a strong conclusion on this analysis, as it is not based on individual patient data, but I don’t think it should be ignored,” Dr. Nissen stated.

“I will say again what I said 12 years ago – that the regulatory agencies need to carefully review all their data in a very detailed way. The FDA and EMA have access to the individual patient data and are both very capable of doing the required analyses.”
 

Limitations of trial-level analysis

Asked to evaluate the statistics in the current paper, Andrew Althouse, PhD, an assistant professor of medicine at the University of Pittsburgh, and a clinical trial statistician, explained that the best way to do a thorough analysis of the relationship between ARB exposure and risk for incident cancer would involve the use of patient-level data.

“As such data were not available to Dr. Sipahi, I believe he is doing as well as he can. But without full access to individual patient-level data from the respective trials, it is difficult to support any firm conclusions,” Dr. Althouse said in an interview.

He suggested that the meta-regression analyses used in the paper were unable to properly estimate the relationship between ARB exposure and risk for incident cancer. 

“Taken at face value, the current analysis suggests that [in] trials with longer follow-up duration (and therefore greater cumulative exposure to ARB for the treatment group), the risk of developing cancer for patients in the ARB group versus the non-ARB group was progressively higher. But this study doesn’t take into account the actual amount of follow-up time for individual patients or potential differences in the amount of follow-up time between the two groups in each trial,” he noted.

Dr. Althouse says this raises the possibility of “competing risks” or the idea that if ARBs reduce cardiovascular disease and cardiovascular death, then there would be more patients remaining in that arm who could go on to develop cancer. “So a crude count of the number of cancer cases may look as though patients receiving ARBs are ‘more likely’ to develop cancer, but this is a mirage.”

He added: “When there are some patients dying during the study, the only way to tell whether the intervention actually increased the risk of other health-related complications is to have an analysis that properly accounts for each patient’s time-at-risk of the outcome. Unfortunately, properly analyzing this requires the use of patient-level data.”
 

Cardiologists skeptical?

Cardiology experts asked for thoughts on the new meta-analysis were also cautious to read too much into the findings.

Franz Messerli, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Bern, Switzerland, commented: “Perhaps one would simply ignore this rambling, cherrypicking-based condemnation of ARBs if it were not for the powerful negative connotation of the word cancer. Thus, the meta-analysis of Dr. Sipahi purporting that ARBs could be increasing the development of cancers in a cumulative way is of concern to both physicians and patients.”

But, raising a similar point to Dr. Althouse about competing risks, Dr. Messerli said: “We have to consider that as one gets older, the cardiovascular disease state and cancer state will compete with each other for the outcome of death. The better that therapies protect against cardiovascular death, the more they will increase life expectancy and thus the risk of cancer.”

He also added that “in head-to-head comparisons with ACE inhibitors, ARBs showed similar efficacy in terms of death, CV mortality, MI, stroke, and end-stage kidney disease, so can we agree that the attempt of Dr. Sipahi to disparage ARBs as a class is much ado about nothing?”

Dr. Nissen, however, said he views the idea of competing risk as “a bit of a stretch” in this case. “Although ARBs are effective antihypertensive drugs, I would say there is very little evidence that they would prolong survival versus other antihypertensives.”

Dr. Sipahi also claims that this argument is not relevant to the current analysis. “ARBs did not increase survival in any of the high-exposure trials that showed an excess in cancers. Therefore, competing outcomes, or ‘survival bias’ to be more specific, is not a possibility here,” he says.

George Bakris, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Chicago Medicine, noted that while the current study shows a slight increase in cancer incidence, especially lung cancer, among those taking ARBs for more than 3 years, it “totally ignores the overwhelming cardiovascular risk reduction seen in the trials.”

“Moreover,” he adds, “the author notes that the findings were independent of ACE-inhibitors, but he can’t rule out smoking and age as factors, two major risk factors for cancer and lung cancer, specifically. Thus, as typical of these types of analyses, the associations are probably true/true unrelated or, at best, partially related.”

Dr. Bakris referred to the potentially carcinogenic nitrosamine and azido compounds found in several ARB formulations that have resulted in recalls.

“At any stage of drug synthesis throughout each product’s lifetime, these impurities may evolve if an amine reacts with a nitrosating agent coexisting under appropriate conditions,” he said. “Drug regulatory authorities worldwide have established stringent guidelines on nitrosamine contamination for all drug products. The studies noted in the author’s analysis were done well before these guidelines were implemented. Hence, many of the issues raised by the authors using trials from 10-20 years ago are not of significant concern.”

Still, the cardiology experts all agreed on one thing – that patients should continue to take ARBs as prescribed.  

Noting that worldwide authorities are now addressing the issue of possible carcinogen contamination, Dr. Bakris stressed that patients “should not panic and should not stop their meds.”

Dr. Nissen added: “What we don’t want is for patents who are taking ARBs to stop taking these medications – hypertension is a deadly disorder, and these drugs have proven cardiovascular benefits.”

Dr. Sipahi received no specific funding for this work. He reports receiving lecture honoraria from Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, Sandoz, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Bayer, Pfizer, Ranbaxy, Servier, and ARIS and served on advisory boards for Novartis, Sanofi, Servier, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Bayer and I.E. Ulagay. The other commenters do not report any relevant disclosures.

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

The debate on whether the popular class of antihypertensive drugs, angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), may be associated with an increased risk for cancer has been reopened with the publication of a new meta-analysis.

The analysis found an increasing risk for cancer, and specifically lung cancer, with increasing cumulative exposure to these drugs.

The findings are reported in a study published online in PLOS ONE.

The author of this new meta-analysis is Ilke Sipahi, MD, a cardiologist from Acibadem University Medical School, Istanbul, who previously raised this issue in an initial meta-analysis published in 2010.

“The new meta-analysis is important because it is the first study to investigate whether there is a dose response in the association between ARBs and cancer,” Dr. Sipahi told this news organization.

“I found a clear signal of increased risk of cancer as exposure to ARBs increased, and the association started to become significant when the maximum dose was taken for 3 years,” he added.

Dr. Sipahi explained that in the first meta-analysis published in Lancet Oncology, he and his colleagues reported an increased cancer risk with ARBs based on observations from high-exposure trials – those that included higher doses of ARBs with a long duration of follow-up.

Following this publication, an investigation by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration refuted the risk, and a collaboration of ARB trial investigators also performed an analysis published in the Journal of Hypertension (2011. doi: 10.1097/HJH.0b013e328344a7de), which again did not show an increased risk for cancer with use of ARBs.

Dr. Sipahi claims that those analyses by the FDA and the ARB Trialists Collaboration, which were all trial-level meta-analyses, diluted the “high exposure” data (including higher doses taken for longer periods of time) with a large amount of other data on much lower exposures (lower doses and/or shorter time periods).

“The overall risk would then inevitably become nonsignificant. These analyses also did not look at different exposure levels,” he says.

“For cancer, the degree of exposure is obviously very important. The risk associated with smoking 2 or 3 cigarettes a day for a year is very different from that of smoking 2 packs a day for 40 years. The same principle applies to taking a medication,” Dr. Sipahi asserts.

From these latest data, he estimates that 120 patients needed to be treated with the maximal daily dose of an ARB for 4.7 years for one excess cancer diagnosis, and 464 patients needed to be treated for one excess lung cancer.

“Given that at least 200 million individuals are being treated with an ARB globally, approximately 1.7 million excess cancers (and 430,000 lung cancers) in 4.6 years could be potentially caused by this class of drugs,” he suggests.

For the current analysis, Dr. Sipahi used trial-level data taken from the paper by the ARB Trialists Collaboration and investigated the effect of exposure to ARBs – including both the dose taken and the length of treatment – on risk for cancer. He performed metaregression analyses that he says has not been done before.

“I mathematically quantitated the degree of exposure in each trial. And when the degree of exposure was correlated with risk of cancer, there was a significant association.”

The new meta-analysis includes 15 randomized controlled trials. The two coprimary outcomes were the relationship between cumulative exposure to ARBs and risk for all cancers combined and the relationship between cumulative exposure and risk for lung cancer.

In the trials, 74,021 patients were randomly assigned to an ARB, resulting in a total cumulative exposure of 172,389 person-years of exposure to daily high dose (or equivalent), and 61,197 patients were randomly assigned to control.

Results showed a highly significant correlation between the degree of cumulative exposure to ARBs and risk for all cancers combined (slope = 0.07; 95% confidence interval, 0.03-0.11; P < .001) and also lung cancer (slope = 0.16; 95% CI, 0.05-0.27; P = .003).

In trials where the cumulative exposure was greater than 3 years of exposure to daily high dose, there was a statistically significant increase in risk for all cancers combined (risk ratio, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.03-1.19; P = .006).

There was also a statistically significant increase in risk for lung cancers in trials where the cumulative exposure was greater than 2.5 years (RR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.02-1.44; P = .03).

In trials with lower cumulative exposure to ARBs, there was no increased risk either for all cancers combined or lung cancer.

Dr. Sipahi reports that the cumulative exposure-risk relationship with ARBs was independent of background angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor treatment or the type of control (placebo or nonplacebo control).

But he acknowledges that since this is a trial-level analysis, the effects of patient characteristics such as age and smoking status could not be examined because of lack of patient-level data.

Dr. Sipahi says he does not know the mechanism behind these findings, but he draws attention to the recent withdrawal of several thousand lots of ARB formulations because of the presence of potentially carcinogenic impurities that have been suggested to be a byproduct of ARB synthesis.

He also claims that unlike some other classes of antihypertensives, ARBs have not been shown to reduce the risk for MI, leading him to conclude that “other classes of antihypertensives with good safety and efficacy data (such as ACE-inhibitors, calcium-channel blockers or others) should become the preferred first-line agents in the treatment of hypertension.”

Dr. Sipahi wants the FDA to reinvestigate the issue of ARBs and cancer risk using individual patient data. “They already have the patient-level data from the trials. They should look at it more carefully and look at exposure levels and how they relate to cancer risk,” he said. “And the fact that there have been studies linking high ARB exposure levels to increased cancer risk should at least get a warning on the drug labels.”
 

A ‘clear increase’ in risk

Dr. Sipahi also points out that a link between ARBs and cancer has been found in another meta-analysis performed in 2013 by senior FDA analyst Thomas Marciniak, MD.

“Because he worked at the FDA, [Dr.] Marciniak had access to individual patent data. This is the best type of analysis and generally produces more accurate results than a trial-level meta-analysis,” Dr. Sipahi commented.

Dr. Marciniak’s analysis, which is available on the FDA website as part of another document, was not officially published elsewhere, and no further action has been taken on the issue.

Contacted by this news organization, Dr. Marciniak, who has now retired from the FDA, said he not only conducted a patient-level meta-analysis but also followed up adverse effects reported in the trials that could have been a symptom of cancer to establish further whether the patient was later diagnosed with cancer or not.

“I used every scrap of information sent in, including serious adverse event reports. I saw a clear increase in lung cancer risk with the ARBs,” Dr. Marciniak said. He did not, however, perform a dose-response relationship analysis.

Asked why his analysis and those from Dr. Sipahi reach different conclusions to those from the ARB Trialists Collaboration and the official FDA investigations, Dr. Marciniak said: “It may be that there were too many low-exposure trials that just washed out the difference. But trial data generally do not capture adverse events such as cancer, which takes a long time to develop, very well, and if you’re not really looking for it, you’re probably not going to find it.”

Dr. Marciniak said that Dr. Sipahi’s current findings are in line with his results. “Finding a dose response, to me, is extremely compelling, and I think the signal here is real,” he commented. “I think this new paper from Dr. Sipahi verifies what I found. I think the FDA should now release all individual patient data it has.”

Contacted for comment, an FDA spokesperson said, “Generally the FDA does not comment on specific studies but evaluates them as part of the body of evidence to further our understanding about a particular issue and assist in our mission to protect public health.”

They added: “The FDA has ongoing assessment, surveillance, compliance, and pharmaceutical quality efforts across every product area, and we will continue to work with drug manufacturers to ensure safe, effective, and high-quality drugs for the American public. When we identify new and previously unrecognized risks to safety and quality, we react swiftly to resolve the problem, as we have done in responding to the recent findings of nitrosamines in certain medicines.”
 

Analysis ‘should be taken seriously’

Commenting on this new study, Steve Nissen, MD, a key figure in analyzing such complex data and who has himself uncovered problems with high-profile drugs in the past, says the current analysis should be taken seriously. 

Dr. Nissen, who was Dr. Sipahi’s senior during his post-doc position at the Cleveland Clinic, wrote an editorial accompanying Dr. Sipahi’s first paper and calling for urgent regulatory review of the evidence.

He says the new findings add to previous evidence suggesting a possible risk for cancer with ARBs.

“[Dr.] Sipahi is a capable researcher, and this analysis needs to be taken seriously, but it needs to be verified. It is not possible to draw a strong conclusion on this analysis, as it is not based on individual patient data, but I don’t think it should be ignored,” Dr. Nissen stated.

“I will say again what I said 12 years ago – that the regulatory agencies need to carefully review all their data in a very detailed way. The FDA and EMA have access to the individual patient data and are both very capable of doing the required analyses.”
 

Limitations of trial-level analysis

Asked to evaluate the statistics in the current paper, Andrew Althouse, PhD, an assistant professor of medicine at the University of Pittsburgh, and a clinical trial statistician, explained that the best way to do a thorough analysis of the relationship between ARB exposure and risk for incident cancer would involve the use of patient-level data.

“As such data were not available to Dr. Sipahi, I believe he is doing as well as he can. But without full access to individual patient-level data from the respective trials, it is difficult to support any firm conclusions,” Dr. Althouse said in an interview.

He suggested that the meta-regression analyses used in the paper were unable to properly estimate the relationship between ARB exposure and risk for incident cancer. 

“Taken at face value, the current analysis suggests that [in] trials with longer follow-up duration (and therefore greater cumulative exposure to ARB for the treatment group), the risk of developing cancer for patients in the ARB group versus the non-ARB group was progressively higher. But this study doesn’t take into account the actual amount of follow-up time for individual patients or potential differences in the amount of follow-up time between the two groups in each trial,” he noted.

Dr. Althouse says this raises the possibility of “competing risks” or the idea that if ARBs reduce cardiovascular disease and cardiovascular death, then there would be more patients remaining in that arm who could go on to develop cancer. “So a crude count of the number of cancer cases may look as though patients receiving ARBs are ‘more likely’ to develop cancer, but this is a mirage.”

He added: “When there are some patients dying during the study, the only way to tell whether the intervention actually increased the risk of other health-related complications is to have an analysis that properly accounts for each patient’s time-at-risk of the outcome. Unfortunately, properly analyzing this requires the use of patient-level data.”
 

Cardiologists skeptical?

Cardiology experts asked for thoughts on the new meta-analysis were also cautious to read too much into the findings.

Franz Messerli, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Bern, Switzerland, commented: “Perhaps one would simply ignore this rambling, cherrypicking-based condemnation of ARBs if it were not for the powerful negative connotation of the word cancer. Thus, the meta-analysis of Dr. Sipahi purporting that ARBs could be increasing the development of cancers in a cumulative way is of concern to both physicians and patients.”

But, raising a similar point to Dr. Althouse about competing risks, Dr. Messerli said: “We have to consider that as one gets older, the cardiovascular disease state and cancer state will compete with each other for the outcome of death. The better that therapies protect against cardiovascular death, the more they will increase life expectancy and thus the risk of cancer.”

He also added that “in head-to-head comparisons with ACE inhibitors, ARBs showed similar efficacy in terms of death, CV mortality, MI, stroke, and end-stage kidney disease, so can we agree that the attempt of Dr. Sipahi to disparage ARBs as a class is much ado about nothing?”

Dr. Nissen, however, said he views the idea of competing risk as “a bit of a stretch” in this case. “Although ARBs are effective antihypertensive drugs, I would say there is very little evidence that they would prolong survival versus other antihypertensives.”

Dr. Sipahi also claims that this argument is not relevant to the current analysis. “ARBs did not increase survival in any of the high-exposure trials that showed an excess in cancers. Therefore, competing outcomes, or ‘survival bias’ to be more specific, is not a possibility here,” he says.

George Bakris, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Chicago Medicine, noted that while the current study shows a slight increase in cancer incidence, especially lung cancer, among those taking ARBs for more than 3 years, it “totally ignores the overwhelming cardiovascular risk reduction seen in the trials.”

“Moreover,” he adds, “the author notes that the findings were independent of ACE-inhibitors, but he can’t rule out smoking and age as factors, two major risk factors for cancer and lung cancer, specifically. Thus, as typical of these types of analyses, the associations are probably true/true unrelated or, at best, partially related.”

Dr. Bakris referred to the potentially carcinogenic nitrosamine and azido compounds found in several ARB formulations that have resulted in recalls.

“At any stage of drug synthesis throughout each product’s lifetime, these impurities may evolve if an amine reacts with a nitrosating agent coexisting under appropriate conditions,” he said. “Drug regulatory authorities worldwide have established stringent guidelines on nitrosamine contamination for all drug products. The studies noted in the author’s analysis were done well before these guidelines were implemented. Hence, many of the issues raised by the authors using trials from 10-20 years ago are not of significant concern.”

Still, the cardiology experts all agreed on one thing – that patients should continue to take ARBs as prescribed.  

Noting that worldwide authorities are now addressing the issue of possible carcinogen contamination, Dr. Bakris stressed that patients “should not panic and should not stop their meds.”

Dr. Nissen added: “What we don’t want is for patents who are taking ARBs to stop taking these medications – hypertension is a deadly disorder, and these drugs have proven cardiovascular benefits.”

Dr. Sipahi received no specific funding for this work. He reports receiving lecture honoraria from Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, Sandoz, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Bayer, Pfizer, Ranbaxy, Servier, and ARIS and served on advisory boards for Novartis, Sanofi, Servier, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Bayer and I.E. Ulagay. The other commenters do not report any relevant disclosures.

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

Getting a COVID-19 mRNA vaccine did not affect pregnancy rates for women trying to conceive with in vitro fertilization or ovarian response to treatment, findings of a new study indicate.

The study was led by Sarit Avraham, MD, with the IVF unit, department of obstetrics and gynecology, Shamir Medical Center in Tzrifi, Israel. The findings were published online in Fertility and Sterility in a preproof version.

“Women should be vaccinated for COVID-19 prior to attempting to conceive via IVF treatments, given the higher risk of severe illness in pregnant women,” the authors wrote.

Doubts arose from “the theoretical concept of the supposed similarity between the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and the syncytin protein that is speculated to take part in the fertilization process and the formation of the placenta,” the authors wrote.

Some then assumed that the COVID vaccine might kick off an immune response that could affect implantation and pregnancy. But this study and others before it found otherwise.

Researchers included 200 vaccinated women trying to conceive with IVF treatments in the retrospective study, and compared them with 200 unvaccinated patients of similar age (average age in both groups, 36 years) who were not previously infected with COVID-19. All the women were undergoing IVF from January to April 2021 and all the vaccinated women completed two doses of the BNT162b2 (Pfizer/BioNTech) vaccine at least 2 weeks before ovarian stimulation.

Researchers compared the average number of oocytes retrieved and clinical pregnancy rates between the two groups.
 

No difference between groups

Two hundred patients underwent oocyte retrieval 14-68 days after receiving a COVID shot; there was no significant difference by vaccination status in the number retrieved per cycle (10.63 in the vaccinated group vs. 10.72 in the unvaccinated group; P = .93).

There was also no difference in the clinical pregnancy rates after fresh embryo transfers. The rate among 128 vaccinated patients was 32.8% versus 33.1% in the 133 unvaccinated patients (P = .96), with 42 and 44 clinical pregnancies, respectively.

A total of 113 patients (66 in the study group and 47 in the controls) underwent freeze-all cycles to preserve fertility and fertilization rates were similar between vaccinated and unvaccinated (55.43% vaccinated vs. 54.29% unvaccinated; P = .73). The average number of cryopreserved embryos was 3.59 (vaccinated) versus 3.28 (unvaccinated) (P = .80).

In a subanalysis of outcomes by age, researchers found vaccination status had no effect on number of oocytes or pregnancy rates in the 39-and-older group. That’s important because it shows the vaccine did not affect outcomes even in a population with reduced ovarian reserves, the authors wrote.

The authors noted one of the study’s limitations is that it didn’t include information about vaccination or past infection status of the male partners.
 

Question should be put to rest

Sarah Cross, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, said the study is the biggest she’s seen that concludes COVID vaccinations are safe and highly encouraged for women before trying to conceive, but other smaller studies have come to the same conclusion.

She pointed to research including a study from 2021 with similar findings that concluded: “Physicians and public health personnel can counsel women of reproductive age that neither previous illness with COVID-19 nor antibodies produced from vaccination to COVID-19 will cause sterility.”

She said she thinks the question of whether COVID shots are safe with IVF has been answered and the results of the latest study add proof to counter misinformation around the issue.

“The COVID-19 vaccine does not affect fertility,” she said. “I don’t know how many more [studies] we need.”

The harm is in not getting vaccinated, she said. Pregnancy significantly increases a woman’s chance of getting severe COVID, the need for hospitalization, mechanical ventilation, and risk of death.

“I personally have never had a hospitalized patient who’s been vaccinated,” Dr. Cross said. “The worst thing for the fetus is to have a critically ill mother.”

Dr. Cross, whose high-risk patients include those seeking counseling before IVF, added: “I would counsel all of them that they should absolutely get vaccinated prior to pregnancy, when they’re pregnant, whenever it is, as soon as they possibly can.”

The study authors and Dr. Cross report no relevant financial relationships.

Getting a COVID-19 mRNA vaccine did not affect pregnancy rates for women trying to conceive with in vitro fertilization or ovarian response to treatment, findings of a new study indicate.

The study was led by Sarit Avraham, MD, with the IVF unit, department of obstetrics and gynecology, Shamir Medical Center in Tzrifi, Israel. The findings were published online in Fertility and Sterility in a preproof version.

“Women should be vaccinated for COVID-19 prior to attempting to conceive via IVF treatments, given the higher risk of severe illness in pregnant women,” the authors wrote.

Doubts arose from “the theoretical concept of the supposed similarity between the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and the syncytin protein that is speculated to take part in the fertilization process and the formation of the placenta,” the authors wrote.

Some then assumed that the COVID vaccine might kick off an immune response that could affect implantation and pregnancy. But this study and others before it found otherwise.

Researchers included 200 vaccinated women trying to conceive with IVF treatments in the retrospective study, and compared them with 200 unvaccinated patients of similar age (average age in both groups, 36 years) who were not previously infected with COVID-19. All the women were undergoing IVF from January to April 2021 and all the vaccinated women completed two doses of the BNT162b2 (Pfizer/BioNTech) vaccine at least 2 weeks before ovarian stimulation.

Researchers compared the average number of oocytes retrieved and clinical pregnancy rates between the two groups.
 

No difference between groups

Two hundred patients underwent oocyte retrieval 14-68 days after receiving a COVID shot; there was no significant difference by vaccination status in the number retrieved per cycle (10.63 in the vaccinated group vs. 10.72 in the unvaccinated group; P = .93).

There was also no difference in the clinical pregnancy rates after fresh embryo transfers. The rate among 128 vaccinated patients was 32.8% versus 33.1% in the 133 unvaccinated patients (P = .96), with 42 and 44 clinical pregnancies, respectively.

A total of 113 patients (66 in the study group and 47 in the controls) underwent freeze-all cycles to preserve fertility and fertilization rates were similar between vaccinated and unvaccinated (55.43% vaccinated vs. 54.29% unvaccinated; P = .73). The average number of cryopreserved embryos was 3.59 (vaccinated) versus 3.28 (unvaccinated) (P = .80).

In a subanalysis of outcomes by age, researchers found vaccination status had no effect on number of oocytes or pregnancy rates in the 39-and-older group. That’s important because it shows the vaccine did not affect outcomes even in a population with reduced ovarian reserves, the authors wrote.

The authors noted one of the study’s limitations is that it didn’t include information about vaccination or past infection status of the male partners.
 

Question should be put to rest

Sarah Cross, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, said the study is the biggest she’s seen that concludes COVID vaccinations are safe and highly encouraged for women before trying to conceive, but other smaller studies have come to the same conclusion.

She pointed to research including a study from 2021 with similar findings that concluded: “Physicians and public health personnel can counsel women of reproductive age that neither previous illness with COVID-19 nor antibodies produced from vaccination to COVID-19 will cause sterility.”

She said she thinks the question of whether COVID shots are safe with IVF has been answered and the results of the latest study add proof to counter misinformation around the issue.

“The COVID-19 vaccine does not affect fertility,” she said. “I don’t know how many more [studies] we need.”

The harm is in not getting vaccinated, she said. Pregnancy significantly increases a woman’s chance of getting severe COVID, the need for hospitalization, mechanical ventilation, and risk of death.

“I personally have never had a hospitalized patient who’s been vaccinated,” Dr. Cross said. “The worst thing for the fetus is to have a critically ill mother.”

Dr. Cross, whose high-risk patients include those seeking counseling before IVF, added: “I would counsel all of them that they should absolutely get vaccinated prior to pregnancy, when they’re pregnant, whenever it is, as soon as they possibly can.”

The study authors and Dr. Cross report no relevant financial relationships.

Getting a COVID-19 mRNA vaccine did not affect pregnancy rates for women trying to conceive with in vitro fertilization or ovarian response to treatment, findings of a new study indicate.

The study was led by Sarit Avraham, MD, with the IVF unit, department of obstetrics and gynecology, Shamir Medical Center in Tzrifi, Israel. The findings were published online in Fertility and Sterility in a preproof version.

“Women should be vaccinated for COVID-19 prior to attempting to conceive via IVF treatments, given the higher risk of severe illness in pregnant women,” the authors wrote.

Doubts arose from “the theoretical concept of the supposed similarity between the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and the syncytin protein that is speculated to take part in the fertilization process and the formation of the placenta,” the authors wrote.

Some then assumed that the COVID vaccine might kick off an immune response that could affect implantation and pregnancy. But this study and others before it found otherwise.

Researchers included 200 vaccinated women trying to conceive with IVF treatments in the retrospective study, and compared them with 200 unvaccinated patients of similar age (average age in both groups, 36 years) who were not previously infected with COVID-19. All the women were undergoing IVF from January to April 2021 and all the vaccinated women completed two doses of the BNT162b2 (Pfizer/BioNTech) vaccine at least 2 weeks before ovarian stimulation.

Researchers compared the average number of oocytes retrieved and clinical pregnancy rates between the two groups.
 

No difference between groups

Two hundred patients underwent oocyte retrieval 14-68 days after receiving a COVID shot; there was no significant difference by vaccination status in the number retrieved per cycle (10.63 in the vaccinated group vs. 10.72 in the unvaccinated group; P = .93).

There was also no difference in the clinical pregnancy rates after fresh embryo transfers. The rate among 128 vaccinated patients was 32.8% versus 33.1% in the 133 unvaccinated patients (P = .96), with 42 and 44 clinical pregnancies, respectively.

A total of 113 patients (66 in the study group and 47 in the controls) underwent freeze-all cycles to preserve fertility and fertilization rates were similar between vaccinated and unvaccinated (55.43% vaccinated vs. 54.29% unvaccinated; P = .73). The average number of cryopreserved embryos was 3.59 (vaccinated) versus 3.28 (unvaccinated) (P = .80).

In a subanalysis of outcomes by age, researchers found vaccination status had no effect on number of oocytes or pregnancy rates in the 39-and-older group. That’s important because it shows the vaccine did not affect outcomes even in a population with reduced ovarian reserves, the authors wrote.

The authors noted one of the study’s limitations is that it didn’t include information about vaccination or past infection status of the male partners.
 

Question should be put to rest

Sarah Cross, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, said the study is the biggest she’s seen that concludes COVID vaccinations are safe and highly encouraged for women before trying to conceive, but other smaller studies have come to the same conclusion.

She pointed to research including a study from 2021 with similar findings that concluded: “Physicians and public health personnel can counsel women of reproductive age that neither previous illness with COVID-19 nor antibodies produced from vaccination to COVID-19 will cause sterility.”

She said she thinks the question of whether COVID shots are safe with IVF has been answered and the results of the latest study add proof to counter misinformation around the issue.

“The COVID-19 vaccine does not affect fertility,” she said. “I don’t know how many more [studies] we need.”

The harm is in not getting vaccinated, she said. Pregnancy significantly increases a woman’s chance of getting severe COVID, the need for hospitalization, mechanical ventilation, and risk of death.

“I personally have never had a hospitalized patient who’s been vaccinated,” Dr. Cross said. “The worst thing for the fetus is to have a critically ill mother.”

Dr. Cross, whose high-risk patients include those seeking counseling before IVF, added: “I would counsel all of them that they should absolutely get vaccinated prior to pregnancy, when they’re pregnant, whenever it is, as soon as they possibly can.”

The study authors and Dr. Cross report no relevant financial relationships.

New signals of a potential additive benefit from the nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid antagonist finerenone (Kerendia) and a sodium-glucose transporter 2 inhibitor in patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease (CKD) emerged in a follow-up report from the FIDELITY analysis, which combined data from more than 13,000 patients who received finerenone in either of the two pivotal trials with the agent.

The analysis showed that the 877 patients enrolled in either the FIDELIO DKD or FIGARO DKD trials taking an SGLT2 inhibitor at baseline had a 37% relative reduction in their urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR), compared with placebo-treated patients after a median of 3 years on treatment.

Among the remaining 12,149 patients who did not receive an SGLT2 inhibitor, finerenone cut the average UACR by 32%, compared with placebo, said Peter Rossing, DMSc, MD, who presented the findings on Feb. 27 at the World Congress of Nephrology 2022 in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

Primary endpoint results for FIDELIO-DKD and FIGARO-DKD also suggest similar additive effects of finerenone plus an SGLT2 inhibitor.

Results of the composite renal endpoint in each study – progression to kidney failure, renal death, or at least a 57% decline in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) from baseline – showed a 58% relative risk reduction in patients who received agents from both drug classes and a 20% relative risk reduction in those who only received finerenone, a between-group difference that was not significant.

For the composite cardiovascular event endpoint – cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or hospitalization for heart failure – the rate fell by 37%, compared with placebo, in patients who also received an SGLT2 inhibitor, and by 13%, compared with placebo, in those who received finerenone but no SGLT2 inhibitor, also a difference that was not significant.

‘A lot of interest in finerenone’ in U.S.

“The benefits of finerenone on cardiovascular and kidney outcomes were consistent, irrespective of SGLT2 inhibitor use at baseline,” concluded Dr. Rossing, professor and head of research at the Steno Diabetes Center in Copenhagen.

The new findings are a “suggestion that the two classes might be additive [in their effects], but more data are needed,” Dr. Rossing said during his presentation.

But he cautioned that in both pivotal trials randomization did not consider SGLT2 inhibitor use. All patients in the two trials were already receiving a renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitor as background treatment, either an ACE inhibitor or angiotensin-receptor blocker.

The consequence of treatment with finerenone combined with an SGLT2 inhibitor is of growing importance because “an SGLT2 inhibitor is now recommended in most guidelines” for the type of patients enrolled in the two finerenone trials, explained Dr. Rossing.

He also noted that the first guideline to recommend routine use of finerenone in indicated patients appeared recently in the annual update to Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes – 2022 published by the American Diabetes Association.

The 2022 Standards states: “In patients with CKD who are at increased risk for cardiovascular events or CKD progression or are unable to use an SGLT2 inhibitor, a nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (finerenone) is recommended to reduce CKD progression and cardiovascular events.”

Results from FIDELIO-DKD, reported in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2020, and the main study, FIGARO-DKD, published in the same journal in 2021, led the Food and Drug Administration to approve finerenone in July 2021 to slow the progression of renal disease in patients with type 2 diabetes and CKD.

“My impression is that in the United States there is a lot of interest in finerenone,” Dr. Rossing said during the discussion following his presentation.

Finerenone has also been recently approved in the European Union.
 

‘Consistent’ benefits irrespective of SGLT2 inhibitors

“The cardiovascular and kidney benefits of finerenone were consistent irrespective of SGLT2 inhibitor use. This is definitely interesting and warrants a randomized controlled trial” to examine the relationship in a more rigorous way, commented Tejas Desai, MD, a nephrologist with the Department of Veterans Affairs, Charlotte, N.C.

That study, CONFIDENCE, is on its way, Dr. Rossing said during his talk. The randomized phase 2 trial has a planned enrollment of 800 patients with type 2 diabetes and CKD and three treatment groups: finerenone plus placebo, the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin (Jardiance) plus placebo, or finerenone plus empagliflozin. The study will launch later in 2022 and has a planned completion date of late 2023.

“SGLT2 inhibitors, compared with finerenone, is where all of this is headed. We need a large trial that adjudicates the best medication to use with a RAS inhibitor,” Dr. Desai said in an interview.

The new analyses from the combined FIDELITY study expand on a previous report presented at the 2021 annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology and published in the European Heart Journal.
 

‘Impressive’ effect on cardiovascular events

The main findings from FIDELITY presented in those earlier reports, in 13,026 patients, showed there was a significant 14% relative reduction in the composite cardiovascular endpoint with finerenone, compared with placebo, during a median 3 years of follow-up.

The same report documented, in the total combined cohort, a significant 23% relative reduction in the composite renal endpoint in those taking finerenone compared with placebo.

“Reducing the risk of cardiovascular endpoints by a relative 14% is impressive,” and the time course showed a “relatively quick onset of action,” Dr. Desai noted.

He also characterized the enrolled patients, which included many with stage 3 or 4 CKD, as “not the sickest population of patients with CKD,” but rather “relatively healthier patients with CKD.”

Dr. Desai also downplayed the importance of the observed reduction in UACR associated with finerenone in FIDELITY.

“UACR is a surrogate marker. Results from many studies have shown improvements in UACR only to not show protection against falls in eGFR rate,” Dr. Desai said.

He was also reassured by the low incidence of hyperkalemia that led to discontinuation, which occurred in 1.7% of patients taking finerenone and in 0.6% of those taking placebo.

The types of patients enrolled in FIDELIO-DKD and FIGARO-DKD, who did not have eGFR rates below 25 mL/min per 1.73 m², are not particularly susceptible to this adverse effect, he said, noting, “I’m not overly concerned with hyperkalemia in this CKD population.

“I’m more concerned about [hyperkalemia in] patients with CKD and an eGFR of less than 25 mL/min per 1.73 m², but this was less than 1% of the enrolled population,” Dr. Desai observed.

FIDELIO-DKD, FIGARO-DKD, and FIDELITY were sponsored by Bayer, which markets finerenone (Kerendia). Dr. Rossing reported being a consultant for Bayer and other drug companies, and receiving research funding from AstraZeneca and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Desai reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

New signals of a potential additive benefit from the nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid antagonist finerenone (Kerendia) and a sodium-glucose transporter 2 inhibitor in patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease (CKD) emerged in a follow-up report from the FIDELITY analysis, which combined data from more than 13,000 patients who received finerenone in either of the two pivotal trials with the agent.

The analysis showed that the 877 patients enrolled in either the FIDELIO DKD or FIGARO DKD trials taking an SGLT2 inhibitor at baseline had a 37% relative reduction in their urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR), compared with placebo-treated patients after a median of 3 years on treatment.

Among the remaining 12,149 patients who did not receive an SGLT2 inhibitor, finerenone cut the average UACR by 32%, compared with placebo, said Peter Rossing, DMSc, MD, who presented the findings on Feb. 27 at the World Congress of Nephrology 2022 in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

Primary endpoint results for FIDELIO-DKD and FIGARO-DKD also suggest similar additive effects of finerenone plus an SGLT2 inhibitor.

Results of the composite renal endpoint in each study – progression to kidney failure, renal death, or at least a 57% decline in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) from baseline – showed a 58% relative risk reduction in patients who received agents from both drug classes and a 20% relative risk reduction in those who only received finerenone, a between-group difference that was not significant.

For the composite cardiovascular event endpoint – cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or hospitalization for heart failure – the rate fell by 37%, compared with placebo, in patients who also received an SGLT2 inhibitor, and by 13%, compared with placebo, in those who received finerenone but no SGLT2 inhibitor, also a difference that was not significant.

‘A lot of interest in finerenone’ in U.S.

“The benefits of finerenone on cardiovascular and kidney outcomes were consistent, irrespective of SGLT2 inhibitor use at baseline,” concluded Dr. Rossing, professor and head of research at the Steno Diabetes Center in Copenhagen.

The new findings are a “suggestion that the two classes might be additive [in their effects], but more data are needed,” Dr. Rossing said during his presentation.

But he cautioned that in both pivotal trials randomization did not consider SGLT2 inhibitor use. All patients in the two trials were already receiving a renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitor as background treatment, either an ACE inhibitor or angiotensin-receptor blocker.

The consequence of treatment with finerenone combined with an SGLT2 inhibitor is of growing importance because “an SGLT2 inhibitor is now recommended in most guidelines” for the type of patients enrolled in the two finerenone trials, explained Dr. Rossing.

He also noted that the first guideline to recommend routine use of finerenone in indicated patients appeared recently in the annual update to Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes – 2022 published by the American Diabetes Association.

The 2022 Standards states: “In patients with CKD who are at increased risk for cardiovascular events or CKD progression or are unable to use an SGLT2 inhibitor, a nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (finerenone) is recommended to reduce CKD progression and cardiovascular events.”

Results from FIDELIO-DKD, reported in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2020, and the main study, FIGARO-DKD, published in the same journal in 2021, led the Food and Drug Administration to approve finerenone in July 2021 to slow the progression of renal disease in patients with type 2 diabetes and CKD.

“My impression is that in the United States there is a lot of interest in finerenone,” Dr. Rossing said during the discussion following his presentation.

Finerenone has also been recently approved in the European Union.
 

‘Consistent’ benefits irrespective of SGLT2 inhibitors

“The cardiovascular and kidney benefits of finerenone were consistent irrespective of SGLT2 inhibitor use. This is definitely interesting and warrants a randomized controlled trial” to examine the relationship in a more rigorous way, commented Tejas Desai, MD, a nephrologist with the Department of Veterans Affairs, Charlotte, N.C.

That study, CONFIDENCE, is on its way, Dr. Rossing said during his talk. The randomized phase 2 trial has a planned enrollment of 800 patients with type 2 diabetes and CKD and three treatment groups: finerenone plus placebo, the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin (Jardiance) plus placebo, or finerenone plus empagliflozin. The study will launch later in 2022 and has a planned completion date of late 2023.

“SGLT2 inhibitors, compared with finerenone, is where all of this is headed. We need a large trial that adjudicates the best medication to use with a RAS inhibitor,” Dr. Desai said in an interview.

The new analyses from the combined FIDELITY study expand on a previous report presented at the 2021 annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology and published in the European Heart Journal.
 

‘Impressive’ effect on cardiovascular events

The main findings from FIDELITY presented in those earlier reports, in 13,026 patients, showed there was a significant 14% relative reduction in the composite cardiovascular endpoint with finerenone, compared with placebo, during a median 3 years of follow-up.

The same report documented, in the total combined cohort, a significant 23% relative reduction in the composite renal endpoint in those taking finerenone compared with placebo.

“Reducing the risk of cardiovascular endpoints by a relative 14% is impressive,” and the time course showed a “relatively quick onset of action,” Dr. Desai noted.

He also characterized the enrolled patients, which included many with stage 3 or 4 CKD, as “not the sickest population of patients with CKD,” but rather “relatively healthier patients with CKD.”

Dr. Desai also downplayed the importance of the observed reduction in UACR associated with finerenone in FIDELITY.

“UACR is a surrogate marker. Results from many studies have shown improvements in UACR only to not show protection against falls in eGFR rate,” Dr. Desai said.

He was also reassured by the low incidence of hyperkalemia that led to discontinuation, which occurred in 1.7% of patients taking finerenone and in 0.6% of those taking placebo.

The types of patients enrolled in FIDELIO-DKD and FIGARO-DKD, who did not have eGFR rates below 25 mL/min per 1.73 m², are not particularly susceptible to this adverse effect, he said, noting, “I’m not overly concerned with hyperkalemia in this CKD population.

“I’m more concerned about [hyperkalemia in] patients with CKD and an eGFR of less than 25 mL/min per 1.73 m², but this was less than 1% of the enrolled population,” Dr. Desai observed.

FIDELIO-DKD, FIGARO-DKD, and FIDELITY were sponsored by Bayer, which markets finerenone (Kerendia). Dr. Rossing reported being a consultant for Bayer and other drug companies, and receiving research funding from AstraZeneca and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Desai reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

New signals of a potential additive benefit from the nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid antagonist finerenone (Kerendia) and a sodium-glucose transporter 2 inhibitor in patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease (CKD) emerged in a follow-up report from the FIDELITY analysis, which combined data from more than 13,000 patients who received finerenone in either of the two pivotal trials with the agent.

The analysis showed that the 877 patients enrolled in either the FIDELIO DKD or FIGARO DKD trials taking an SGLT2 inhibitor at baseline had a 37% relative reduction in their urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR), compared with placebo-treated patients after a median of 3 years on treatment.

Among the remaining 12,149 patients who did not receive an SGLT2 inhibitor, finerenone cut the average UACR by 32%, compared with placebo, said Peter Rossing, DMSc, MD, who presented the findings on Feb. 27 at the World Congress of Nephrology 2022 in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

Primary endpoint results for FIDELIO-DKD and FIGARO-DKD also suggest similar additive effects of finerenone plus an SGLT2 inhibitor.

Results of the composite renal endpoint in each study – progression to kidney failure, renal death, or at least a 57% decline in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) from baseline – showed a 58% relative risk reduction in patients who received agents from both drug classes and a 20% relative risk reduction in those who only received finerenone, a between-group difference that was not significant.

For the composite cardiovascular event endpoint – cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or hospitalization for heart failure – the rate fell by 37%, compared with placebo, in patients who also received an SGLT2 inhibitor, and by 13%, compared with placebo, in those who received finerenone but no SGLT2 inhibitor, also a difference that was not significant.

‘A lot of interest in finerenone’ in U.S.

“The benefits of finerenone on cardiovascular and kidney outcomes were consistent, irrespective of SGLT2 inhibitor use at baseline,” concluded Dr. Rossing, professor and head of research at the Steno Diabetes Center in Copenhagen.

The new findings are a “suggestion that the two classes might be additive [in their effects], but more data are needed,” Dr. Rossing said during his presentation.

But he cautioned that in both pivotal trials randomization did not consider SGLT2 inhibitor use. All patients in the two trials were already receiving a renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitor as background treatment, either an ACE inhibitor or angiotensin-receptor blocker.

The consequence of treatment with finerenone combined with an SGLT2 inhibitor is of growing importance because “an SGLT2 inhibitor is now recommended in most guidelines” for the type of patients enrolled in the two finerenone trials, explained Dr. Rossing.

He also noted that the first guideline to recommend routine use of finerenone in indicated patients appeared recently in the annual update to Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes – 2022 published by the American Diabetes Association.

The 2022 Standards states: “In patients with CKD who are at increased risk for cardiovascular events or CKD progression or are unable to use an SGLT2 inhibitor, a nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (finerenone) is recommended to reduce CKD progression and cardiovascular events.”

Results from FIDELIO-DKD, reported in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2020, and the main study, FIGARO-DKD, published in the same journal in 2021, led the Food and Drug Administration to approve finerenone in July 2021 to slow the progression of renal disease in patients with type 2 diabetes and CKD.

“My impression is that in the United States there is a lot of interest in finerenone,” Dr. Rossing said during the discussion following his presentation.

Finerenone has also been recently approved in the European Union.
 

‘Consistent’ benefits irrespective of SGLT2 inhibitors

“The cardiovascular and kidney benefits of finerenone were consistent irrespective of SGLT2 inhibitor use. This is definitely interesting and warrants a randomized controlled trial” to examine the relationship in a more rigorous way, commented Tejas Desai, MD, a nephrologist with the Department of Veterans Affairs, Charlotte, N.C.

That study, CONFIDENCE, is on its way, Dr. Rossing said during his talk. The randomized phase 2 trial has a planned enrollment of 800 patients with type 2 diabetes and CKD and three treatment groups: finerenone plus placebo, the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin (Jardiance) plus placebo, or finerenone plus empagliflozin. The study will launch later in 2022 and has a planned completion date of late 2023.

“SGLT2 inhibitors, compared with finerenone, is where all of this is headed. We need a large trial that adjudicates the best medication to use with a RAS inhibitor,” Dr. Desai said in an interview.

The new analyses from the combined FIDELITY study expand on a previous report presented at the 2021 annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology and published in the European Heart Journal.
 

‘Impressive’ effect on cardiovascular events

The main findings from FIDELITY presented in those earlier reports, in 13,026 patients, showed there was a significant 14% relative reduction in the composite cardiovascular endpoint with finerenone, compared with placebo, during a median 3 years of follow-up.

The same report documented, in the total combined cohort, a significant 23% relative reduction in the composite renal endpoint in those taking finerenone compared with placebo.

“Reducing the risk of cardiovascular endpoints by a relative 14% is impressive,” and the time course showed a “relatively quick onset of action,” Dr. Desai noted.

He also characterized the enrolled patients, which included many with stage 3 or 4 CKD, as “not the sickest population of patients with CKD,” but rather “relatively healthier patients with CKD.”

Dr. Desai also downplayed the importance of the observed reduction in UACR associated with finerenone in FIDELITY.

“UACR is a surrogate marker. Results from many studies have shown improvements in UACR only to not show protection against falls in eGFR rate,” Dr. Desai said.

He was also reassured by the low incidence of hyperkalemia that led to discontinuation, which occurred in 1.7% of patients taking finerenone and in 0.6% of those taking placebo.

The types of patients enrolled in FIDELIO-DKD and FIGARO-DKD, who did not have eGFR rates below 25 mL/min per 1.73 m², are not particularly susceptible to this adverse effect, he said, noting, “I’m not overly concerned with hyperkalemia in this CKD population.

“I’m more concerned about [hyperkalemia in] patients with CKD and an eGFR of less than 25 mL/min per 1.73 m², but this was less than 1% of the enrolled population,” Dr. Desai observed.

FIDELIO-DKD, FIGARO-DKD, and FIDELITY were sponsored by Bayer, which markets finerenone (Kerendia). Dr. Rossing reported being a consultant for Bayer and other drug companies, and receiving research funding from AstraZeneca and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Desai reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

When Annie Uhing, MD, is stressed about work, she can call her mom. She and her mom are close, yes, but her mom is also a physician and understands the ups and downs of medical education and the unique challenges of being a woman in medicine.

“My mom and I were talking about this the other day – I don’t think we know any other mother-daughter pairs of doctors,” said Dr. Uhing.

Courtesy Dr. Charlene Gaebler-Uhing

In the United States, the number of female physicians has risen steadily since the mid- and late-20th century. As of 2019, women made up more than half of medical school classes across the country and 36.3% of the physician workforce.

Still, most female physicians are concentrated in a handful of specialties (such as pediatrics and obstetrics and gynecology) while the percentages of women in other areas remains extremely low (urology and orthopedic surgery). Many female physicians share anecdotal stories about not being taken seriously, like when a patient mistook them for a nurse, or preferred the advice of a male colleague to their own.

To celebrate International Women’s Day, this news organization talked to two families of female doctors about their experiences in medicine and how they inspire and support one another inside and outside the hospital.
 

Deborah, Charlene, and Annie

When Deborah Gaebler-Spira, MD, started medical school at the University of Illinois in 1975, women made up just 15% of her class. “For me, the idea that as a woman you could have a vocation that could be quite meaningful and self-directed – that was very important,” said Dr. Gaebler-Spira, now a pediatric rehabilitation physician at the Shirley Ryan Ability Lab and professor at Northwestern University in Chicago.

She blocked out a lot of discouragement along the way. In undergrad, the dean of the college warned Dr. Gaebler-Spira she’d never make it as a doctor. In medical school interviews, administrators could be hostile. “There was this feeling that you were taking a place of someone who really deserved it,” she said. When selecting a residency, Dr. Gaebler-Spira decided against a career in obstetrics because of the overt misogyny in the field at the time.

Instead, she went into pediatrics and physical medicine and rehabilitation, eventually working to become an expert in cerebral palsy. Along the way, Dr. Gaebler-Spira made lifelong friends with other female physicians and found strong female mentors, including Billie Adams, MD, and Helen Emery, MD.

When her sister, Charlene Gaebler-Uhing, MD, also decided to go into medicine, Dr. Gaebler-Spira said she “thought it was a sign of sanity as she was always much more competitive than I was! And if I could do it, no question she was able!”

Dr. Gaebler-Uhing, now an adolescent medicine specialist at Children’s Wisconsin in Milwaukee, followed her older sister’s footsteps to medical school in 1983, after first considering a career in social work.

While there were now more women going into medicine – her medical school class was about 25% women – problems persisted. During clinical rotations in residency, Dr. Gaebler-Uhing was often the only woman on a team and made the conscious decision to go professionally by her nickname, Charlie. “If a woman’s name was on the consult, her opinion and insights did not get the same value or respect as a male physician’s,” she said. “The only way they knew I was a woman was if they really knew me.”

The Gaebler sisters leaned on each other professionally and personally throughout their careers. When both sisters practiced in Chicago, they referred patients to one another. And Dr. Gaebler-Uhing said her older sister was a great role model for how to balance the dual roles of physician and parent, as few of the older female doctors who trained her were married or had a child.

Now Dr. Gaebler-Uhing’s daughter, Annie Uhing, MD, is entering medicine herself. She is currently pediatric resident at the University of Wisconsin American Family Hospital. She plans to do a chief year and then a pediatric endocrinology fellowship.

Growing up, Dr. Uhing wasn’t always sure she wanted to work as much as her parents, who are both doctors. But her mom provided a great example few of her friends had at home: “If you want to work, you should work and do what you want to do and it’s not wrong to want to have a really high-powered job as a woman,” said Dr. Uhing.

 

Kathryn, Susan, and Rita

The three sisters Kathryn Hudson, MD, Susan Schmidt, MD, and Rita Butler, MD, were inspired to go into medicine by their mother, Rita Watson, MD, who was one of the first female interventional cardiologists in the United States.

“I think we had a front row seat to what being a doctor was like,” said Dr. Hudson, a hematologist and oncologist and director of survivorship at Texas Oncology in Austin. Both parents were MDs – their dad was a pharmaceutical researcher at Merck – and they would excitedly discuss patient cases and drug development at the dinner table, said Dr. Butler, an interventional cardiology fellow at the Lankenau Heart Institute in Wynnewood, Pa.

All three sisters have vivid memories of ‘Take Your Daughter to Work Day’ at their mom’s hospital. “I remember going to Take Your Daughter to Work Day with her and watching her in action and thinking, oh my gosh, my mom is so cool and I want to be like her,” said Dr. Schmidt, a pediatric critical care specialist at St. Christopher’s Hospital for Children in Philadelphia. “I’ve always felt special that my mom was doing something really cool and really saving lives,” said Dr. Schmidt.

Their fourth sibling, John, isn’t a physician and “I honestly wonder if it’s because he never went to Take Your Daughter to Work Day!” said Dr. Butler.

Having a mother who had both a high-powered medical career and a family helped the three women know they could do the same. “It is a difficult journey, don’t get me wrong, but I never questioned that I could do it because my mom did it first,” said Dr. Hudson.

As adults, the sisters confide in one another as they navigate modern motherhood and careers, switching between discussing medical cases and parenting advice.

As hard as their mom worked while they were growing up, she didn’t have the pressure of living up to the “super mom” ideal we have now, said Dr. Butler. “Everyone wants women to work like they don’t have kids and everyone wants women to parent like they don’t have a job,” she said. Having two sisters who can provide reassurance and advice in that area goes a long way, she said.

“I think sharing that experience of navigating motherhood, a medical career, and marriage, and adult life with sisters who are going through all the same things is really special and I feel really fortunate for that,” said Dr. Schmidt.

*This story was updated on 3/8/2022.

When Annie Uhing, MD, is stressed about work, she can call her mom. She and her mom are close, yes, but her mom is also a physician and understands the ups and downs of medical education and the unique challenges of being a woman in medicine.

“My mom and I were talking about this the other day – I don’t think we know any other mother-daughter pairs of doctors,” said Dr. Uhing.

Courtesy Dr. Charlene Gaebler-Uhing

In the United States, the number of female physicians has risen steadily since the mid- and late-20th century. As of 2019, women made up more than half of medical school classes across the country and 36.3% of the physician workforce.

Still, most female physicians are concentrated in a handful of specialties (such as pediatrics and obstetrics and gynecology) while the percentages of women in other areas remains extremely low (urology and orthopedic surgery). Many female physicians share anecdotal stories about not being taken seriously, like when a patient mistook them for a nurse, or preferred the advice of a male colleague to their own.

To celebrate International Women’s Day, this news organization talked to two families of female doctors about their experiences in medicine and how they inspire and support one another inside and outside the hospital.
 

Deborah, Charlene, and Annie

When Deborah Gaebler-Spira, MD, started medical school at the University of Illinois in 1975, women made up just 15% of her class. “For me, the idea that as a woman you could have a vocation that could be quite meaningful and self-directed – that was very important,” said Dr. Gaebler-Spira, now a pediatric rehabilitation physician at the Shirley Ryan Ability Lab and professor at Northwestern University in Chicago.

She blocked out a lot of discouragement along the way. In undergrad, the dean of the college warned Dr. Gaebler-Spira she’d never make it as a doctor. In medical school interviews, administrators could be hostile. “There was this feeling that you were taking a place of someone who really deserved it,” she said. When selecting a residency, Dr. Gaebler-Spira decided against a career in obstetrics because of the overt misogyny in the field at the time.

Instead, she went into pediatrics and physical medicine and rehabilitation, eventually working to become an expert in cerebral palsy. Along the way, Dr. Gaebler-Spira made lifelong friends with other female physicians and found strong female mentors, including Billie Adams, MD, and Helen Emery, MD.

When her sister, Charlene Gaebler-Uhing, MD, also decided to go into medicine, Dr. Gaebler-Spira said she “thought it was a sign of sanity as she was always much more competitive than I was! And if I could do it, no question she was able!”

Dr. Gaebler-Uhing, now an adolescent medicine specialist at Children’s Wisconsin in Milwaukee, followed her older sister’s footsteps to medical school in 1983, after first considering a career in social work.

While there were now more women going into medicine – her medical school class was about 25% women – problems persisted. During clinical rotations in residency, Dr. Gaebler-Uhing was often the only woman on a team and made the conscious decision to go professionally by her nickname, Charlie. “If a woman’s name was on the consult, her opinion and insights did not get the same value or respect as a male physician’s,” she said. “The only way they knew I was a woman was if they really knew me.”

The Gaebler sisters leaned on each other professionally and personally throughout their careers. When both sisters practiced in Chicago, they referred patients to one another. And Dr. Gaebler-Uhing said her older sister was a great role model for how to balance the dual roles of physician and parent, as few of the older female doctors who trained her were married or had a child.

Now Dr. Gaebler-Uhing’s daughter, Annie Uhing, MD, is entering medicine herself. She is currently pediatric resident at the University of Wisconsin American Family Hospital. She plans to do a chief year and then a pediatric endocrinology fellowship.

Growing up, Dr. Uhing wasn’t always sure she wanted to work as much as her parents, who are both doctors. But her mom provided a great example few of her friends had at home: “If you want to work, you should work and do what you want to do and it’s not wrong to want to have a really high-powered job as a woman,” said Dr. Uhing.

 

Kathryn, Susan, and Rita

The three sisters Kathryn Hudson, MD, Susan Schmidt, MD, and Rita Butler, MD, were inspired to go into medicine by their mother, Rita Watson, MD, who was one of the first female interventional cardiologists in the United States.

“I think we had a front row seat to what being a doctor was like,” said Dr. Hudson, a hematologist and oncologist and director of survivorship at Texas Oncology in Austin. Both parents were MDs – their dad was a pharmaceutical researcher at Merck – and they would excitedly discuss patient cases and drug development at the dinner table, said Dr. Butler, an interventional cardiology fellow at the Lankenau Heart Institute in Wynnewood, Pa.

All three sisters have vivid memories of ‘Take Your Daughter to Work Day’ at their mom’s hospital. “I remember going to Take Your Daughter to Work Day with her and watching her in action and thinking, oh my gosh, my mom is so cool and I want to be like her,” said Dr. Schmidt, a pediatric critical care specialist at St. Christopher’s Hospital for Children in Philadelphia. “I’ve always felt special that my mom was doing something really cool and really saving lives,” said Dr. Schmidt.

Their fourth sibling, John, isn’t a physician and “I honestly wonder if it’s because he never went to Take Your Daughter to Work Day!” said Dr. Butler.

Having a mother who had both a high-powered medical career and a family helped the three women know they could do the same. “It is a difficult journey, don’t get me wrong, but I never questioned that I could do it because my mom did it first,” said Dr. Hudson.

As adults, the sisters confide in one another as they navigate modern motherhood and careers, switching between discussing medical cases and parenting advice.

As hard as their mom worked while they were growing up, she didn’t have the pressure of living up to the “super mom” ideal we have now, said Dr. Butler. “Everyone wants women to work like they don’t have kids and everyone wants women to parent like they don’t have a job,” she said. Having two sisters who can provide reassurance and advice in that area goes a long way, she said.

“I think sharing that experience of navigating motherhood, a medical career, and marriage, and adult life with sisters who are going through all the same things is really special and I feel really fortunate for that,” said Dr. Schmidt.

*This story was updated on 3/8/2022.

When Annie Uhing, MD, is stressed about work, she can call her mom. She and her mom are close, yes, but her mom is also a physician and understands the ups and downs of medical education and the unique challenges of being a woman in medicine.

“My mom and I were talking about this the other day – I don’t think we know any other mother-daughter pairs of doctors,” said Dr. Uhing.

Courtesy Dr. Charlene Gaebler-Uhing

In the United States, the number of female physicians has risen steadily since the mid- and late-20th century. As of 2019, women made up more than half of medical school classes across the country and 36.3% of the physician workforce.

Still, most female physicians are concentrated in a handful of specialties (such as pediatrics and obstetrics and gynecology) while the percentages of women in other areas remains extremely low (urology and orthopedic surgery). Many female physicians share anecdotal stories about not being taken seriously, like when a patient mistook them for a nurse, or preferred the advice of a male colleague to their own.

To celebrate International Women’s Day, this news organization talked to two families of female doctors about their experiences in medicine and how they inspire and support one another inside and outside the hospital.
 

Deborah, Charlene, and Annie

When Deborah Gaebler-Spira, MD, started medical school at the University of Illinois in 1975, women made up just 15% of her class. “For me, the idea that as a woman you could have a vocation that could be quite meaningful and self-directed – that was very important,” said Dr. Gaebler-Spira, now a pediatric rehabilitation physician at the Shirley Ryan Ability Lab and professor at Northwestern University in Chicago.

She blocked out a lot of discouragement along the way. In undergrad, the dean of the college warned Dr. Gaebler-Spira she’d never make it as a doctor. In medical school interviews, administrators could be hostile. “There was this feeling that you were taking a place of someone who really deserved it,” she said. When selecting a residency, Dr. Gaebler-Spira decided against a career in obstetrics because of the overt misogyny in the field at the time.

Instead, she went into pediatrics and physical medicine and rehabilitation, eventually working to become an expert in cerebral palsy. Along the way, Dr. Gaebler-Spira made lifelong friends with other female physicians and found strong female mentors, including Billie Adams, MD, and Helen Emery, MD.

When her sister, Charlene Gaebler-Uhing, MD, also decided to go into medicine, Dr. Gaebler-Spira said she “thought it was a sign of sanity as she was always much more competitive than I was! And if I could do it, no question she was able!”

Dr. Gaebler-Uhing, now an adolescent medicine specialist at Children’s Wisconsin in Milwaukee, followed her older sister’s footsteps to medical school in 1983, after first considering a career in social work.

While there were now more women going into medicine – her medical school class was about 25% women – problems persisted. During clinical rotations in residency, Dr. Gaebler-Uhing was often the only woman on a team and made the conscious decision to go professionally by her nickname, Charlie. “If a woman’s name was on the consult, her opinion and insights did not get the same value or respect as a male physician’s,” she said. “The only way they knew I was a woman was if they really knew me.”

The Gaebler sisters leaned on each other professionally and personally throughout their careers. When both sisters practiced in Chicago, they referred patients to one another. And Dr. Gaebler-Uhing said her older sister was a great role model for how to balance the dual roles of physician and parent, as few of the older female doctors who trained her were married or had a child.

Now Dr. Gaebler-Uhing’s daughter, Annie Uhing, MD, is entering medicine herself. She is currently pediatric resident at the University of Wisconsin American Family Hospital. She plans to do a chief year and then a pediatric endocrinology fellowship.

Growing up, Dr. Uhing wasn’t always sure she wanted to work as much as her parents, who are both doctors. But her mom provided a great example few of her friends had at home: “If you want to work, you should work and do what you want to do and it’s not wrong to want to have a really high-powered job as a woman,” said Dr. Uhing.

 

Kathryn, Susan, and Rita

The three sisters Kathryn Hudson, MD, Susan Schmidt, MD, and Rita Butler, MD, were inspired to go into medicine by their mother, Rita Watson, MD, who was one of the first female interventional cardiologists in the United States.

“I think we had a front row seat to what being a doctor was like,” said Dr. Hudson, a hematologist and oncologist and director of survivorship at Texas Oncology in Austin. Both parents were MDs – their dad was a pharmaceutical researcher at Merck – and they would excitedly discuss patient cases and drug development at the dinner table, said Dr. Butler, an interventional cardiology fellow at the Lankenau Heart Institute in Wynnewood, Pa.

All three sisters have vivid memories of ‘Take Your Daughter to Work Day’ at their mom’s hospital. “I remember going to Take Your Daughter to Work Day with her and watching her in action and thinking, oh my gosh, my mom is so cool and I want to be like her,” said Dr. Schmidt, a pediatric critical care specialist at St. Christopher’s Hospital for Children in Philadelphia. “I’ve always felt special that my mom was doing something really cool and really saving lives,” said Dr. Schmidt.

Their fourth sibling, John, isn’t a physician and “I honestly wonder if it’s because he never went to Take Your Daughter to Work Day!” said Dr. Butler.

Having a mother who had both a high-powered medical career and a family helped the three women know they could do the same. “It is a difficult journey, don’t get me wrong, but I never questioned that I could do it because my mom did it first,” said Dr. Hudson.

As adults, the sisters confide in one another as they navigate modern motherhood and careers, switching between discussing medical cases and parenting advice.

As hard as their mom worked while they were growing up, she didn’t have the pressure of living up to the “super mom” ideal we have now, said Dr. Butler. “Everyone wants women to work like they don’t have kids and everyone wants women to parent like they don’t have a job,” she said. Having two sisters who can provide reassurance and advice in that area goes a long way, she said.

“I think sharing that experience of navigating motherhood, a medical career, and marriage, and adult life with sisters who are going through all the same things is really special and I feel really fortunate for that,” said Dr. Schmidt.

*This story was updated on 3/8/2022.

The past week has seen heated debate about the complex issue of how to best treat children with gender dysphoria, with further developments in a number of U.S. states and in Sweden. 

In the U.S., more states have moved to prevent the use of any medical treatment, such as puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones, in kids younger than the age of 18, most recently in a state Senate vote in Alabama last week, and in Texas, where Governor Greg Abbott is said to have ordered state agencies to investigate reports of gender-transition procedures on children as “child abuse.”

At least one parent has, because of this, established a crowdfunding page to try to raise money to move away from Texas, fearful of being accused of child abuse if their child with gender dysphoria receives hormone therapy. And a countersuit has been filed there by the ACLU of Texas and Lambda Legal, a civil rights organization, on behalf of one parent said to be under investigation.

But on the flip side, parents living in more liberal states – where children under the age of 18 can often get hormones to transition without parental consent – are considering moving out of them to protect their children. These parents are concerned that their kids do not know enough about the side effects of puberty blockers, or lifetime use of cross-sex hormones and its implications, to be able to make properly informed decisions at such a young age.  

Meanwhile, Sweden has further tightened its restrictions on medical therapy to treat gender-questioning kids, with a recent announcement from its National Board of Health and Welfare (NBHW), on Feb. 22, urging restraint in hormone treatment of minors with gender dysphoria following a review by the agency there that assesses health technologies, the SBU.

Based on the review results, the NBHW’s overall conclusion is that the risks of puberty blocking and cross-sex hormone treatment for those under 18 currently outweigh the possible benefits for the group as a whole. The agency now says hormone treatment should only be offered in exceptional cases outside the framework of research, and principally, only in adolescents with childhood-onset gender dysphoria, as opposed to those who develop it during puberty, or in their teens, as is the case with most teenagers currently presenting. 

At the same time, gender-affirming hormone treatment for adolescents who identify as transgender or nonbinary is associated with changes in depression and suicidality, according to a new U.S. survey published Feb. 25 in JAMA Network Health. 

However, experts who spoke to this news organization were critical of the study, noting it was small, conducted in just 104 youth who were an average age of 15.8 years and of whom only 63% completed the survey at the final timepoint, just 1 year after starting therapy. In addition, there was no control group, among other limitations.

“The most worrying thing is that they haven’t described the pros and cons of the treatment that they are researching. We know that there are risks inherent in using gender-affirming medicine, as with all medications,” Anna Hutchinson, DClinPsych, of the Integrated Psychology Clinic, London, told this news organization.

“For example, when people with gender dysphoria use cross-sex hormones, there is a burden of treatment that can last a lifetime, both for those who benefit from the treatment and those who detransition or regret later on,” said Dr. Hutchinson, who has extensive experience of working with young people with issues related to sexuality or gender.

“This isn’t mentioned at all, which makes the paper appear quite biased towards using one approach for managing gender dysphoria and related distress, whilst not acknowledging any risks of doing so or considering alternatives,” she noted.
 

Why were some treated with hormones while others weren’t? 

The newly published survey is by PhD student Diana M. Tordoff, MPH, of the Department of Epidemiology, University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues. Published alongside was an invited commentary by Brett Dolotina, BS, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and Jack L. Turban, MD, MHS, of Stanford (Calif.) University.

The study was conducted at an urban multidisciplinary gender clinic in Seattle among transgender and nonbinary adolescents and young adults seeking gender-affirming care from August 2017 to June 2018. Data were analyzed from August 2020 to November 2021.

Participating in the study were 104 youths aged 13-20 years (mean age, 15.8 years), 63 transmasculine (born female) individuals (60.6%), 27 transfeminine (born male) individuals (26.0%), 10 nonbinary or gender-fluid individuals (9.6%), and four youths who responded, “I don’t know,” or did not respond to the gender-identity question (3.8%). 

At baseline, 59 individuals (56.7%) had moderate-to-severe depression, 52 individuals (50.0%) had moderate-to-severe anxiety, and 45 individuals (43.3%) reported self-harm or suicidal thoughts. 

By the end of the study, 69 youths (66.3%) had received puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones (testosterone for girls transitioning to male and estrogen for boys transitioning to female), or both interventions, while 35 youths had not received either intervention (33.7%). 

After adjustment for temporal trends and potential confounders, there were a 60% lower odds of depression (adjusted odds ratio, 0.40; 95% confidence interval, 0.17-0.95) and 73% lower odds of suicidality (aOR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.11-0.65) among youths who had initiated puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones. 

There was no association between these treatments and anxiety, however (aOR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.41-2.51).

Dr. Hutchinson points out that nonbinary and gender fluid “are not diagnostic or clinical terms,” adding, “there is no information about how the groups were chosen or if any of them met the criteria for gender dysphoria. It seems strange to not have measured gender dysphoria, both before and after interventions, in a group of children presenting with gender dysphoria.”

She adds: “I am questioning why ‘gender-affirming’ medicine appears to be being used here as a specific intervention for depression and suicidality? [That] wouldn’t usually be the first reason to commence these particular treatments. Why didn’t they provide therapy or antidepressant medication to this group of young people, as is routine for managing mood and/or suicidality in all other patient cohorts?”  

In their commentary, Mr. Dolotina and Dr. Turban observe: “The rate of suicidality among the Tordoff et al. sample after receiving gender-affirming care was still much higher than national rates of suicidality among youth in the U.S., denoting that ... other mental health determinants must be addressed ... including gender minority stress.”
 

Small study, no control group, large loss to follow-up

Dr. Hutchinson also criticizes the small sample size of just 104 youth and “large loss to follow-up, whereby only 65 of those 104 [youth] completed the final survey in a short time [1 year].” This could indicate “that only the most satisfied kids stayed the course,” she suggests. 

And importantly, the findings on depression and suicidality rely on the experience of only five people in the no-treatment group at 12 months, she points out. 

Also, as the authors themselves acknowledge, they didn’t control for other psychiatric medicines that the participants might have been taking at baseline.

“It’s important to know more about all of this in order to draw accurate conclusions about what works, or does not, for whom,” noted Dr. Hutchinson.

Most patients, too, she notes, were females-to-males taking testosterone. Therefore, the finding that they experienced a reduction in depression might simply reflect the widely reported antidepressant effects of testosterone. 

Also expressing concern about the small sample size and “lack of a control group” is Michelle Mackness, MC, a Canadian counselor in private practice who has experience working with gender-questioning individuals, detransitioners, and those experiencing complications related to their transition. 

“Tordoff et al.’s assertion that there is a ‘robust evidence base’ supporting pediatric transition seems out-of-step with recent global developments in care policies and protocols for gender-questioning youth,” she points out.

“Neither the study authors or commentators acknowledge, let alone address, the fact that Finland, the U.K., and Sweden have recently determined that the evidence allegedly supporting medical interventions for pediatric transition is ‘inconclusive’,” she adds. 

Asked to respond, Ms. Tordoff did not directly address this question. Rather, she reiterated to this news organization: “We found that receipt of puberty blockers and gender-affirming hormones was associated with a 60% lower odds of depression and a 73% lower odds of suicidal thoughts by the end of our study follow-up. We conducted extensive sensitivity analyses, which support the robustness of our study findings.”

She added: “These results are consistent with other recently published prospective cohort studies (please see citations provided within the manuscript).”

Parents may move states

It is this concern about the lifetime burden of treatment involved with transitioning that gives some parents of children with gender dysphoria pause for thought, especially those who live in more liberal U.S. states.

Indeed, two of America’s leading psychologists who work in this field, including one who is transgender herself, told this news organization in November they are now concerned about a lack of adequate psychological evaluations of youth with gender dysphoria before any medical treatment is considered. 

So while one parent, Violet A., last week established a GoFundMe page for her child, entitled, “Help Us Move Isa to Safety,” stating she needed to move from Texas due to Governor Abbott’s pronouncements there “to a state that won’t consider me an abuser when I seek medical care for my trans child and potentially remove her from my custody,” some parents feel the need instead to move from more liberal states.

Some tell their stories anonymously, as they don’t want to risk causing their gender-questioning children further distress, as detailed on the Genspect website.

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

The past week has seen heated debate about the complex issue of how to best treat children with gender dysphoria, with further developments in a number of U.S. states and in Sweden. 

In the U.S., more states have moved to prevent the use of any medical treatment, such as puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones, in kids younger than the age of 18, most recently in a state Senate vote in Alabama last week, and in Texas, where Governor Greg Abbott is said to have ordered state agencies to investigate reports of gender-transition procedures on children as “child abuse.”

At least one parent has, because of this, established a crowdfunding page to try to raise money to move away from Texas, fearful of being accused of child abuse if their child with gender dysphoria receives hormone therapy. And a countersuit has been filed there by the ACLU of Texas and Lambda Legal, a civil rights organization, on behalf of one parent said to be under investigation.

But on the flip side, parents living in more liberal states – where children under the age of 18 can often get hormones to transition without parental consent – are considering moving out of them to protect their children. These parents are concerned that their kids do not know enough about the side effects of puberty blockers, or lifetime use of cross-sex hormones and its implications, to be able to make properly informed decisions at such a young age.  

Meanwhile, Sweden has further tightened its restrictions on medical therapy to treat gender-questioning kids, with a recent announcement from its National Board of Health and Welfare (NBHW), on Feb. 22, urging restraint in hormone treatment of minors with gender dysphoria following a review by the agency there that assesses health technologies, the SBU.

Based on the review results, the NBHW’s overall conclusion is that the risks of puberty blocking and cross-sex hormone treatment for those under 18 currently outweigh the possible benefits for the group as a whole. The agency now says hormone treatment should only be offered in exceptional cases outside the framework of research, and principally, only in adolescents with childhood-onset gender dysphoria, as opposed to those who develop it during puberty, or in their teens, as is the case with most teenagers currently presenting. 

At the same time, gender-affirming hormone treatment for adolescents who identify as transgender or nonbinary is associated with changes in depression and suicidality, according to a new U.S. survey published Feb. 25 in JAMA Network Health. 

However, experts who spoke to this news organization were critical of the study, noting it was small, conducted in just 104 youth who were an average age of 15.8 years and of whom only 63% completed the survey at the final timepoint, just 1 year after starting therapy. In addition, there was no control group, among other limitations.

“The most worrying thing is that they haven’t described the pros and cons of the treatment that they are researching. We know that there are risks inherent in using gender-affirming medicine, as with all medications,” Anna Hutchinson, DClinPsych, of the Integrated Psychology Clinic, London, told this news organization.

“For example, when people with gender dysphoria use cross-sex hormones, there is a burden of treatment that can last a lifetime, both for those who benefit from the treatment and those who detransition or regret later on,” said Dr. Hutchinson, who has extensive experience of working with young people with issues related to sexuality or gender.

“This isn’t mentioned at all, which makes the paper appear quite biased towards using one approach for managing gender dysphoria and related distress, whilst not acknowledging any risks of doing so or considering alternatives,” she noted.
 

Why were some treated with hormones while others weren’t? 

The newly published survey is by PhD student Diana M. Tordoff, MPH, of the Department of Epidemiology, University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues. Published alongside was an invited commentary by Brett Dolotina, BS, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and Jack L. Turban, MD, MHS, of Stanford (Calif.) University.

The study was conducted at an urban multidisciplinary gender clinic in Seattle among transgender and nonbinary adolescents and young adults seeking gender-affirming care from August 2017 to June 2018. Data were analyzed from August 2020 to November 2021.

Participating in the study were 104 youths aged 13-20 years (mean age, 15.8 years), 63 transmasculine (born female) individuals (60.6%), 27 transfeminine (born male) individuals (26.0%), 10 nonbinary or gender-fluid individuals (9.6%), and four youths who responded, “I don’t know,” or did not respond to the gender-identity question (3.8%). 

At baseline, 59 individuals (56.7%) had moderate-to-severe depression, 52 individuals (50.0%) had moderate-to-severe anxiety, and 45 individuals (43.3%) reported self-harm or suicidal thoughts. 

By the end of the study, 69 youths (66.3%) had received puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones (testosterone for girls transitioning to male and estrogen for boys transitioning to female), or both interventions, while 35 youths had not received either intervention (33.7%). 

After adjustment for temporal trends and potential confounders, there were a 60% lower odds of depression (adjusted odds ratio, 0.40; 95% confidence interval, 0.17-0.95) and 73% lower odds of suicidality (aOR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.11-0.65) among youths who had initiated puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones. 

There was no association between these treatments and anxiety, however (aOR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.41-2.51).

Dr. Hutchinson points out that nonbinary and gender fluid “are not diagnostic or clinical terms,” adding, “there is no information about how the groups were chosen or if any of them met the criteria for gender dysphoria. It seems strange to not have measured gender dysphoria, both before and after interventions, in a group of children presenting with gender dysphoria.”

She adds: “I am questioning why ‘gender-affirming’ medicine appears to be being used here as a specific intervention for depression and suicidality? [That] wouldn’t usually be the first reason to commence these particular treatments. Why didn’t they provide therapy or antidepressant medication to this group of young people, as is routine for managing mood and/or suicidality in all other patient cohorts?”  

In their commentary, Mr. Dolotina and Dr. Turban observe: “The rate of suicidality among the Tordoff et al. sample after receiving gender-affirming care was still much higher than national rates of suicidality among youth in the U.S., denoting that ... other mental health determinants must be addressed ... including gender minority stress.”
 

Small study, no control group, large loss to follow-up

Dr. Hutchinson also criticizes the small sample size of just 104 youth and “large loss to follow-up, whereby only 65 of those 104 [youth] completed the final survey in a short time [1 year].” This could indicate “that only the most satisfied kids stayed the course,” she suggests. 

And importantly, the findings on depression and suicidality rely on the experience of only five people in the no-treatment group at 12 months, she points out. 

Also, as the authors themselves acknowledge, they didn’t control for other psychiatric medicines that the participants might have been taking at baseline.

“It’s important to know more about all of this in order to draw accurate conclusions about what works, or does not, for whom,” noted Dr. Hutchinson.

Most patients, too, she notes, were females-to-males taking testosterone. Therefore, the finding that they experienced a reduction in depression might simply reflect the widely reported antidepressant effects of testosterone. 

Also expressing concern about the small sample size and “lack of a control group” is Michelle Mackness, MC, a Canadian counselor in private practice who has experience working with gender-questioning individuals, detransitioners, and those experiencing complications related to their transition. 

“Tordoff et al.’s assertion that there is a ‘robust evidence base’ supporting pediatric transition seems out-of-step with recent global developments in care policies and protocols for gender-questioning youth,” she points out.

“Neither the study authors or commentators acknowledge, let alone address, the fact that Finland, the U.K., and Sweden have recently determined that the evidence allegedly supporting medical interventions for pediatric transition is ‘inconclusive’,” she adds. 

Asked to respond, Ms. Tordoff did not directly address this question. Rather, she reiterated to this news organization: “We found that receipt of puberty blockers and gender-affirming hormones was associated with a 60% lower odds of depression and a 73% lower odds of suicidal thoughts by the end of our study follow-up. We conducted extensive sensitivity analyses, which support the robustness of our study findings.”

She added: “These results are consistent with other recently published prospective cohort studies (please see citations provided within the manuscript).”

Parents may move states

It is this concern about the lifetime burden of treatment involved with transitioning that gives some parents of children with gender dysphoria pause for thought, especially those who live in more liberal U.S. states.

Indeed, two of America’s leading psychologists who work in this field, including one who is transgender herself, told this news organization in November they are now concerned about a lack of adequate psychological evaluations of youth with gender dysphoria before any medical treatment is considered. 

So while one parent, Violet A., last week established a GoFundMe page for her child, entitled, “Help Us Move Isa to Safety,” stating she needed to move from Texas due to Governor Abbott’s pronouncements there “to a state that won’t consider me an abuser when I seek medical care for my trans child and potentially remove her from my custody,” some parents feel the need instead to move from more liberal states.

Some tell their stories anonymously, as they don’t want to risk causing their gender-questioning children further distress, as detailed on the Genspect website.

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

The past week has seen heated debate about the complex issue of how to best treat children with gender dysphoria, with further developments in a number of U.S. states and in Sweden. 

In the U.S., more states have moved to prevent the use of any medical treatment, such as puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones, in kids younger than the age of 18, most recently in a state Senate vote in Alabama last week, and in Texas, where Governor Greg Abbott is said to have ordered state agencies to investigate reports of gender-transition procedures on children as “child abuse.”

At least one parent has, because of this, established a crowdfunding page to try to raise money to move away from Texas, fearful of being accused of child abuse if their child with gender dysphoria receives hormone therapy. And a countersuit has been filed there by the ACLU of Texas and Lambda Legal, a civil rights organization, on behalf of one parent said to be under investigation.

But on the flip side, parents living in more liberal states – where children under the age of 18 can often get hormones to transition without parental consent – are considering moving out of them to protect their children. These parents are concerned that their kids do not know enough about the side effects of puberty blockers, or lifetime use of cross-sex hormones and its implications, to be able to make properly informed decisions at such a young age.  

Meanwhile, Sweden has further tightened its restrictions on medical therapy to treat gender-questioning kids, with a recent announcement from its National Board of Health and Welfare (NBHW), on Feb. 22, urging restraint in hormone treatment of minors with gender dysphoria following a review by the agency there that assesses health technologies, the SBU.

Based on the review results, the NBHW’s overall conclusion is that the risks of puberty blocking and cross-sex hormone treatment for those under 18 currently outweigh the possible benefits for the group as a whole. The agency now says hormone treatment should only be offered in exceptional cases outside the framework of research, and principally, only in adolescents with childhood-onset gender dysphoria, as opposed to those who develop it during puberty, or in their teens, as is the case with most teenagers currently presenting. 

At the same time, gender-affirming hormone treatment for adolescents who identify as transgender or nonbinary is associated with changes in depression and suicidality, according to a new U.S. survey published Feb. 25 in JAMA Network Health. 

However, experts who spoke to this news organization were critical of the study, noting it was small, conducted in just 104 youth who were an average age of 15.8 years and of whom only 63% completed the survey at the final timepoint, just 1 year after starting therapy. In addition, there was no control group, among other limitations.

“The most worrying thing is that they haven’t described the pros and cons of the treatment that they are researching. We know that there are risks inherent in using gender-affirming medicine, as with all medications,” Anna Hutchinson, DClinPsych, of the Integrated Psychology Clinic, London, told this news organization.

“For example, when people with gender dysphoria use cross-sex hormones, there is a burden of treatment that can last a lifetime, both for those who benefit from the treatment and those who detransition or regret later on,” said Dr. Hutchinson, who has extensive experience of working with young people with issues related to sexuality or gender.

“This isn’t mentioned at all, which makes the paper appear quite biased towards using one approach for managing gender dysphoria and related distress, whilst not acknowledging any risks of doing so or considering alternatives,” she noted.
 

Why were some treated with hormones while others weren’t? 

The newly published survey is by PhD student Diana M. Tordoff, MPH, of the Department of Epidemiology, University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues. Published alongside was an invited commentary by Brett Dolotina, BS, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and Jack L. Turban, MD, MHS, of Stanford (Calif.) University.

The study was conducted at an urban multidisciplinary gender clinic in Seattle among transgender and nonbinary adolescents and young adults seeking gender-affirming care from August 2017 to June 2018. Data were analyzed from August 2020 to November 2021.

Participating in the study were 104 youths aged 13-20 years (mean age, 15.8 years), 63 transmasculine (born female) individuals (60.6%), 27 transfeminine (born male) individuals (26.0%), 10 nonbinary or gender-fluid individuals (9.6%), and four youths who responded, “I don’t know,” or did not respond to the gender-identity question (3.8%). 

At baseline, 59 individuals (56.7%) had moderate-to-severe depression, 52 individuals (50.0%) had moderate-to-severe anxiety, and 45 individuals (43.3%) reported self-harm or suicidal thoughts. 

By the end of the study, 69 youths (66.3%) had received puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones (testosterone for girls transitioning to male and estrogen for boys transitioning to female), or both interventions, while 35 youths had not received either intervention (33.7%). 

After adjustment for temporal trends and potential confounders, there were a 60% lower odds of depression (adjusted odds ratio, 0.40; 95% confidence interval, 0.17-0.95) and 73% lower odds of suicidality (aOR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.11-0.65) among youths who had initiated puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones. 

There was no association between these treatments and anxiety, however (aOR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.41-2.51).

Dr. Hutchinson points out that nonbinary and gender fluid “are not diagnostic or clinical terms,” adding, “there is no information about how the groups were chosen or if any of them met the criteria for gender dysphoria. It seems strange to not have measured gender dysphoria, both before and after interventions, in a group of children presenting with gender dysphoria.”

She adds: “I am questioning why ‘gender-affirming’ medicine appears to be being used here as a specific intervention for depression and suicidality? [That] wouldn’t usually be the first reason to commence these particular treatments. Why didn’t they provide therapy or antidepressant medication to this group of young people, as is routine for managing mood and/or suicidality in all other patient cohorts?”  

In their commentary, Mr. Dolotina and Dr. Turban observe: “The rate of suicidality among the Tordoff et al. sample after receiving gender-affirming care was still much higher than national rates of suicidality among youth in the U.S., denoting that ... other mental health determinants must be addressed ... including gender minority stress.”
 

Small study, no control group, large loss to follow-up

Dr. Hutchinson also criticizes the small sample size of just 104 youth and “large loss to follow-up, whereby only 65 of those 104 [youth] completed the final survey in a short time [1 year].” This could indicate “that only the most satisfied kids stayed the course,” she suggests. 

And importantly, the findings on depression and suicidality rely on the experience of only five people in the no-treatment group at 12 months, she points out. 

Also, as the authors themselves acknowledge, they didn’t control for other psychiatric medicines that the participants might have been taking at baseline.

“It’s important to know more about all of this in order to draw accurate conclusions about what works, or does not, for whom,” noted Dr. Hutchinson.

Most patients, too, she notes, were females-to-males taking testosterone. Therefore, the finding that they experienced a reduction in depression might simply reflect the widely reported antidepressant effects of testosterone. 

Also expressing concern about the small sample size and “lack of a control group” is Michelle Mackness, MC, a Canadian counselor in private practice who has experience working with gender-questioning individuals, detransitioners, and those experiencing complications related to their transition. 

“Tordoff et al.’s assertion that there is a ‘robust evidence base’ supporting pediatric transition seems out-of-step with recent global developments in care policies and protocols for gender-questioning youth,” she points out.

“Neither the study authors or commentators acknowledge, let alone address, the fact that Finland, the U.K., and Sweden have recently determined that the evidence allegedly supporting medical interventions for pediatric transition is ‘inconclusive’,” she adds. 

Asked to respond, Ms. Tordoff did not directly address this question. Rather, she reiterated to this news organization: “We found that receipt of puberty blockers and gender-affirming hormones was associated with a 60% lower odds of depression and a 73% lower odds of suicidal thoughts by the end of our study follow-up. We conducted extensive sensitivity analyses, which support the robustness of our study findings.”

She added: “These results are consistent with other recently published prospective cohort studies (please see citations provided within the manuscript).”

Parents may move states

It is this concern about the lifetime burden of treatment involved with transitioning that gives some parents of children with gender dysphoria pause for thought, especially those who live in more liberal U.S. states.

Indeed, two of America’s leading psychologists who work in this field, including one who is transgender herself, told this news organization in November they are now concerned about a lack of adequate psychological evaluations of youth with gender dysphoria before any medical treatment is considered. 

So while one parent, Violet A., last week established a GoFundMe page for her child, entitled, “Help Us Move Isa to Safety,” stating she needed to move from Texas due to Governor Abbott’s pronouncements there “to a state that won’t consider me an abuser when I seek medical care for my trans child and potentially remove her from my custody,” some parents feel the need instead to move from more liberal states.

Some tell their stories anonymously, as they don’t want to risk causing their gender-questioning children further distress, as detailed on the Genspect website.

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

Long or irregular menstrual cycles in relatively young women are linked an increased risk of both prevalent and incident nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), according to a cross-sectional study that included data on more than 70,000 women.

“Our results indicate that menstrual irregularity, which is easier to diagnose and usually presented earlier than PCOS [polycystic ovary syndrome] highlights the possibility of identifying premenopausal women at risk of developing NAFLD,” reported a team of authors primarily from Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul, South Korea.

The study evaluated women aged younger than 40 years who were participating in the Kangbuk Samsung Health Study, which involves a comprehensive biennial health examination at health centers in South Korea. Of the 135,090 women enrolled over a 6-year period who had at least one follow-up examination, 72,092 were available for analysis after excluding for a sizable list of confounding factors such as liver disease and infections; exposure to steatogenic medications, such as corticosteroids; hysterectomy; and pregnancy.
 

NAFLD prevalence climbs with longer menses

Of these women, 36.378 (27.7%) had menstrual cycles of 26-30 days and were identified as the index group. The prevalence of NAFLD in this group was 5.8%. For those with a menstrual cycle of 31-39 days, the prevalence rate climbed to 7.2%. For those with a menstrual cycle of at least 40 days or too irregular to estimate, the prevalence was 9.7%. The prevalence was 7.1% for those with a menstrual cycle less than 21 days.

The results of this study were published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

In those without NAFLD at baseline who were then followed for a mean of 4.4 years, there were 4,524 incident cases of NAFLD. Incidence density was calculated per 103 patient-years. In the index group, the rate was 18.4. It climbed to 20.2 for those with a menstrual cycle of 31-39 days and then to 22.9 for those with a menstrual cycle of at least 40 days. For those with a cycle of fewer than 21 days, the rate was 26.8.

After adjusting for age, body mass index, insulin resistance, and other confounders, the hazard ratio for incident NAFLD for those with long or irregular menstrual cycles compared with the incident group corresponded with a 22% increased risk (HR, 1.22; 95% confidence interval, 1.14-1.31). When calculated in a time-dependent analysis, the risk of NAFLD was increased by almost 50% (HR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.38-1.60).


 

Risk persists with PCOS exclusion

PCOS has previously been associated with increased risk of NAFLD, but the association between long or irregular menstrual cycles and NAFLD persisted after women with PCOS were excluded.

The mechanism that links menstrual irregularity with NAFLD is unclear, but the investigators said that estrogen exposure is implicated. In addition to a previously reported associated between low estradiol levels and antiestrogens such as tamoxifen with increased risk of NAFLD, they cited studies associating estrogen replacement therapy with a reduced risk of NAFLD. The role of estrogen in suppressing inflammation, oxidative stress, and insulin resistance are all activities that might link more regular menses with a reduced risk of NAFLD, the authors contended.

Women older than 40 years were excluded from this analysis to reduce the possibility of perimenopausal changes as a confounding factor.

Of study limitations acknowledged by the investigators, the presence of NAFLD was diagnosed on ultrasonography rather than histology. Information on sex hormone or prolactin levels was not captured in relation to NAFLD incidence, and the lack of exposure to estrogen replacement therapy and oral contraceptives was based on self-reports from the participants.

Still, the large study size and the consistency of results after adjustment for multiple risk factors argue that long and irregular menstrual cycles do identify women at risk for NAFLD. One implication is that irregular menses can be a marker for NAFLD risk.

“Our findings do not prove a causal relationship, but they show that long or irregular menstrual cycles were significantly associated with an increased risk of developing NAFLD,” said Seungho Ryu, MD, PhD, a professor at the Sungkyunkwan University. Senior author of this study, Dr. Ryu emphasized in an interview that the association “was not explained by obesity or any other risk factor for NAFLD.”
 

Lifestyle changes may lower risk

The message is that “young women with long or irregular menstrual cycles may benefit from lifestyle changes to reduce the risk of NAFLD,” Dr. Ryu stated.

The Study of Women’s Health Across the Nation, which was started in 1994, has not evaluated NAFLD, but it did show a relationship between longer menstrual cycles and more cardiometabolic risk factors, according to Nanette Santoro MD, professor and chair, department of obstetrics & gynecology, University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.

This suggests that others are “thinking along the same lines,” but in discussing this study with this news organization, she characterized some of the design elements as well as some of the findings in this study as “peculiar.”

In addition to a “very, very narrow definition of regular cycles,” she questioned the consistent hazard ratio for NAFLD for those with long cycles relative to other types of irregular menses. Presuming that the group with longer cycles would have included at least some patients with undiagnosed PCOS, she was would have expected that the risk would have been highest in this group. While conceding that differences in body composition of Korean women is a potential explanation for this apparent discrepancy, “I would like to see confirmed in other samples of women with more detailed metabolic assessments to understand who is at risk,” she said.

Not least problematic for the strength of the conclusions, the hazard ratio for NAFLD among women with long or irregular menstrual cycles was “pretty low.” She described this as a level at which the risk “is very susceptible to confounding and unlikely to influence clinical practice.”

Anuja Dokras, MD, PHD, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology and director of the PCOS Center at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, also questioned whether undiagnosed PCOS might have skewed the data.

“There is increasing data on the association between PCOS and NAFLD. Irregular menses is a key criterion for PCOS, and PCOS is the commonest reason for anovulation,” she said. Dr. Dokras therefore considered it possible that patients with unrecognized PCOS were included in the study, weakening the claim that risk of NAFLD and long menstrual cycles remains significant after controlling for PCOS.

Dr. Ryu and coinvestigators, Dr. Santoro, and Dr. Dokras reported no potential conflicts of interest.

Long or irregular menstrual cycles in relatively young women are linked an increased risk of both prevalent and incident nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), according to a cross-sectional study that included data on more than 70,000 women.

“Our results indicate that menstrual irregularity, which is easier to diagnose and usually presented earlier than PCOS [polycystic ovary syndrome] highlights the possibility of identifying premenopausal women at risk of developing NAFLD,” reported a team of authors primarily from Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul, South Korea.

The study evaluated women aged younger than 40 years who were participating in the Kangbuk Samsung Health Study, which involves a comprehensive biennial health examination at health centers in South Korea. Of the 135,090 women enrolled over a 6-year period who had at least one follow-up examination, 72,092 were available for analysis after excluding for a sizable list of confounding factors such as liver disease and infections; exposure to steatogenic medications, such as corticosteroids; hysterectomy; and pregnancy.
 

NAFLD prevalence climbs with longer menses

Of these women, 36.378 (27.7%) had menstrual cycles of 26-30 days and were identified as the index group. The prevalence of NAFLD in this group was 5.8%. For those with a menstrual cycle of 31-39 days, the prevalence rate climbed to 7.2%. For those with a menstrual cycle of at least 40 days or too irregular to estimate, the prevalence was 9.7%. The prevalence was 7.1% for those with a menstrual cycle less than 21 days.

The results of this study were published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

In those without NAFLD at baseline who were then followed for a mean of 4.4 years, there were 4,524 incident cases of NAFLD. Incidence density was calculated per 103 patient-years. In the index group, the rate was 18.4. It climbed to 20.2 for those with a menstrual cycle of 31-39 days and then to 22.9 for those with a menstrual cycle of at least 40 days. For those with a cycle of fewer than 21 days, the rate was 26.8.

After adjusting for age, body mass index, insulin resistance, and other confounders, the hazard ratio for incident NAFLD for those with long or irregular menstrual cycles compared with the incident group corresponded with a 22% increased risk (HR, 1.22; 95% confidence interval, 1.14-1.31). When calculated in a time-dependent analysis, the risk of NAFLD was increased by almost 50% (HR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.38-1.60).


 

Risk persists with PCOS exclusion

PCOS has previously been associated with increased risk of NAFLD, but the association between long or irregular menstrual cycles and NAFLD persisted after women with PCOS were excluded.

The mechanism that links menstrual irregularity with NAFLD is unclear, but the investigators said that estrogen exposure is implicated. In addition to a previously reported associated between low estradiol levels and antiestrogens such as tamoxifen with increased risk of NAFLD, they cited studies associating estrogen replacement therapy with a reduced risk of NAFLD. The role of estrogen in suppressing inflammation, oxidative stress, and insulin resistance are all activities that might link more regular menses with a reduced risk of NAFLD, the authors contended.

Women older than 40 years were excluded from this analysis to reduce the possibility of perimenopausal changes as a confounding factor.

Of study limitations acknowledged by the investigators, the presence of NAFLD was diagnosed on ultrasonography rather than histology. Information on sex hormone or prolactin levels was not captured in relation to NAFLD incidence, and the lack of exposure to estrogen replacement therapy and oral contraceptives was based on self-reports from the participants.

Still, the large study size and the consistency of results after adjustment for multiple risk factors argue that long and irregular menstrual cycles do identify women at risk for NAFLD. One implication is that irregular menses can be a marker for NAFLD risk.

“Our findings do not prove a causal relationship, but they show that long or irregular menstrual cycles were significantly associated with an increased risk of developing NAFLD,” said Seungho Ryu, MD, PhD, a professor at the Sungkyunkwan University. Senior author of this study, Dr. Ryu emphasized in an interview that the association “was not explained by obesity or any other risk factor for NAFLD.”
 

Lifestyle changes may lower risk

The message is that “young women with long or irregular menstrual cycles may benefit from lifestyle changes to reduce the risk of NAFLD,” Dr. Ryu stated.

The Study of Women’s Health Across the Nation, which was started in 1994, has not evaluated NAFLD, but it did show a relationship between longer menstrual cycles and more cardiometabolic risk factors, according to Nanette Santoro MD, professor and chair, department of obstetrics & gynecology, University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.

This suggests that others are “thinking along the same lines,” but in discussing this study with this news organization, she characterized some of the design elements as well as some of the findings in this study as “peculiar.”

In addition to a “very, very narrow definition of regular cycles,” she questioned the consistent hazard ratio for NAFLD for those with long cycles relative to other types of irregular menses. Presuming that the group with longer cycles would have included at least some patients with undiagnosed PCOS, she was would have expected that the risk would have been highest in this group. While conceding that differences in body composition of Korean women is a potential explanation for this apparent discrepancy, “I would like to see confirmed in other samples of women with more detailed metabolic assessments to understand who is at risk,” she said.

Not least problematic for the strength of the conclusions, the hazard ratio for NAFLD among women with long or irregular menstrual cycles was “pretty low.” She described this as a level at which the risk “is very susceptible to confounding and unlikely to influence clinical practice.”

Anuja Dokras, MD, PHD, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology and director of the PCOS Center at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, also questioned whether undiagnosed PCOS might have skewed the data.

“There is increasing data on the association between PCOS and NAFLD. Irregular menses is a key criterion for PCOS, and PCOS is the commonest reason for anovulation,” she said. Dr. Dokras therefore considered it possible that patients with unrecognized PCOS were included in the study, weakening the claim that risk of NAFLD and long menstrual cycles remains significant after controlling for PCOS.

Dr. Ryu and coinvestigators, Dr. Santoro, and Dr. Dokras reported no potential conflicts of interest.

Long or irregular menstrual cycles in relatively young women are linked an increased risk of both prevalent and incident nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), according to a cross-sectional study that included data on more than 70,000 women.

“Our results indicate that menstrual irregularity, which is easier to diagnose and usually presented earlier than PCOS [polycystic ovary syndrome] highlights the possibility of identifying premenopausal women at risk of developing NAFLD,” reported a team of authors primarily from Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul, South Korea.

The study evaluated women aged younger than 40 years who were participating in the Kangbuk Samsung Health Study, which involves a comprehensive biennial health examination at health centers in South Korea. Of the 135,090 women enrolled over a 6-year period who had at least one follow-up examination, 72,092 were available for analysis after excluding for a sizable list of confounding factors such as liver disease and infections; exposure to steatogenic medications, such as corticosteroids; hysterectomy; and pregnancy.
 

NAFLD prevalence climbs with longer menses

Of these women, 36.378 (27.7%) had menstrual cycles of 26-30 days and were identified as the index group. The prevalence of NAFLD in this group was 5.8%. For those with a menstrual cycle of 31-39 days, the prevalence rate climbed to 7.2%. For those with a menstrual cycle of at least 40 days or too irregular to estimate, the prevalence was 9.7%. The prevalence was 7.1% for those with a menstrual cycle less than 21 days.

The results of this study were published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

In those without NAFLD at baseline who were then followed for a mean of 4.4 years, there were 4,524 incident cases of NAFLD. Incidence density was calculated per 103 patient-years. In the index group, the rate was 18.4. It climbed to 20.2 for those with a menstrual cycle of 31-39 days and then to 22.9 for those with a menstrual cycle of at least 40 days. For those with a cycle of fewer than 21 days, the rate was 26.8.

After adjusting for age, body mass index, insulin resistance, and other confounders, the hazard ratio for incident NAFLD for those with long or irregular menstrual cycles compared with the incident group corresponded with a 22% increased risk (HR, 1.22; 95% confidence interval, 1.14-1.31). When calculated in a time-dependent analysis, the risk of NAFLD was increased by almost 50% (HR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.38-1.60).


 

Risk persists with PCOS exclusion

PCOS has previously been associated with increased risk of NAFLD, but the association between long or irregular menstrual cycles and NAFLD persisted after women with PCOS were excluded.

The mechanism that links menstrual irregularity with NAFLD is unclear, but the investigators said that estrogen exposure is implicated. In addition to a previously reported associated between low estradiol levels and antiestrogens such as tamoxifen with increased risk of NAFLD, they cited studies associating estrogen replacement therapy with a reduced risk of NAFLD. The role of estrogen in suppressing inflammation, oxidative stress, and insulin resistance are all activities that might link more regular menses with a reduced risk of NAFLD, the authors contended.

Women older than 40 years were excluded from this analysis to reduce the possibility of perimenopausal changes as a confounding factor.

Of study limitations acknowledged by the investigators, the presence of NAFLD was diagnosed on ultrasonography rather than histology. Information on sex hormone or prolactin levels was not captured in relation to NAFLD incidence, and the lack of exposure to estrogen replacement therapy and oral contraceptives was based on self-reports from the participants.

Still, the large study size and the consistency of results after adjustment for multiple risk factors argue that long and irregular menstrual cycles do identify women at risk for NAFLD. One implication is that irregular menses can be a marker for NAFLD risk.

“Our findings do not prove a causal relationship, but they show that long or irregular menstrual cycles were significantly associated with an increased risk of developing NAFLD,” said Seungho Ryu, MD, PhD, a professor at the Sungkyunkwan University. Senior author of this study, Dr. Ryu emphasized in an interview that the association “was not explained by obesity or any other risk factor for NAFLD.”
 

Lifestyle changes may lower risk

The message is that “young women with long or irregular menstrual cycles may benefit from lifestyle changes to reduce the risk of NAFLD,” Dr. Ryu stated.

The Study of Women’s Health Across the Nation, which was started in 1994, has not evaluated NAFLD, but it did show a relationship between longer menstrual cycles and more cardiometabolic risk factors, according to Nanette Santoro MD, professor and chair, department of obstetrics & gynecology, University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.

This suggests that others are “thinking along the same lines,” but in discussing this study with this news organization, she characterized some of the design elements as well as some of the findings in this study as “peculiar.”

In addition to a “very, very narrow definition of regular cycles,” she questioned the consistent hazard ratio for NAFLD for those with long cycles relative to other types of irregular menses. Presuming that the group with longer cycles would have included at least some patients with undiagnosed PCOS, she was would have expected that the risk would have been highest in this group. While conceding that differences in body composition of Korean women is a potential explanation for this apparent discrepancy, “I would like to see confirmed in other samples of women with more detailed metabolic assessments to understand who is at risk,” she said.

Not least problematic for the strength of the conclusions, the hazard ratio for NAFLD among women with long or irregular menstrual cycles was “pretty low.” She described this as a level at which the risk “is very susceptible to confounding and unlikely to influence clinical practice.”

Anuja Dokras, MD, PHD, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology and director of the PCOS Center at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, also questioned whether undiagnosed PCOS might have skewed the data.

“There is increasing data on the association between PCOS and NAFLD. Irregular menses is a key criterion for PCOS, and PCOS is the commonest reason for anovulation,” she said. Dr. Dokras therefore considered it possible that patients with unrecognized PCOS were included in the study, weakening the claim that risk of NAFLD and long menstrual cycles remains significant after controlling for PCOS.

Dr. Ryu and coinvestigators, Dr. Santoro, and Dr. Dokras reported no potential conflicts of interest.

Survival after in-hospital cardiac arrest was roughly one-third lower in patients with COVID-19 infections compared to uninfected patients, based on data from nearly 25,000 individuals.

Survival rates of less than 3% were reported in the United States and China for patients who suffered in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) while infected with COVID-19 early in the pandemic, but the data came from small, single-center studies in overwhelmed hospitals, wrote Saket Girotra, MD, of the University of Iowa, Iowa City, and fellow American Heart Association Get With the Guidelines–Resuscitation Investigators. Whether these early reports reflect the broader experience of patients with COVID-19 in hospitals in the United States remains unknown.

In a study published as a research letter in JAMA Network Open, the researchers reviewed data from the American Heart Association Get With the Guidelines–Resuscitation registry. The registry collects detailed information on patients aged 18 years and older who experience cardiac arrest at participating hospitals in the United States. The study population included 24,915 patients aged 18 years and older from 286 hospitals who experienced IHCA during March–December 2020. The mean age of the patients was 64.7 years; 61.1% were White, 24.8% were Black, 3.8% were of other race or ethnicity, and 10.3% were of unknown race or ethnicity.

The primary outcomes were survival to discharge and return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) for at least 20 minutes.

A total of 5,916 patients (23.7%) had suspected or confirmed COVID-19 infections, and infected patients were more likely to be younger, male, and Black. Patients with COVID-19 infections also were significantly more likely than noninfected patients to have nonshockable rhythm, pneumonia, respiratory insufficiency, or sepsis, and to be on mechanical ventilation or vasopressors when the IHCA occurred, the researchers noted.

Survival rates to hospital discharge were 11.9% for COVID-19 patients, compared with 23.5% for noninfected patients (adjusted relative risk, 0.65; P < .001). ROSC was 53.7% and 63.6%, for infected and noninfected patients, respectively (aRR, 0.86; P < .001).

COVID-19 patients also were more likely than noninfected patients to receive delayed defibrillation, the researchers said. “Although delays in resuscitation, especially defibrillation, may have contributed to lower survival, the negative association of COVID-19 with survival in this study was consistent across subgroups, including patients who received timely treatment with defibrillation and epinephrine.”

The extremely low survival rate in early pandemic studies likely reflected the overwhelming burden on health systems at the time, the researchers said in their discussion.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including potential confounding from unmeasured variables, the use of a quality improvement registry that may not reflect nonparticipating hospitals, and potential false-positive COVID-19 cases. However, the result support findings from recent studies of multiple centers and extend clinical knowledge by comparing infected and noninfected patients from a larger group of hospitals than previously studied, the researchers said.

“We believe that these data will be relevant to health care providers and hospital administrators as the COVID-19 pandemic continues,” they concluded.
 

Think beyond COVID-19 for cardiac care

“Early during the pandemic, questions were raised whether COVID-19 patients should be treated with CPR,” Dr. Girotra said in an interview. “This was because initial studies had found a dismal survival of 0%-3% in COVID patients treated with CPR. The potential of transmitting the virus to health care professionals during CPR further heightened these concerns. We wanted to know whether the poor survival reported in these initial studies were broadly representative.”

Dr. Girotra said that some of the study findings were surprising. “We found that of all patients with IHCA in 2020 in our study, one in four were suspected or confirmed to have COVID-19 infection. We were surprised by the magnitude of COVID’s impact on the cardiac arrest incidence.”

The implications for clinical decision-making are to think outside of COVID-19 infection, said Dr. Girotra. In the current study, “Although overall survival of cardiac arrest in COVID-positive patients was 30% lower, compared to non-COVID patients, it was not as poor as previously reported. COVID-19 infection alone should not be considered the sole factor for making decisions regarding CPR.

“Over the past 2 decades, we have experienced large gains in survival for in-hospital cardiac arrest. However, the COVID-19 pandemic has eroded these gains,” said Dr. Girotra. “Future studies are needed to monitor the impact of any new variants on cardiac arrest care,” as well as studies “to see whether we return to the prepandemic levels of IHCA survival once the pandemic recedes.”

Dr. Girotra has no relevant financial disclosures.

Survival after in-hospital cardiac arrest was roughly one-third lower in patients with COVID-19 infections compared to uninfected patients, based on data from nearly 25,000 individuals.

Survival rates of less than 3% were reported in the United States and China for patients who suffered in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) while infected with COVID-19 early in the pandemic, but the data came from small, single-center studies in overwhelmed hospitals, wrote Saket Girotra, MD, of the University of Iowa, Iowa City, and fellow American Heart Association Get With the Guidelines–Resuscitation Investigators. Whether these early reports reflect the broader experience of patients with COVID-19 in hospitals in the United States remains unknown.

In a study published as a research letter in JAMA Network Open, the researchers reviewed data from the American Heart Association Get With the Guidelines–Resuscitation registry. The registry collects detailed information on patients aged 18 years and older who experience cardiac arrest at participating hospitals in the United States. The study population included 24,915 patients aged 18 years and older from 286 hospitals who experienced IHCA during March–December 2020. The mean age of the patients was 64.7 years; 61.1% were White, 24.8% were Black, 3.8% were of other race or ethnicity, and 10.3% were of unknown race or ethnicity.

The primary outcomes were survival to discharge and return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) for at least 20 minutes.

A total of 5,916 patients (23.7%) had suspected or confirmed COVID-19 infections, and infected patients were more likely to be younger, male, and Black. Patients with COVID-19 infections also were significantly more likely than noninfected patients to have nonshockable rhythm, pneumonia, respiratory insufficiency, or sepsis, and to be on mechanical ventilation or vasopressors when the IHCA occurred, the researchers noted.

Survival rates to hospital discharge were 11.9% for COVID-19 patients, compared with 23.5% for noninfected patients (adjusted relative risk, 0.65; P < .001). ROSC was 53.7% and 63.6%, for infected and noninfected patients, respectively (aRR, 0.86; P < .001).

COVID-19 patients also were more likely than noninfected patients to receive delayed defibrillation, the researchers said. “Although delays in resuscitation, especially defibrillation, may have contributed to lower survival, the negative association of COVID-19 with survival in this study was consistent across subgroups, including patients who received timely treatment with defibrillation and epinephrine.”

The extremely low survival rate in early pandemic studies likely reflected the overwhelming burden on health systems at the time, the researchers said in their discussion.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including potential confounding from unmeasured variables, the use of a quality improvement registry that may not reflect nonparticipating hospitals, and potential false-positive COVID-19 cases. However, the result support findings from recent studies of multiple centers and extend clinical knowledge by comparing infected and noninfected patients from a larger group of hospitals than previously studied, the researchers said.

“We believe that these data will be relevant to health care providers and hospital administrators as the COVID-19 pandemic continues,” they concluded.
 

Think beyond COVID-19 for cardiac care

“Early during the pandemic, questions were raised whether COVID-19 patients should be treated with CPR,” Dr. Girotra said in an interview. “This was because initial studies had found a dismal survival of 0%-3% in COVID patients treated with CPR. The potential of transmitting the virus to health care professionals during CPR further heightened these concerns. We wanted to know whether the poor survival reported in these initial studies were broadly representative.”

Dr. Girotra said that some of the study findings were surprising. “We found that of all patients with IHCA in 2020 in our study, one in four were suspected or confirmed to have COVID-19 infection. We were surprised by the magnitude of COVID’s impact on the cardiac arrest incidence.”

The implications for clinical decision-making are to think outside of COVID-19 infection, said Dr. Girotra. In the current study, “Although overall survival of cardiac arrest in COVID-positive patients was 30% lower, compared to non-COVID patients, it was not as poor as previously reported. COVID-19 infection alone should not be considered the sole factor for making decisions regarding CPR.

“Over the past 2 decades, we have experienced large gains in survival for in-hospital cardiac arrest. However, the COVID-19 pandemic has eroded these gains,” said Dr. Girotra. “Future studies are needed to monitor the impact of any new variants on cardiac arrest care,” as well as studies “to see whether we return to the prepandemic levels of IHCA survival once the pandemic recedes.”

Dr. Girotra has no relevant financial disclosures.

Survival after in-hospital cardiac arrest was roughly one-third lower in patients with COVID-19 infections compared to uninfected patients, based on data from nearly 25,000 individuals.

Survival rates of less than 3% were reported in the United States and China for patients who suffered in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) while infected with COVID-19 early in the pandemic, but the data came from small, single-center studies in overwhelmed hospitals, wrote Saket Girotra, MD, of the University of Iowa, Iowa City, and fellow American Heart Association Get With the Guidelines–Resuscitation Investigators. Whether these early reports reflect the broader experience of patients with COVID-19 in hospitals in the United States remains unknown.

In a study published as a research letter in JAMA Network Open, the researchers reviewed data from the American Heart Association Get With the Guidelines–Resuscitation registry. The registry collects detailed information on patients aged 18 years and older who experience cardiac arrest at participating hospitals in the United States. The study population included 24,915 patients aged 18 years and older from 286 hospitals who experienced IHCA during March–December 2020. The mean age of the patients was 64.7 years; 61.1% were White, 24.8% were Black, 3.8% were of other race or ethnicity, and 10.3% were of unknown race or ethnicity.

The primary outcomes were survival to discharge and return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) for at least 20 minutes.

A total of 5,916 patients (23.7%) had suspected or confirmed COVID-19 infections, and infected patients were more likely to be younger, male, and Black. Patients with COVID-19 infections also were significantly more likely than noninfected patients to have nonshockable rhythm, pneumonia, respiratory insufficiency, or sepsis, and to be on mechanical ventilation or vasopressors when the IHCA occurred, the researchers noted.

Survival rates to hospital discharge were 11.9% for COVID-19 patients, compared with 23.5% for noninfected patients (adjusted relative risk, 0.65; P < .001). ROSC was 53.7% and 63.6%, for infected and noninfected patients, respectively (aRR, 0.86; P < .001).

COVID-19 patients also were more likely than noninfected patients to receive delayed defibrillation, the researchers said. “Although delays in resuscitation, especially defibrillation, may have contributed to lower survival, the negative association of COVID-19 with survival in this study was consistent across subgroups, including patients who received timely treatment with defibrillation and epinephrine.”

The extremely low survival rate in early pandemic studies likely reflected the overwhelming burden on health systems at the time, the researchers said in their discussion.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including potential confounding from unmeasured variables, the use of a quality improvement registry that may not reflect nonparticipating hospitals, and potential false-positive COVID-19 cases. However, the result support findings from recent studies of multiple centers and extend clinical knowledge by comparing infected and noninfected patients from a larger group of hospitals than previously studied, the researchers said.

“We believe that these data will be relevant to health care providers and hospital administrators as the COVID-19 pandemic continues,” they concluded.
 

Think beyond COVID-19 for cardiac care

“Early during the pandemic, questions were raised whether COVID-19 patients should be treated with CPR,” Dr. Girotra said in an interview. “This was because initial studies had found a dismal survival of 0%-3% in COVID patients treated with CPR. The potential of transmitting the virus to health care professionals during CPR further heightened these concerns. We wanted to know whether the poor survival reported in these initial studies were broadly representative.”

Dr. Girotra said that some of the study findings were surprising. “We found that of all patients with IHCA in 2020 in our study, one in four were suspected or confirmed to have COVID-19 infection. We were surprised by the magnitude of COVID’s impact on the cardiac arrest incidence.”

The implications for clinical decision-making are to think outside of COVID-19 infection, said Dr. Girotra. In the current study, “Although overall survival of cardiac arrest in COVID-positive patients was 30% lower, compared to non-COVID patients, it was not as poor as previously reported. COVID-19 infection alone should not be considered the sole factor for making decisions regarding CPR.

“Over the past 2 decades, we have experienced large gains in survival for in-hospital cardiac arrest. However, the COVID-19 pandemic has eroded these gains,” said Dr. Girotra. “Future studies are needed to monitor the impact of any new variants on cardiac arrest care,” as well as studies “to see whether we return to the prepandemic levels of IHCA survival once the pandemic recedes.”

Dr. Girotra has no relevant financial disclosures.

Physician clients will find themselves in difficult legal situations from time to time. Sometimes it’s an investigation for Medicare fraud or other illegal conduct. Other times it’s a review related to Drug Enforcement Administration or licensure compliance. More commonly, physicians are involved in employer inquiries into workplace misconduct.

The common element among these very different legal issues is that physicians typically have no idea what to do when they find themselves potentially in trouble, but how they choose to deal with the issue can have significant consequences.

In my opinion, physicians should have a relationship with a health care lawyer or firm in place before any investigation occurs. Whether they are being investigated for a license or medical staff issue, Medicare fraud, or contract issue, it’s important to know where to go for help quickly. Even if the physician does not retain a lawyer in advance, having the name of a qualified person who can be called for a variety of health care issues is already a step in the right direction.

More important than having a knowledgeable lawyer is actually contacting that lawyer. Some physicians will sit and chat with the Federal Bureau of Investigation or other investigators for hours, only to call me after the visitors leave. I have other clients who handle important medical staff hearings, discipline meetings, and license investigations on their own without consulting counsel first. In all of these situations, it can be too late to help a physician once their case has progressed too far down the road.

Employment issues arising in the workplace setting are the most common and troubling. Physicians will – without a second thought – attend a human resources–called or other meeting without thinking through the reason for the meeting, whether they are prepared or not, and without considering whether counsel could be helpful. Sometimes in the moment, there may be no choice, but most meetings are scheduled in advance with ample time for consultation and planning.

Many issues that arise in the workplace setting are troubling because they can be easily avoided. The No. 1 piece of advice which I offer to young physician clients as they enter the workplace is: Remember that nobody in the workplace is your friend. Every word that is said, text that is sent, gesture that is made, can put you at risk. You must assume that all conversations and messages will be shared with others. Joking around in the operating room about sexual escapades, sending texts with flirtatious comments, making comments that can be construed as racist or homophobic, or raising your voice in a moment of frustration are all real examples of situations where physicians ended up disciplined and terminated. Are these innocent comments or ones the doctor thought they could get away with among “friends?” From a human resources perspective, there is little tolerance for such conduct, regardless of the doctor’s intent.

There are also situations in the workplace that are more troubling. Many times a physician is accused of noncompliance with a contract or a policy, when in fact the accuser is retaliating or engaging in efforts to discredit a doctor. I have seen this happen where minority physicians complain about how they are treated and are suddenly investigated for a performance issue. I have had female physicians criticize a business decision at a committee meeting, only to receive a formal notice that their “negative attitude” violated a policy.

In these situations, talking with counsel before a meeting with the employer representative is recommended and can impact the trajectory of a physician’s career. Physicians cannot and should not handle such events on their own.

If a physician is forced or chooses to attend a meeting with an investigator or other party without counsel, there are some steps to consider (subject to the type of meeting and the specific circumstances).

• Listen more than you talk. Make sure you know the name of everyone who is present and their role within the organization.
• If you have previously provided any written or oral statements, or have written correspondence related to the issues at hand, review all materials in advance. If there is anything you think needs to be corrected or added, let the interviewer know that at the outset.
• Be familiar with your own employment agreement/policies and the terms that may be relevant to the discussion or meeting.
• Be calm, honest, and forthcoming in response to the questions, and don’t embellish or exaggerate.
• Avoid personal attacks on anyone. This generally serves to weaken an argument and credibility.
• Be prepared to explain your allegations or defense, and when you do so, keep in mind that the interviewer may not know the history, background, or details of any of the issues.
• If the reason for the situation relates to race or national origin, age, gender, sexual orientation, disability, or other protected category, don’t hesitate to say so.
• Answer the question you’re asked, but if you feel that the interviewer needs more information or is not understanding what you’ve said, feel free to explain. Be forthcoming, but don’t dominate the conversation.
• If they ask whether you have counsel, be honest, but decline to provide them any information about what you discussed with counsel, as those conversations are privileged.
• If the interviewer asks to record the conversation, you can agree, but ask to be provided a copy of the recording.
• Know your rights in advance. If the subject of the meeting is governed by bylaws or policies, for example, you may have the right to bring an attorney or adviser to the meeting, receive advance notice of who will be attending the meeting and the subject matter, and avail yourself of specific procedures or appeal rights of any discipline or decisions decided during the meeting.

There are many circumstances that can lead to a physician being under investigation or interrogation. In every single circumstance, it is ideal to seek legal counsel immediately. Whether the physician has actually engaged in wrongful conduct or not, without proper handling a physician’s career can be permanently, and sometimes irrevocably, affected.

Ms. Adler is a shareholder and health law practice group manager for Chicago-based law firm Roetzel, a member of the Illinois Association of Healthcare Attorneys, and a current advisory board member at DePaul College of Law Health Law Institute. She disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Physician clients will find themselves in difficult legal situations from time to time. Sometimes it’s an investigation for Medicare fraud or other illegal conduct. Other times it’s a review related to Drug Enforcement Administration or licensure compliance. More commonly, physicians are involved in employer inquiries into workplace misconduct.

The common element among these very different legal issues is that physicians typically have no idea what to do when they find themselves potentially in trouble, but how they choose to deal with the issue can have significant consequences.

In my opinion, physicians should have a relationship with a health care lawyer or firm in place before any investigation occurs. Whether they are being investigated for a license or medical staff issue, Medicare fraud, or contract issue, it’s important to know where to go for help quickly. Even if the physician does not retain a lawyer in advance, having the name of a qualified person who can be called for a variety of health care issues is already a step in the right direction.

More important than having a knowledgeable lawyer is actually contacting that lawyer. Some physicians will sit and chat with the Federal Bureau of Investigation or other investigators for hours, only to call me after the visitors leave. I have other clients who handle important medical staff hearings, discipline meetings, and license investigations on their own without consulting counsel first. In all of these situations, it can be too late to help a physician once their case has progressed too far down the road.

Employment issues arising in the workplace setting are the most common and troubling. Physicians will – without a second thought – attend a human resources–called or other meeting without thinking through the reason for the meeting, whether they are prepared or not, and without considering whether counsel could be helpful. Sometimes in the moment, there may be no choice, but most meetings are scheduled in advance with ample time for consultation and planning.

Many issues that arise in the workplace setting are troubling because they can be easily avoided. The No. 1 piece of advice which I offer to young physician clients as they enter the workplace is: Remember that nobody in the workplace is your friend. Every word that is said, text that is sent, gesture that is made, can put you at risk. You must assume that all conversations and messages will be shared with others. Joking around in the operating room about sexual escapades, sending texts with flirtatious comments, making comments that can be construed as racist or homophobic, or raising your voice in a moment of frustration are all real examples of situations where physicians ended up disciplined and terminated. Are these innocent comments or ones the doctor thought they could get away with among “friends?” From a human resources perspective, there is little tolerance for such conduct, regardless of the doctor’s intent.

There are also situations in the workplace that are more troubling. Many times a physician is accused of noncompliance with a contract or a policy, when in fact the accuser is retaliating or engaging in efforts to discredit a doctor. I have seen this happen where minority physicians complain about how they are treated and are suddenly investigated for a performance issue. I have had female physicians criticize a business decision at a committee meeting, only to receive a formal notice that their “negative attitude” violated a policy.

In these situations, talking with counsel before a meeting with the employer representative is recommended and can impact the trajectory of a physician’s career. Physicians cannot and should not handle such events on their own.

If a physician is forced or chooses to attend a meeting with an investigator or other party without counsel, there are some steps to consider (subject to the type of meeting and the specific circumstances).

• Listen more than you talk. Make sure you know the name of everyone who is present and their role within the organization.
• If you have previously provided any written or oral statements, or have written correspondence related to the issues at hand, review all materials in advance. If there is anything you think needs to be corrected or added, let the interviewer know that at the outset.
• Be familiar with your own employment agreement/policies and the terms that may be relevant to the discussion or meeting.
• Be calm, honest, and forthcoming in response to the questions, and don’t embellish or exaggerate.
• Avoid personal attacks on anyone. This generally serves to weaken an argument and credibility.
• Be prepared to explain your allegations or defense, and when you do so, keep in mind that the interviewer may not know the history, background, or details of any of the issues.
• If the reason for the situation relates to race or national origin, age, gender, sexual orientation, disability, or other protected category, don’t hesitate to say so.
• Answer the question you’re asked, but if you feel that the interviewer needs more information or is not understanding what you’ve said, feel free to explain. Be forthcoming, but don’t dominate the conversation.
• If they ask whether you have counsel, be honest, but decline to provide them any information about what you discussed with counsel, as those conversations are privileged.
• If the interviewer asks to record the conversation, you can agree, but ask to be provided a copy of the recording.
• Know your rights in advance. If the subject of the meeting is governed by bylaws or policies, for example, you may have the right to bring an attorney or adviser to the meeting, receive advance notice of who will be attending the meeting and the subject matter, and avail yourself of specific procedures or appeal rights of any discipline or decisions decided during the meeting.

There are many circumstances that can lead to a physician being under investigation or interrogation. In every single circumstance, it is ideal to seek legal counsel immediately. Whether the physician has actually engaged in wrongful conduct or not, without proper handling a physician’s career can be permanently, and sometimes irrevocably, affected.

Ms. Adler is a shareholder and health law practice group manager for Chicago-based law firm Roetzel, a member of the Illinois Association of Healthcare Attorneys, and a current advisory board member at DePaul College of Law Health Law Institute. She disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Physician clients will find themselves in difficult legal situations from time to time. Sometimes it’s an investigation for Medicare fraud or other illegal conduct. Other times it’s a review related to Drug Enforcement Administration or licensure compliance. More commonly, physicians are involved in employer inquiries into workplace misconduct.

The common element among these very different legal issues is that physicians typically have no idea what to do when they find themselves potentially in trouble, but how they choose to deal with the issue can have significant consequences.

In my opinion, physicians should have a relationship with a health care lawyer or firm in place before any investigation occurs. Whether they are being investigated for a license or medical staff issue, Medicare fraud, or contract issue, it’s important to know where to go for help quickly. Even if the physician does not retain a lawyer in advance, having the name of a qualified person who can be called for a variety of health care issues is already a step in the right direction.

More important than having a knowledgeable lawyer is actually contacting that lawyer. Some physicians will sit and chat with the Federal Bureau of Investigation or other investigators for hours, only to call me after the visitors leave. I have other clients who handle important medical staff hearings, discipline meetings, and license investigations on their own without consulting counsel first. In all of these situations, it can be too late to help a physician once their case has progressed too far down the road.

Employment issues arising in the workplace setting are the most common and troubling. Physicians will – without a second thought – attend a human resources–called or other meeting without thinking through the reason for the meeting, whether they are prepared or not, and without considering whether counsel could be helpful. Sometimes in the moment, there may be no choice, but most meetings are scheduled in advance with ample time for consultation and planning.

Many issues that arise in the workplace setting are troubling because they can be easily avoided. The No. 1 piece of advice which I offer to young physician clients as they enter the workplace is: Remember that nobody in the workplace is your friend. Every word that is said, text that is sent, gesture that is made, can put you at risk. You must assume that all conversations and messages will be shared with others. Joking around in the operating room about sexual escapades, sending texts with flirtatious comments, making comments that can be construed as racist or homophobic, or raising your voice in a moment of frustration are all real examples of situations where physicians ended up disciplined and terminated. Are these innocent comments or ones the doctor thought they could get away with among “friends?” From a human resources perspective, there is little tolerance for such conduct, regardless of the doctor’s intent.

There are also situations in the workplace that are more troubling. Many times a physician is accused of noncompliance with a contract or a policy, when in fact the accuser is retaliating or engaging in efforts to discredit a doctor. I have seen this happen where minority physicians complain about how they are treated and are suddenly investigated for a performance issue. I have had female physicians criticize a business decision at a committee meeting, only to receive a formal notice that their “negative attitude” violated a policy.

In these situations, talking with counsel before a meeting with the employer representative is recommended and can impact the trajectory of a physician’s career. Physicians cannot and should not handle such events on their own.

If a physician is forced or chooses to attend a meeting with an investigator or other party without counsel, there are some steps to consider (subject to the type of meeting and the specific circumstances).

• Listen more than you talk. Make sure you know the name of everyone who is present and their role within the organization.
• If you have previously provided any written or oral statements, or have written correspondence related to the issues at hand, review all materials in advance. If there is anything you think needs to be corrected or added, let the interviewer know that at the outset.
• Be familiar with your own employment agreement/policies and the terms that may be relevant to the discussion or meeting.
• Be calm, honest, and forthcoming in response to the questions, and don’t embellish or exaggerate.
• Avoid personal attacks on anyone. This generally serves to weaken an argument and credibility.
• Be prepared to explain your allegations or defense, and when you do so, keep in mind that the interviewer may not know the history, background, or details of any of the issues.
• If the reason for the situation relates to race or national origin, age, gender, sexual orientation, disability, or other protected category, don’t hesitate to say so.
• Answer the question you’re asked, but if you feel that the interviewer needs more information or is not understanding what you’ve said, feel free to explain. Be forthcoming, but don’t dominate the conversation.
• If they ask whether you have counsel, be honest, but decline to provide them any information about what you discussed with counsel, as those conversations are privileged.
• If the interviewer asks to record the conversation, you can agree, but ask to be provided a copy of the recording.
• Know your rights in advance. If the subject of the meeting is governed by bylaws or policies, for example, you may have the right to bring an attorney or adviser to the meeting, receive advance notice of who will be attending the meeting and the subject matter, and avail yourself of specific procedures or appeal rights of any discipline or decisions decided during the meeting.

There are many circumstances that can lead to a physician being under investigation or interrogation. In every single circumstance, it is ideal to seek legal counsel immediately. Whether the physician has actually engaged in wrongful conduct or not, without proper handling a physician’s career can be permanently, and sometimes irrevocably, affected.

Ms. Adler is a shareholder and health law practice group manager for Chicago-based law firm Roetzel, a member of the Illinois Association of Healthcare Attorneys, and a current advisory board member at DePaul College of Law Health Law Institute. She disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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