MDedge Endocrinology

Gender-affirmation surgery refers to a collection of procedures by which a transgender individual physically alters characteristics to align with their gender identity. While not all patients who identify as transgender will choose to undergo surgery, the surgeries are considered medically necessary and lead to significant improvements in emotional and psychological well-being.¹ With increasing insurance coverage and improved access to care, more and more patients are seeking gender-affirming surgery, and it is incumbent for providers to familiarize themselves with preoperative recommendations and requirements.

Ob.gyns. play a key role in patients seeking surgical treatment as patients may inquire about available procedures and what steps are necessary prior to scheduling a visit with the appropriate surgeon. The World Professional Association of Transgender Health has established standards of care that provide multidisciplinary, evidence-based guidance for patients seeking a variety of gender-affirming services ranging from mental health, hormone therapy, and surgery.

Basic preoperative surgical prerequisites set forth by WPATH include being a patient with well-documented gender dysphoria, being the age of majority, and having the ability to provide informed consent.¹

As with any surgical candidate, it is also equally important for a patient to have well-controlled medical and psychiatric comorbidities, which should also include smoking cessation. A variety of surgical procedures are available to patients and include breast/chest surgery, genital (bottom) surgery, and nongenital surgery (facial feminization, pectoral implant placement, thyroid chondroplasty, lipofilling/liposuction, body contouring, and voice modification). Patients may choose to undergo chest/breast surgery and/or bottom surgery or forgo surgical procedures altogether.

For transmasculine patients, breast/chest surgery, otherwise known as top surgery, is the most common and desired procedure. According to a recent survey, approximately 97% of transmasculine patients had or wanted masculinizing chest surgery.² In addition to patients meeting the basic requirements set forth by WPATH, one referral from a mental health provider specializing in gender-affirming care is also needed prior to this procedure. It is also important to note that testosterone use is no longer a needed prior to masculinizing chest surgery.

Transmasculine bottom surgery, which includes hysterectomy, bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, metoidioplasty, vaginectomy, scrotoplasty, testicular implant placement, and/or phalloplasty have additional nuances. Compared with transmasculine individuals seeking top surgery, the number of patients who have had or desire metoidioplasty and phalloplasty is much lower, which is mainly because of the high complication rates of these procedures. In the same survey, only 4% of patients had undergone a metoidioplasty procedure and 2% of patients had undergone a phalloplasty.²

In evaluating rates of hysterectomy with or without salpingo-oophorectomy, approximately 21% of transgender men underwent hysterectomy, with 58% desiring it in the future.² Unlike patients pursuing top surgery, patients who desire any form of bottom surgery need to be on 12 months of continuous hormone therapy.¹ They also must provide two letters from two different mental health providers, one of whom must have either an MD/DO or PhD. In cases in which a patient requests a hysterectomy for reasons other than gender dysphoria, such as pelvic pain or abnormal uterine bleeding, these criteria do not apply.

For transfeminine individuals, augmentation mammoplasty is performed following 12 months of continuous hormone therapy. This is to allow maximum breast growth, which occurs approximately 2-3 months after hormone initiation and peaks at 1-2 years.³ Rates of transfeminine individuals seeking augmentation mammoplasty is similar to that of their transmasculine counterparts at 74%.² One referral letter from a mental health provider is also needed prior to augmentation mammoplasty.

Transfeminine patients who desire bottom surgery, which can involve an orchiectomy or vaginoplasty (single-stage penile inversion, peritoneal, or colonic interposition), have the same additional requirements as transmasculine individuals seeking bottom surgery. Furthermore, it is interesting to note that 25% of transfeminine individuals had already undergone orchiectomy and 87% had either undergone or desired a vaginoplasty in the future.² This is in stark contrast to transmasculine patients and rates of bottom surgery.

Unless there is a specific medical contraindication to hormone therapy, emphasis is placed on 12 months of continuous hormone usage. Additional emphasis is placed on patients seeking bottom surgery to live for a minimum of 12 months in their congruent gender role. This also allows patients to further explore their gender identity and make appropriate preparations for surgery.

As with any surgical procedure, obtaining informed consent and reviewing patient expectations are key. In my clinical practice, I discuss with patients that the general surgical goals are to achieve both function and good aesthetic outcome but that their results are also tailored to their individual bodies. Assessing a patient’s support system and social factors is also equally important in the preoperative planning period. As this field continues to grow, it is essential for providers to understand the evolving distinctions in surgical care to improve access to patients.

Dr. Brandt is an ob.gyn. and fellowship-trained gender-affirming surgeon in West Reading, Pa. She has no conflicts. Email her at [email protected].

References

1. The World Professional Association for Transgender Health. Standards of Care for the Health of Transsexual, Transgender, and Gender Nonconforming People. https://www.wpath.org/publications/soc.

2. James SE et al. The report of the 2015 U.S. Transgender survey. Washington, D.C.: National Center for Transgender Equality. 2016.

3. Thomas TN. Overview of surgery for transgender patients, in “Comprehensive care for the transgender patient.” Philadelphia: Elsevier, 2020. pp. 48-53.

Gender-affirmation surgery refers to a collection of procedures by which a transgender individual physically alters characteristics to align with their gender identity. While not all patients who identify as transgender will choose to undergo surgery, the surgeries are considered medically necessary and lead to significant improvements in emotional and psychological well-being.¹ With increasing insurance coverage and improved access to care, more and more patients are seeking gender-affirming surgery, and it is incumbent for providers to familiarize themselves with preoperative recommendations and requirements.

Ob.gyns. play a key role in patients seeking surgical treatment as patients may inquire about available procedures and what steps are necessary prior to scheduling a visit with the appropriate surgeon. The World Professional Association of Transgender Health has established standards of care that provide multidisciplinary, evidence-based guidance for patients seeking a variety of gender-affirming services ranging from mental health, hormone therapy, and surgery.

Basic preoperative surgical prerequisites set forth by WPATH include being a patient with well-documented gender dysphoria, being the age of majority, and having the ability to provide informed consent.¹

As with any surgical candidate, it is also equally important for a patient to have well-controlled medical and psychiatric comorbidities, which should also include smoking cessation. A variety of surgical procedures are available to patients and include breast/chest surgery, genital (bottom) surgery, and nongenital surgery (facial feminization, pectoral implant placement, thyroid chondroplasty, lipofilling/liposuction, body contouring, and voice modification). Patients may choose to undergo chest/breast surgery and/or bottom surgery or forgo surgical procedures altogether.

For transmasculine patients, breast/chest surgery, otherwise known as top surgery, is the most common and desired procedure. According to a recent survey, approximately 97% of transmasculine patients had or wanted masculinizing chest surgery.² In addition to patients meeting the basic requirements set forth by WPATH, one referral from a mental health provider specializing in gender-affirming care is also needed prior to this procedure. It is also important to note that testosterone use is no longer a needed prior to masculinizing chest surgery.

Transmasculine bottom surgery, which includes hysterectomy, bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, metoidioplasty, vaginectomy, scrotoplasty, testicular implant placement, and/or phalloplasty have additional nuances. Compared with transmasculine individuals seeking top surgery, the number of patients who have had or desire metoidioplasty and phalloplasty is much lower, which is mainly because of the high complication rates of these procedures. In the same survey, only 4% of patients had undergone a metoidioplasty procedure and 2% of patients had undergone a phalloplasty.²

In evaluating rates of hysterectomy with or without salpingo-oophorectomy, approximately 21% of transgender men underwent hysterectomy, with 58% desiring it in the future.² Unlike patients pursuing top surgery, patients who desire any form of bottom surgery need to be on 12 months of continuous hormone therapy.¹ They also must provide two letters from two different mental health providers, one of whom must have either an MD/DO or PhD. In cases in which a patient requests a hysterectomy for reasons other than gender dysphoria, such as pelvic pain or abnormal uterine bleeding, these criteria do not apply.

For transfeminine individuals, augmentation mammoplasty is performed following 12 months of continuous hormone therapy. This is to allow maximum breast growth, which occurs approximately 2-3 months after hormone initiation and peaks at 1-2 years.³ Rates of transfeminine individuals seeking augmentation mammoplasty is similar to that of their transmasculine counterparts at 74%.² One referral letter from a mental health provider is also needed prior to augmentation mammoplasty.

Transfeminine patients who desire bottom surgery, which can involve an orchiectomy or vaginoplasty (single-stage penile inversion, peritoneal, or colonic interposition), have the same additional requirements as transmasculine individuals seeking bottom surgery. Furthermore, it is interesting to note that 25% of transfeminine individuals had already undergone orchiectomy and 87% had either undergone or desired a vaginoplasty in the future.² This is in stark contrast to transmasculine patients and rates of bottom surgery.

Unless there is a specific medical contraindication to hormone therapy, emphasis is placed on 12 months of continuous hormone usage. Additional emphasis is placed on patients seeking bottom surgery to live for a minimum of 12 months in their congruent gender role. This also allows patients to further explore their gender identity and make appropriate preparations for surgery.

As with any surgical procedure, obtaining informed consent and reviewing patient expectations are key. In my clinical practice, I discuss with patients that the general surgical goals are to achieve both function and good aesthetic outcome but that their results are also tailored to their individual bodies. Assessing a patient’s support system and social factors is also equally important in the preoperative planning period. As this field continues to grow, it is essential for providers to understand the evolving distinctions in surgical care to improve access to patients.

Dr. Brandt is an ob.gyn. and fellowship-trained gender-affirming surgeon in West Reading, Pa. She has no conflicts. Email her at [email protected].

References

1. The World Professional Association for Transgender Health. Standards of Care for the Health of Transsexual, Transgender, and Gender Nonconforming People. https://www.wpath.org/publications/soc.

2. James SE et al. The report of the 2015 U.S. Transgender survey. Washington, D.C.: National Center for Transgender Equality. 2016.

3. Thomas TN. Overview of surgery for transgender patients, in “Comprehensive care for the transgender patient.” Philadelphia: Elsevier, 2020. pp. 48-53.

Gender-affirmation surgery refers to a collection of procedures by which a transgender individual physically alters characteristics to align with their gender identity. While not all patients who identify as transgender will choose to undergo surgery, the surgeries are considered medically necessary and lead to significant improvements in emotional and psychological well-being.¹ With increasing insurance coverage and improved access to care, more and more patients are seeking gender-affirming surgery, and it is incumbent for providers to familiarize themselves with preoperative recommendations and requirements.

Ob.gyns. play a key role in patients seeking surgical treatment as patients may inquire about available procedures and what steps are necessary prior to scheduling a visit with the appropriate surgeon. The World Professional Association of Transgender Health has established standards of care that provide multidisciplinary, evidence-based guidance for patients seeking a variety of gender-affirming services ranging from mental health, hormone therapy, and surgery.

Basic preoperative surgical prerequisites set forth by WPATH include being a patient with well-documented gender dysphoria, being the age of majority, and having the ability to provide informed consent.¹

As with any surgical candidate, it is also equally important for a patient to have well-controlled medical and psychiatric comorbidities, which should also include smoking cessation. A variety of surgical procedures are available to patients and include breast/chest surgery, genital (bottom) surgery, and nongenital surgery (facial feminization, pectoral implant placement, thyroid chondroplasty, lipofilling/liposuction, body contouring, and voice modification). Patients may choose to undergo chest/breast surgery and/or bottom surgery or forgo surgical procedures altogether.

For transmasculine patients, breast/chest surgery, otherwise known as top surgery, is the most common and desired procedure. According to a recent survey, approximately 97% of transmasculine patients had or wanted masculinizing chest surgery.² In addition to patients meeting the basic requirements set forth by WPATH, one referral from a mental health provider specializing in gender-affirming care is also needed prior to this procedure. It is also important to note that testosterone use is no longer a needed prior to masculinizing chest surgery.

Transmasculine bottom surgery, which includes hysterectomy, bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, metoidioplasty, vaginectomy, scrotoplasty, testicular implant placement, and/or phalloplasty have additional nuances. Compared with transmasculine individuals seeking top surgery, the number of patients who have had or desire metoidioplasty and phalloplasty is much lower, which is mainly because of the high complication rates of these procedures. In the same survey, only 4% of patients had undergone a metoidioplasty procedure and 2% of patients had undergone a phalloplasty.²

In evaluating rates of hysterectomy with or without salpingo-oophorectomy, approximately 21% of transgender men underwent hysterectomy, with 58% desiring it in the future.² Unlike patients pursuing top surgery, patients who desire any form of bottom surgery need to be on 12 months of continuous hormone therapy.¹ They also must provide two letters from two different mental health providers, one of whom must have either an MD/DO or PhD. In cases in which a patient requests a hysterectomy for reasons other than gender dysphoria, such as pelvic pain or abnormal uterine bleeding, these criteria do not apply.

For transfeminine individuals, augmentation mammoplasty is performed following 12 months of continuous hormone therapy. This is to allow maximum breast growth, which occurs approximately 2-3 months after hormone initiation and peaks at 1-2 years.³ Rates of transfeminine individuals seeking augmentation mammoplasty is similar to that of their transmasculine counterparts at 74%.² One referral letter from a mental health provider is also needed prior to augmentation mammoplasty.

Transfeminine patients who desire bottom surgery, which can involve an orchiectomy or vaginoplasty (single-stage penile inversion, peritoneal, or colonic interposition), have the same additional requirements as transmasculine individuals seeking bottom surgery. Furthermore, it is interesting to note that 25% of transfeminine individuals had already undergone orchiectomy and 87% had either undergone or desired a vaginoplasty in the future.² This is in stark contrast to transmasculine patients and rates of bottom surgery.

Unless there is a specific medical contraindication to hormone therapy, emphasis is placed on 12 months of continuous hormone usage. Additional emphasis is placed on patients seeking bottom surgery to live for a minimum of 12 months in their congruent gender role. This also allows patients to further explore their gender identity and make appropriate preparations for surgery.

As with any surgical procedure, obtaining informed consent and reviewing patient expectations are key. In my clinical practice, I discuss with patients that the general surgical goals are to achieve both function and good aesthetic outcome but that their results are also tailored to their individual bodies. Assessing a patient’s support system and social factors is also equally important in the preoperative planning period. As this field continues to grow, it is essential for providers to understand the evolving distinctions in surgical care to improve access to patients.

Dr. Brandt is an ob.gyn. and fellowship-trained gender-affirming surgeon in West Reading, Pa. She has no conflicts. Email her at [email protected].

References

1. The World Professional Association for Transgender Health. Standards of Care for the Health of Transsexual, Transgender, and Gender Nonconforming People. https://www.wpath.org/publications/soc.

2. James SE et al. The report of the 2015 U.S. Transgender survey. Washington, D.C.: National Center for Transgender Equality. 2016.

3. Thomas TN. Overview of surgery for transgender patients, in “Comprehensive care for the transgender patient.” Philadelphia: Elsevier, 2020. pp. 48-53.

Antithrombotic therapy in clinically stable, nonhospitalized COVID-19 patients does not offer protection against adverse cardiovascular or pulmonary events, new randomized clinical trial results suggest.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

Antithrombotic therapy has proven useful in acutely ill inpatients with COVID-19, but in this study, treatment with aspirin or apixaban (Eliquis) did not reduce the rate of all-cause mortality, symptomatic venous or arterial thromboembolism, myocardial infarction, stroke, or hospitalization for cardiovascular or pulmonary causes in patients ill with COVID-19 but who were not hospitalized.

“Among symptomatic, clinically stable outpatients with COVID-19, treatment with aspirin or apixaban compared with placebo did not reduce the rate of a composite clinical outcome,” the authors conclude. “However, the study was terminated after enrollment of 9% of participants because of a primary event rate lower than anticipated.”

The study, which was led by Jean M. Connors, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, was published online October 11 in JAMA.

The ACTIV-4B Outpatient Thrombosis Prevention Trial was a randomized, adaptive, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial that sought to compare anticoagulant and antiplatelet therapy among 7,000 symptomatic but clinically stable outpatients with COVID-19.

The trial was conducted at 52 sites in the U.S. between Sept. 2020 and June 2021, with final follow-up this past August 5, and involved minimal face-to-face interactions with study participants.

Patients were randomized in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to aspirin (81 mg orally once daily; n = 164 patients), prophylactic-dose apixaban (2.5 mg orally twice daily; n = 165), therapeutic-dose apixaban (5 mg orally twice daily; n = 164), or placebo (n = 164) for 45 days.

The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality, symptomatic venous or arterial thromboembolism, myocardial infarction, stroke, or hospitalization for cardiovascular or pulmonary cause.

The trial was terminated early this past June by the independent data monitoring committee because of lower than anticipated event rates. At the time, just 657 symptomatic outpatients with COVID-19 had been enrolled.

The median age of the study participants was 54 years (Interquartile Range [IQR] 46-59); 59% were women.

The median time from diagnosis to randomization was 7 days, and the median time from randomization to initiation of study medications was 3 days.

The trial’s primary efficacy and safety analyses were restricted to patients who received at least one dose of trial medication, for a final number of 558 patients.

Among these patients, the primary endpoint occurred in 1 patient (0.7%) in the aspirin group, 1 patient (0.7%) in the 2.5 mg apixaban group, 2 patients (1.4%) in the 5-mg apixaban group, and 1 patient (0.7%) in the placebo group.

The researchers found that the absolute risk reductions compared with placebo for the primary outcome were 0.0% (95% confidence interval not calculable) in the aspirin group, 0.7% (95% confidence interval, -2.1% to 4.1%) in the prophylactic-dose apixaban group, and 1.4% (95% CI, -1.5% to 5%) in the therapeutic-dose apixaban group.

No major bleeding events were reported.

The absolute risk differences compared with placebo for clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding events were 2% (95% CI, -2.7% to 6.8%) in the aspirin group, 4.5% (95% CI, -0.7% to 10.2%) in the prophylactic-dose apixaban group, and 6.9% (95% CI, 1.4% to 12.9%) in the therapeutic-dose apixaban group.

Safety and efficacy results were similar in all randomly assigned patients.

The researchers speculated that a combination of two demographic shifts over time may have led to the lower than anticipated rate of events in ACTIV-4B.

“First, the threshold for hospital admission has markedly declined since the beginning of the pandemic, such that hospitalization is no longer limited almost exclusively to those with severe pulmonary distress likely to require mechanical ventilation,” they write. “As a result, the severity of illness among individuals with COVID-19 and destined for outpatient care has declined.”

“Second, at least within the U.S., where the trial was conducted, individuals currently being infected with SARS-CoV-2 tend to be younger and have fewer comorbidities when compared with individuals with incident infection at the onset of the pandemic,” they add.

Further, COVID-19 testing was quite limited early in the pandemic, they note, “and it is possible that the anticipated event rates based on data from registries available at that time were overestimated because the denominator (that is, the number of infected individuals overall) was essentially unknown.”
 

Robust evidence

“The ACTIV-4B trial is the first randomized trial to generate robust evidence about the effects of antithrombotic therapy in outpatients with COVID-19,” Otavio Berwanger, MD, PhD, director of the Academic Research Organization, Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, Sao Paulo-SP, Brazil, told this news organization.

“It should be noted that this was a well-designed trial with low risk of bias. On the other hand, the main limitation is the low number of events and, consequently, the limited statistical power,” said Dr. Berwanger, who wrote an accompanying editorial.

The ACTIV-4B trial has immediate implications for clinical practice, he added.

“In this sense, considering the neutral results for major cardiopulmonary outcomes, the use of aspirin or apixaban for the management of outpatients with COVID-19 should not be recommended.”

ACTIV-4B also provides useful information for the steering committees of other ongoing trials of antithrombotic therapy for patients with COVID-19 who are not hospitalized, Dr. Berwanger added.

“In this sense, probably issues like statistical power, outcome choices, recruitment feasibility, and even futility would need to be revisited. And finally, lessons learned from the implementation of an innovative, pragmatic, and decentralized trial design represent an important legacy for future trials in cardiovascular diseases and other common conditions,” he said.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Connors reports financial relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Abbott, Alnylam, Takeda, Roche, and Sanofi. Dr. Berwanger reports financial relationships with AstraZeneca, Amgen, Servier, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Bayer, Novartis, Pfizer, and Boehringer Ingelheim.

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

Antithrombotic therapy in clinically stable, nonhospitalized COVID-19 patients does not offer protection against adverse cardiovascular or pulmonary events, new randomized clinical trial results suggest.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

Antithrombotic therapy has proven useful in acutely ill inpatients with COVID-19, but in this study, treatment with aspirin or apixaban (Eliquis) did not reduce the rate of all-cause mortality, symptomatic venous or arterial thromboembolism, myocardial infarction, stroke, or hospitalization for cardiovascular or pulmonary causes in patients ill with COVID-19 but who were not hospitalized.

“Among symptomatic, clinically stable outpatients with COVID-19, treatment with aspirin or apixaban compared with placebo did not reduce the rate of a composite clinical outcome,” the authors conclude. “However, the study was terminated after enrollment of 9% of participants because of a primary event rate lower than anticipated.”

The study, which was led by Jean M. Connors, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, was published online October 11 in JAMA.

The ACTIV-4B Outpatient Thrombosis Prevention Trial was a randomized, adaptive, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial that sought to compare anticoagulant and antiplatelet therapy among 7,000 symptomatic but clinically stable outpatients with COVID-19.

The trial was conducted at 52 sites in the U.S. between Sept. 2020 and June 2021, with final follow-up this past August 5, and involved minimal face-to-face interactions with study participants.

Patients were randomized in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to aspirin (81 mg orally once daily; n = 164 patients), prophylactic-dose apixaban (2.5 mg orally twice daily; n = 165), therapeutic-dose apixaban (5 mg orally twice daily; n = 164), or placebo (n = 164) for 45 days.

The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality, symptomatic venous or arterial thromboembolism, myocardial infarction, stroke, or hospitalization for cardiovascular or pulmonary cause.

The trial was terminated early this past June by the independent data monitoring committee because of lower than anticipated event rates. At the time, just 657 symptomatic outpatients with COVID-19 had been enrolled.

The median age of the study participants was 54 years (Interquartile Range [IQR] 46-59); 59% were women.

The median time from diagnosis to randomization was 7 days, and the median time from randomization to initiation of study medications was 3 days.

The trial’s primary efficacy and safety analyses were restricted to patients who received at least one dose of trial medication, for a final number of 558 patients.

Among these patients, the primary endpoint occurred in 1 patient (0.7%) in the aspirin group, 1 patient (0.7%) in the 2.5 mg apixaban group, 2 patients (1.4%) in the 5-mg apixaban group, and 1 patient (0.7%) in the placebo group.

The researchers found that the absolute risk reductions compared with placebo for the primary outcome were 0.0% (95% confidence interval not calculable) in the aspirin group, 0.7% (95% confidence interval, -2.1% to 4.1%) in the prophylactic-dose apixaban group, and 1.4% (95% CI, -1.5% to 5%) in the therapeutic-dose apixaban group.

No major bleeding events were reported.

The absolute risk differences compared with placebo for clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding events were 2% (95% CI, -2.7% to 6.8%) in the aspirin group, 4.5% (95% CI, -0.7% to 10.2%) in the prophylactic-dose apixaban group, and 6.9% (95% CI, 1.4% to 12.9%) in the therapeutic-dose apixaban group.

Safety and efficacy results were similar in all randomly assigned patients.

The researchers speculated that a combination of two demographic shifts over time may have led to the lower than anticipated rate of events in ACTIV-4B.

“First, the threshold for hospital admission has markedly declined since the beginning of the pandemic, such that hospitalization is no longer limited almost exclusively to those with severe pulmonary distress likely to require mechanical ventilation,” they write. “As a result, the severity of illness among individuals with COVID-19 and destined for outpatient care has declined.”

“Second, at least within the U.S., where the trial was conducted, individuals currently being infected with SARS-CoV-2 tend to be younger and have fewer comorbidities when compared with individuals with incident infection at the onset of the pandemic,” they add.

Further, COVID-19 testing was quite limited early in the pandemic, they note, “and it is possible that the anticipated event rates based on data from registries available at that time were overestimated because the denominator (that is, the number of infected individuals overall) was essentially unknown.”
 

Robust evidence

“The ACTIV-4B trial is the first randomized trial to generate robust evidence about the effects of antithrombotic therapy in outpatients with COVID-19,” Otavio Berwanger, MD, PhD, director of the Academic Research Organization, Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, Sao Paulo-SP, Brazil, told this news organization.

“It should be noted that this was a well-designed trial with low risk of bias. On the other hand, the main limitation is the low number of events and, consequently, the limited statistical power,” said Dr. Berwanger, who wrote an accompanying editorial.

The ACTIV-4B trial has immediate implications for clinical practice, he added.

“In this sense, considering the neutral results for major cardiopulmonary outcomes, the use of aspirin or apixaban for the management of outpatients with COVID-19 should not be recommended.”

ACTIV-4B also provides useful information for the steering committees of other ongoing trials of antithrombotic therapy for patients with COVID-19 who are not hospitalized, Dr. Berwanger added.

“In this sense, probably issues like statistical power, outcome choices, recruitment feasibility, and even futility would need to be revisited. And finally, lessons learned from the implementation of an innovative, pragmatic, and decentralized trial design represent an important legacy for future trials in cardiovascular diseases and other common conditions,” he said.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Connors reports financial relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Abbott, Alnylam, Takeda, Roche, and Sanofi. Dr. Berwanger reports financial relationships with AstraZeneca, Amgen, Servier, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Bayer, Novartis, Pfizer, and Boehringer Ingelheim.

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

Antithrombotic therapy in clinically stable, nonhospitalized COVID-19 patients does not offer protection against adverse cardiovascular or pulmonary events, new randomized clinical trial results suggest.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

Antithrombotic therapy has proven useful in acutely ill inpatients with COVID-19, but in this study, treatment with aspirin or apixaban (Eliquis) did not reduce the rate of all-cause mortality, symptomatic venous or arterial thromboembolism, myocardial infarction, stroke, or hospitalization for cardiovascular or pulmonary causes in patients ill with COVID-19 but who were not hospitalized.

“Among symptomatic, clinically stable outpatients with COVID-19, treatment with aspirin or apixaban compared with placebo did not reduce the rate of a composite clinical outcome,” the authors conclude. “However, the study was terminated after enrollment of 9% of participants because of a primary event rate lower than anticipated.”

The study, which was led by Jean M. Connors, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, was published online October 11 in JAMA.

The ACTIV-4B Outpatient Thrombosis Prevention Trial was a randomized, adaptive, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial that sought to compare anticoagulant and antiplatelet therapy among 7,000 symptomatic but clinically stable outpatients with COVID-19.

The trial was conducted at 52 sites in the U.S. between Sept. 2020 and June 2021, with final follow-up this past August 5, and involved minimal face-to-face interactions with study participants.

Patients were randomized in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to aspirin (81 mg orally once daily; n = 164 patients), prophylactic-dose apixaban (2.5 mg orally twice daily; n = 165), therapeutic-dose apixaban (5 mg orally twice daily; n = 164), or placebo (n = 164) for 45 days.

The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality, symptomatic venous or arterial thromboembolism, myocardial infarction, stroke, or hospitalization for cardiovascular or pulmonary cause.

The trial was terminated early this past June by the independent data monitoring committee because of lower than anticipated event rates. At the time, just 657 symptomatic outpatients with COVID-19 had been enrolled.

The median age of the study participants was 54 years (Interquartile Range [IQR] 46-59); 59% were women.

The median time from diagnosis to randomization was 7 days, and the median time from randomization to initiation of study medications was 3 days.

The trial’s primary efficacy and safety analyses were restricted to patients who received at least one dose of trial medication, for a final number of 558 patients.

Among these patients, the primary endpoint occurred in 1 patient (0.7%) in the aspirin group, 1 patient (0.7%) in the 2.5 mg apixaban group, 2 patients (1.4%) in the 5-mg apixaban group, and 1 patient (0.7%) in the placebo group.

The researchers found that the absolute risk reductions compared with placebo for the primary outcome were 0.0% (95% confidence interval not calculable) in the aspirin group, 0.7% (95% confidence interval, -2.1% to 4.1%) in the prophylactic-dose apixaban group, and 1.4% (95% CI, -1.5% to 5%) in the therapeutic-dose apixaban group.

No major bleeding events were reported.

The absolute risk differences compared with placebo for clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding events were 2% (95% CI, -2.7% to 6.8%) in the aspirin group, 4.5% (95% CI, -0.7% to 10.2%) in the prophylactic-dose apixaban group, and 6.9% (95% CI, 1.4% to 12.9%) in the therapeutic-dose apixaban group.

Safety and efficacy results were similar in all randomly assigned patients.

The researchers speculated that a combination of two demographic shifts over time may have led to the lower than anticipated rate of events in ACTIV-4B.

“First, the threshold for hospital admission has markedly declined since the beginning of the pandemic, such that hospitalization is no longer limited almost exclusively to those with severe pulmonary distress likely to require mechanical ventilation,” they write. “As a result, the severity of illness among individuals with COVID-19 and destined for outpatient care has declined.”

“Second, at least within the U.S., where the trial was conducted, individuals currently being infected with SARS-CoV-2 tend to be younger and have fewer comorbidities when compared with individuals with incident infection at the onset of the pandemic,” they add.

Further, COVID-19 testing was quite limited early in the pandemic, they note, “and it is possible that the anticipated event rates based on data from registries available at that time were overestimated because the denominator (that is, the number of infected individuals overall) was essentially unknown.”
 

Robust evidence

“The ACTIV-4B trial is the first randomized trial to generate robust evidence about the effects of antithrombotic therapy in outpatients with COVID-19,” Otavio Berwanger, MD, PhD, director of the Academic Research Organization, Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, Sao Paulo-SP, Brazil, told this news organization.

“It should be noted that this was a well-designed trial with low risk of bias. On the other hand, the main limitation is the low number of events and, consequently, the limited statistical power,” said Dr. Berwanger, who wrote an accompanying editorial.

The ACTIV-4B trial has immediate implications for clinical practice, he added.

“In this sense, considering the neutral results for major cardiopulmonary outcomes, the use of aspirin or apixaban for the management of outpatients with COVID-19 should not be recommended.”

ACTIV-4B also provides useful information for the steering committees of other ongoing trials of antithrombotic therapy for patients with COVID-19 who are not hospitalized, Dr. Berwanger added.

“In this sense, probably issues like statistical power, outcome choices, recruitment feasibility, and even futility would need to be revisited. And finally, lessons learned from the implementation of an innovative, pragmatic, and decentralized trial design represent an important legacy for future trials in cardiovascular diseases and other common conditions,” he said.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Connors reports financial relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Abbott, Alnylam, Takeda, Roche, and Sanofi. Dr. Berwanger reports financial relationships with AstraZeneca, Amgen, Servier, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Bayer, Novartis, Pfizer, and Boehringer Ingelheim.

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

For decades, we have recognized the age-related natural decline in female fecundity (the ability to reproduce) after the age of 30 (Maturitas 1988;[Suppl]1:15-22). Advanced maternal age (AMA) has also been demonstrated to increase miscarriage and pregnancies with chromosomal abnormalities, presumably from the increased rate of oocyte aneuploidy. There has been a sixfold increase in the rate of first birth in women aged 35-39 years (NCHS Data Brief 2014;152:1-8). Consequently, over the last decade, women, often before they reach AMA, have turned to elective oocyte cryopreservation for fertility preservation.

Ovarian aging

Ovarian aging occurs through the decline in quality and quantity of oocytes. The former is a reflection of the woman’s chronologic age. Markers of female ovarian aging have been utilized, for the past 3 decades, most commonly by basal follicle stimulating hormone. Currently, to assess the quantity of ovarian follicles, antimüllerian hormone (AMH) and transvaginal ultrasound for ovarian antral follicle count (AFC) are the most accurate indicators (J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2004:89:2977-81). While ovarian age testing, particularly AMH, has been widely used to assess a woman’s “fertility potential,” it does not reflect her natural fecundity. In a prospective cohort study, AMH levels (ng/mL) divided into < 0.7, 0.7-8.4, and > 8.4, did not affect natural conception in women aged 30-44 who were divided into the categories of <35, 35-37, or 38-44 years (JAMA 2017;318:1367-76). Although AMH does reduce success with IVF, its main value is the inverse correlation when prescribing gonadotropin dosage for controlled ovarian stimulation.

Despite the familiarity with ovarian aging effects on fertility, the male biological clock remains less studied and understood. Over the last 4 decades, paternal age has increased an average of 3.5 years presumably due to delayed child rearing from professional or personal reasons, improved contraception as well as increased divorce, remarriage, and life expectancy (Hum Reprod. 2017;32:2110-6). Nevertheless, we have little data to definitively counsel men on the effects of advanced paternal age (APA) and no consensus on an actual defined age of designation. This month’s article will summarize the current literature on male age and its impact on fertility.
 

Testicular aging

Men older than 45 years require approximately five times longer to achieve a pregnancy as men less than 25 after adjustment for female age (Fertil Steril. 2003;79:1520-7). The most likely parameter to assess male fertility, other than pregnancy rates, would be the sperm. Sperm counts, beginning at age 41, may decline but concentrations have been shown to increase in older men apparently because of declining semen volume (Ageing Res Rev. 2015;19:22-33). Sperm motility, but not morphology, also declines while genetic alterations of sperm increase with age. The issue of chromosomal abnormalities in sperm from men of advanced age appears to be similar to that in the oocytes of women with AMA. Consequently, both sexes may contribute to embryo aneuploidy resulting in declining fertility and increasing miscarriage.

For all ages, studies have suggested that elevated male body mass index as well as alcohol consumption and cigarette smoking, including e-cigarettes, can lead to impaired sperm production (Hum Reprod Update 2013;19:221-31).
 

Fertility treatment outcomes

A mainstay of fertility treatment, particularly in men with mild to moderate impairments in semen parameters, is ovulation induction with intrauterine insemination. Male age has been shown to be a significant indicator for pregnancy rates, including those with normal semen parameters (J Obstet Gynaecol. 2011;31:420-3). Men above age 45 contributed to lower pregnancy rates and higher miscarriages during IUI treatment cycles (Reprod BioMed Online 2008;17:392-7).

During IVF cycles, the sperm of men with APA often undergo ICSI (intracytoplasmic sperm injection) due to higher fertilization rates compared with standard insemination. However, APA sperm appear to have lower fertilization rates and decreased embryo development to the blastocyst stage during cycles using donor oocytes, although pregnancy outcomes are inconsistent (Trans Androl Urol. 2019;8[Suppl 1]:S22-S30; Fertil Steril. 2008;90:97-103).
 

Perinatal and children’s health

The offspring from APA men appear to have higher rates of stillbirth, low birth weight, and preterm birth, as well as birth defects. Men older than 40-45 years have twice the risk of an autistic child and three times the risk of schizophrenia in their offspring (Transl Psychiatry 2017;7:e1019; Am J Psychiatry 2002;159:1528-33).

Conclusions

Most of the literature supports negative effects on sperm and reproduction from men with APA. The challenge in deciphering the true role of APA on fertility is that the partner is often of AMA. A consideration to avoid this effect would be sperm cryopreservation at a younger age, similar to the common trend among women. Preimplantation genetic testing of embryos from men with APA is also a potential option to reduce miscarriage and avoid a chromosomally abnormal pregnancy. Ethicists have pondered the impact of APA on parenthood and the detrimental effect of early paternal death on the child. Nevertheless, the effect of APA in reproduction is a vital area to study with the same fervor as AMA (Fertil Steril 2009;92:1772-5).

Dr. Trolice is director of Fertility CARE – The IVF Center in Winter Park, Fla., and professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Central Florida, Orlando. He has no conflicts. Email him at [email protected].

For decades, we have recognized the age-related natural decline in female fecundity (the ability to reproduce) after the age of 30 (Maturitas 1988;[Suppl]1:15-22). Advanced maternal age (AMA) has also been demonstrated to increase miscarriage and pregnancies with chromosomal abnormalities, presumably from the increased rate of oocyte aneuploidy. There has been a sixfold increase in the rate of first birth in women aged 35-39 years (NCHS Data Brief 2014;152:1-8). Consequently, over the last decade, women, often before they reach AMA, have turned to elective oocyte cryopreservation for fertility preservation.

Ovarian aging

Ovarian aging occurs through the decline in quality and quantity of oocytes. The former is a reflection of the woman’s chronologic age. Markers of female ovarian aging have been utilized, for the past 3 decades, most commonly by basal follicle stimulating hormone. Currently, to assess the quantity of ovarian follicles, antimüllerian hormone (AMH) and transvaginal ultrasound for ovarian antral follicle count (AFC) are the most accurate indicators (J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2004:89:2977-81). While ovarian age testing, particularly AMH, has been widely used to assess a woman’s “fertility potential,” it does not reflect her natural fecundity. In a prospective cohort study, AMH levels (ng/mL) divided into < 0.7, 0.7-8.4, and > 8.4, did not affect natural conception in women aged 30-44 who were divided into the categories of <35, 35-37, or 38-44 years (JAMA 2017;318:1367-76). Although AMH does reduce success with IVF, its main value is the inverse correlation when prescribing gonadotropin dosage for controlled ovarian stimulation.

Despite the familiarity with ovarian aging effects on fertility, the male biological clock remains less studied and understood. Over the last 4 decades, paternal age has increased an average of 3.5 years presumably due to delayed child rearing from professional or personal reasons, improved contraception as well as increased divorce, remarriage, and life expectancy (Hum Reprod. 2017;32:2110-6). Nevertheless, we have little data to definitively counsel men on the effects of advanced paternal age (APA) and no consensus on an actual defined age of designation. This month’s article will summarize the current literature on male age and its impact on fertility.
 

Testicular aging

Men older than 45 years require approximately five times longer to achieve a pregnancy as men less than 25 after adjustment for female age (Fertil Steril. 2003;79:1520-7). The most likely parameter to assess male fertility, other than pregnancy rates, would be the sperm. Sperm counts, beginning at age 41, may decline but concentrations have been shown to increase in older men apparently because of declining semen volume (Ageing Res Rev. 2015;19:22-33). Sperm motility, but not morphology, also declines while genetic alterations of sperm increase with age. The issue of chromosomal abnormalities in sperm from men of advanced age appears to be similar to that in the oocytes of women with AMA. Consequently, both sexes may contribute to embryo aneuploidy resulting in declining fertility and increasing miscarriage.

For all ages, studies have suggested that elevated male body mass index as well as alcohol consumption and cigarette smoking, including e-cigarettes, can lead to impaired sperm production (Hum Reprod Update 2013;19:221-31).
 

Fertility treatment outcomes

A mainstay of fertility treatment, particularly in men with mild to moderate impairments in semen parameters, is ovulation induction with intrauterine insemination. Male age has been shown to be a significant indicator for pregnancy rates, including those with normal semen parameters (J Obstet Gynaecol. 2011;31:420-3). Men above age 45 contributed to lower pregnancy rates and higher miscarriages during IUI treatment cycles (Reprod BioMed Online 2008;17:392-7).

During IVF cycles, the sperm of men with APA often undergo ICSI (intracytoplasmic sperm injection) due to higher fertilization rates compared with standard insemination. However, APA sperm appear to have lower fertilization rates and decreased embryo development to the blastocyst stage during cycles using donor oocytes, although pregnancy outcomes are inconsistent (Trans Androl Urol. 2019;8[Suppl 1]:S22-S30; Fertil Steril. 2008;90:97-103).
 

Perinatal and children’s health

The offspring from APA men appear to have higher rates of stillbirth, low birth weight, and preterm birth, as well as birth defects. Men older than 40-45 years have twice the risk of an autistic child and three times the risk of schizophrenia in their offspring (Transl Psychiatry 2017;7:e1019; Am J Psychiatry 2002;159:1528-33).

Conclusions

Most of the literature supports negative effects on sperm and reproduction from men with APA. The challenge in deciphering the true role of APA on fertility is that the partner is often of AMA. A consideration to avoid this effect would be sperm cryopreservation at a younger age, similar to the common trend among women. Preimplantation genetic testing of embryos from men with APA is also a potential option to reduce miscarriage and avoid a chromosomally abnormal pregnancy. Ethicists have pondered the impact of APA on parenthood and the detrimental effect of early paternal death on the child. Nevertheless, the effect of APA in reproduction is a vital area to study with the same fervor as AMA (Fertil Steril 2009;92:1772-5).

Dr. Trolice is director of Fertility CARE – The IVF Center in Winter Park, Fla., and professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Central Florida, Orlando. He has no conflicts. Email him at [email protected].

For decades, we have recognized the age-related natural decline in female fecundity (the ability to reproduce) after the age of 30 (Maturitas 1988;[Suppl]1:15-22). Advanced maternal age (AMA) has also been demonstrated to increase miscarriage and pregnancies with chromosomal abnormalities, presumably from the increased rate of oocyte aneuploidy. There has been a sixfold increase in the rate of first birth in women aged 35-39 years (NCHS Data Brief 2014;152:1-8). Consequently, over the last decade, women, often before they reach AMA, have turned to elective oocyte cryopreservation for fertility preservation.

Ovarian aging

Ovarian aging occurs through the decline in quality and quantity of oocytes. The former is a reflection of the woman’s chronologic age. Markers of female ovarian aging have been utilized, for the past 3 decades, most commonly by basal follicle stimulating hormone. Currently, to assess the quantity of ovarian follicles, antimüllerian hormone (AMH) and transvaginal ultrasound for ovarian antral follicle count (AFC) are the most accurate indicators (J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2004:89:2977-81). While ovarian age testing, particularly AMH, has been widely used to assess a woman’s “fertility potential,” it does not reflect her natural fecundity. In a prospective cohort study, AMH levels (ng/mL) divided into < 0.7, 0.7-8.4, and > 8.4, did not affect natural conception in women aged 30-44 who were divided into the categories of <35, 35-37, or 38-44 years (JAMA 2017;318:1367-76). Although AMH does reduce success with IVF, its main value is the inverse correlation when prescribing gonadotropin dosage for controlled ovarian stimulation.

Despite the familiarity with ovarian aging effects on fertility, the male biological clock remains less studied and understood. Over the last 4 decades, paternal age has increased an average of 3.5 years presumably due to delayed child rearing from professional or personal reasons, improved contraception as well as increased divorce, remarriage, and life expectancy (Hum Reprod. 2017;32:2110-6). Nevertheless, we have little data to definitively counsel men on the effects of advanced paternal age (APA) and no consensus on an actual defined age of designation. This month’s article will summarize the current literature on male age and its impact on fertility.
 

Testicular aging

Men older than 45 years require approximately five times longer to achieve a pregnancy as men less than 25 after adjustment for female age (Fertil Steril. 2003;79:1520-7). The most likely parameter to assess male fertility, other than pregnancy rates, would be the sperm. Sperm counts, beginning at age 41, may decline but concentrations have been shown to increase in older men apparently because of declining semen volume (Ageing Res Rev. 2015;19:22-33). Sperm motility, but not morphology, also declines while genetic alterations of sperm increase with age. The issue of chromosomal abnormalities in sperm from men of advanced age appears to be similar to that in the oocytes of women with AMA. Consequently, both sexes may contribute to embryo aneuploidy resulting in declining fertility and increasing miscarriage.

For all ages, studies have suggested that elevated male body mass index as well as alcohol consumption and cigarette smoking, including e-cigarettes, can lead to impaired sperm production (Hum Reprod Update 2013;19:221-31).
 

Fertility treatment outcomes

A mainstay of fertility treatment, particularly in men with mild to moderate impairments in semen parameters, is ovulation induction with intrauterine insemination. Male age has been shown to be a significant indicator for pregnancy rates, including those with normal semen parameters (J Obstet Gynaecol. 2011;31:420-3). Men above age 45 contributed to lower pregnancy rates and higher miscarriages during IUI treatment cycles (Reprod BioMed Online 2008;17:392-7).

During IVF cycles, the sperm of men with APA often undergo ICSI (intracytoplasmic sperm injection) due to higher fertilization rates compared with standard insemination. However, APA sperm appear to have lower fertilization rates and decreased embryo development to the blastocyst stage during cycles using donor oocytes, although pregnancy outcomes are inconsistent (Trans Androl Urol. 2019;8[Suppl 1]:S22-S30; Fertil Steril. 2008;90:97-103).
 

Perinatal and children’s health

The offspring from APA men appear to have higher rates of stillbirth, low birth weight, and preterm birth, as well as birth defects. Men older than 40-45 years have twice the risk of an autistic child and three times the risk of schizophrenia in their offspring (Transl Psychiatry 2017;7:e1019; Am J Psychiatry 2002;159:1528-33).

Conclusions

Most of the literature supports negative effects on sperm and reproduction from men with APA. The challenge in deciphering the true role of APA on fertility is that the partner is often of AMA. A consideration to avoid this effect would be sperm cryopreservation at a younger age, similar to the common trend among women. Preimplantation genetic testing of embryos from men with APA is also a potential option to reduce miscarriage and avoid a chromosomally abnormal pregnancy. Ethicists have pondered the impact of APA on parenthood and the detrimental effect of early paternal death on the child. Nevertheless, the effect of APA in reproduction is a vital area to study with the same fervor as AMA (Fertil Steril 2009;92:1772-5).

Dr. Trolice is director of Fertility CARE – The IVF Center in Winter Park, Fla., and professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Central Florida, Orlando. He has no conflicts. Email him at [email protected].

Low androgen levels appear to be linked to the development of posttransplantation diabetes mellitus (PTDM) in male kidney transplant recipients, new research suggests.

London_England/Thinkstock

Among 243 men who did not have diabetes prior to undergoing kidney transplantation, levels of both dihydrotestosterone (DHT) and testosterone were inversely related to the risk for developing diabetes the next 5 years.

“These results suggest that androgen insufficiency could play a role in the frequent deterioration of the glucose metabolism after kidney transplantation,” Suzanne P. Stam and colleagues wrote in Diabetes Care.

However, “our study has unfortunately no direct clinical findings as it was of an observational nature,” Ms. Stam told this news organization. “As a result, we can say that we have observed an association and have not established a causal relationship. So based on our study alone there is not a reason to start screening for low androgen values.”

Previous data have suggested that failure of pancreatic beta cell secretion of insulin plays a role in PTDM. In addition, DHT appears to act on the androgen receptor in pancreatic beta cells to enhance insulin secretion, while testosterone deficiency has been shown to play a role in the development of type 2 diabetes in aging males and in men receiving androgen-deprivation therapy. And, randomized clinical trials have found favorable metabolic effects of testosterone replacement therapy in hypogonadal men with type 2 diabetes.

The current post hoc analysis of a prospective single-center cohort study is the first longitudinal epidemiological investigation of the role of androgens in PTDM in kidney transplant recipients. The subjects, all men, had functioning grafts for at least a year posttransplantation. Androgen levels were assessed by liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry.

At a median follow-up duration of 5.3 years, 28 (11.5%) of the men had developed PTDM. By DHT tertile, the proportions developing diabetes were 19% (15) for the lowest, 12% (10) for the middle, and 4% (3) for men with the highest DHT tertile (P = .008). A similar relationship was seen with tertiles of testosterone, with 17% (14), 14% (11), and 4% (3) developing diabetes in the lowest, middle, and highest tertiles, respectively (P = .01).

In unadjusted analysis, every doubling of DHT was linked to a 27% increased risk for PTDM (P < .001). The association remained significant after adjustments for age, estimated glomerular filtration rate, time between transplantation and baseline, body mass index, high sensitivity C-reactive protein, medication use, and baseline hemoglobin A1c (all P < .001). Similar results were found with total testosterone.

Ms. Stam, of the division of nephrology at the University Medical Center Groningen, the Netherlands, noted in an interview that, in the Netherlands, about 15% of those with kidney failure have preexisting diabetes, compared with about 50% in other western countries, including the United States.

She said that her team is currently working on a study to investigate the association between androgens and the development of PTDM in female kidney transplant recipients.

The study was funded by the TransplantLines Food and Nutrition Biobank and Cohort Study, Top Institute Food and Nutrition, and partly by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program. Ms. Stam and the other authors have no further disclosures.

Low androgen levels appear to be linked to the development of posttransplantation diabetes mellitus (PTDM) in male kidney transplant recipients, new research suggests.

London_England/Thinkstock

Among 243 men who did not have diabetes prior to undergoing kidney transplantation, levels of both dihydrotestosterone (DHT) and testosterone were inversely related to the risk for developing diabetes the next 5 years.

“These results suggest that androgen insufficiency could play a role in the frequent deterioration of the glucose metabolism after kidney transplantation,” Suzanne P. Stam and colleagues wrote in Diabetes Care.

However, “our study has unfortunately no direct clinical findings as it was of an observational nature,” Ms. Stam told this news organization. “As a result, we can say that we have observed an association and have not established a causal relationship. So based on our study alone there is not a reason to start screening for low androgen values.”

Previous data have suggested that failure of pancreatic beta cell secretion of insulin plays a role in PTDM. In addition, DHT appears to act on the androgen receptor in pancreatic beta cells to enhance insulin secretion, while testosterone deficiency has been shown to play a role in the development of type 2 diabetes in aging males and in men receiving androgen-deprivation therapy. And, randomized clinical trials have found favorable metabolic effects of testosterone replacement therapy in hypogonadal men with type 2 diabetes.

The current post hoc analysis of a prospective single-center cohort study is the first longitudinal epidemiological investigation of the role of androgens in PTDM in kidney transplant recipients. The subjects, all men, had functioning grafts for at least a year posttransplantation. Androgen levels were assessed by liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry.

At a median follow-up duration of 5.3 years, 28 (11.5%) of the men had developed PTDM. By DHT tertile, the proportions developing diabetes were 19% (15) for the lowest, 12% (10) for the middle, and 4% (3) for men with the highest DHT tertile (P = .008). A similar relationship was seen with tertiles of testosterone, with 17% (14), 14% (11), and 4% (3) developing diabetes in the lowest, middle, and highest tertiles, respectively (P = .01).

In unadjusted analysis, every doubling of DHT was linked to a 27% increased risk for PTDM (P < .001). The association remained significant after adjustments for age, estimated glomerular filtration rate, time between transplantation and baseline, body mass index, high sensitivity C-reactive protein, medication use, and baseline hemoglobin A1c (all P < .001). Similar results were found with total testosterone.

Ms. Stam, of the division of nephrology at the University Medical Center Groningen, the Netherlands, noted in an interview that, in the Netherlands, about 15% of those with kidney failure have preexisting diabetes, compared with about 50% in other western countries, including the United States.

She said that her team is currently working on a study to investigate the association between androgens and the development of PTDM in female kidney transplant recipients.

The study was funded by the TransplantLines Food and Nutrition Biobank and Cohort Study, Top Institute Food and Nutrition, and partly by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program. Ms. Stam and the other authors have no further disclosures.

Low androgen levels appear to be linked to the development of posttransplantation diabetes mellitus (PTDM) in male kidney transplant recipients, new research suggests.

London_England/Thinkstock

Among 243 men who did not have diabetes prior to undergoing kidney transplantation, levels of both dihydrotestosterone (DHT) and testosterone were inversely related to the risk for developing diabetes the next 5 years.

“These results suggest that androgen insufficiency could play a role in the frequent deterioration of the glucose metabolism after kidney transplantation,” Suzanne P. Stam and colleagues wrote in Diabetes Care.

However, “our study has unfortunately no direct clinical findings as it was of an observational nature,” Ms. Stam told this news organization. “As a result, we can say that we have observed an association and have not established a causal relationship. So based on our study alone there is not a reason to start screening for low androgen values.”

Previous data have suggested that failure of pancreatic beta cell secretion of insulin plays a role in PTDM. In addition, DHT appears to act on the androgen receptor in pancreatic beta cells to enhance insulin secretion, while testosterone deficiency has been shown to play a role in the development of type 2 diabetes in aging males and in men receiving androgen-deprivation therapy. And, randomized clinical trials have found favorable metabolic effects of testosterone replacement therapy in hypogonadal men with type 2 diabetes.

The current post hoc analysis of a prospective single-center cohort study is the first longitudinal epidemiological investigation of the role of androgens in PTDM in kidney transplant recipients. The subjects, all men, had functioning grafts for at least a year posttransplantation. Androgen levels were assessed by liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry.

At a median follow-up duration of 5.3 years, 28 (11.5%) of the men had developed PTDM. By DHT tertile, the proportions developing diabetes were 19% (15) for the lowest, 12% (10) for the middle, and 4% (3) for men with the highest DHT tertile (P = .008). A similar relationship was seen with tertiles of testosterone, with 17% (14), 14% (11), and 4% (3) developing diabetes in the lowest, middle, and highest tertiles, respectively (P = .01).

In unadjusted analysis, every doubling of DHT was linked to a 27% increased risk for PTDM (P < .001). The association remained significant after adjustments for age, estimated glomerular filtration rate, time between transplantation and baseline, body mass index, high sensitivity C-reactive protein, medication use, and baseline hemoglobin A1c (all P < .001). Similar results were found with total testosterone.

Ms. Stam, of the division of nephrology at the University Medical Center Groningen, the Netherlands, noted in an interview that, in the Netherlands, about 15% of those with kidney failure have preexisting diabetes, compared with about 50% in other western countries, including the United States.

She said that her team is currently working on a study to investigate the association between androgens and the development of PTDM in female kidney transplant recipients.

The study was funded by the TransplantLines Food and Nutrition Biobank and Cohort Study, Top Institute Food and Nutrition, and partly by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program. Ms. Stam and the other authors have no further disclosures.

Obesity interventions would be more effective at preventing premature mortality if they focused less on weight loss and more on increased physical activity and improved cardiorespiratory fitness, a pair of researchers concluded in a recent review.

The authors promote a “weight-neutral approach to treating obesity-related health conditions,” which they say is “as or more effective than a weight-loss centric approach.”

One expert agrees. “The obsession with the bathroom scale as the primary determinant of treatment efficacy when managing obesity is just not right,” Robert Ross, PhD, said in an interview.

“It masks the tremendous health benefits of improved fitness regardless of obesity. If you increase fitness, you improve outcomes even when people don’t lose weight,” noted Dr. Ross, a researcher in the School of Kinesiology and Health Studies at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario, Canada.

However, this proposition reprises a long-standing gulf between two schools of thought on obesity intervention.

One indication of the divided sentiment came in another expert review, published just days later, that strongly calls for weight loss of at least 15% of starting body weight as the primary intervention goal for most patients with obesity and type 2 diabetes. (According to 2020 statistics from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, more than 60% of U.S. adults with diabetes are obese.)

However, some question whether it must be all one, or the other, when obesity management could instead combine these approaches and simultaneously promote weight loss, increased activity, and improved fitness.

“It only muddies the water to dichotomize this as either weight management or activity and physical fitness,” observed Scott Kahan, MD, an obesity specialist and director of the National Center for Weight and Wellness in Washington, D.C.
 

Weight-neutral ‘is the way to go’

“The most significant new information [in the review] is the direct comparison of the magnitude of mortality risk reduction associated with weight loss compared with increasing fitness, physical activity, or both,” said Glenn A. Gaesser, PhD, the first author of the new review and professor of exercise physiology at Arizona State University, Phoenix.

“The results are quite clear: Increasing fitness, physical activity, or both are associated with greater mortality reductions than intentional weight loss. We argue that a weight-neutral approach to treating obesity is the way to go.”

The data call “into question the widely perceived notion of ‘lose weight, live longer,’” resulting in a “paradigm shift,” Dr. Gaesser said in an interview.

“There are no downsides to exercise, but there are significant downsides to weight loss, especially when it is inevitably followed by weight regain, which gives rise to the undesirable ‘weight-loss futile cycle’,” he added.
 

No simple, single solutions

Dr. Kahan said, however, that comparison of the effects of weight loss with the effects of increased activity and fitness on mortality is inherently problematic.

“It’s hard to make definitive conclusions from observational studies,” he cautioned, noting that the data cited in the review of activity and fitness compared with weight loss are generally “estimations” that carry a “lot of cloudiness.”

Dr. Kahan also takes issue with the premise detailed in the review that targeting reduced weight and implementing healthful and evidence-based approaches to try to achieve it are bound to fail and have frequent adverse consequences.

“Managing weight in a reasonable, patient-centered, thoughtful way is a standard and central part of long-term health,” he said in an interview.

He did concede, however, that the U.S. weight-loss landscape is awash with hucksterism that takes advantage of many patients, and he cautioned against approaches that focus on weight loss at all costs and as a pathway to selling products.

“But staying focused on activity and not paying attention to healthy eating is extreme,” he said, reemphasizing that obesity management is not a simple intervention with a single solution.
 

Not the first time

This is not the first time that Dr. Gaesser, and others, have published articles promoting a pivot away from weight loss as the primary goal of obesity interventions. In 2015, Dr. Gaesser and colleagues published an evidence review that gave this recommendation for managing people with obesity: “We propose that the proxy for health improvements should not be weight loss but instead improvements in cardiometabolic parameters, functional status, and fitness.”

Dr. Gaesser’s latest review also acknowledges similar recommendations from others, including Dr. Ross, who said it’s nothing new to conclude that increased fitness and activity in the absence of weight loss is not failure.

“It’s something we’ve promoted for decades,” but “it’s not understood and acted on in clinical settings, and that’s unfortunate,” he said.

More than a decade ago, Dr. Ross and his coauthor wrote in a published review that “a monolithic focus on weight loss as the only determinant of success for strategies that aim to reduce obesity is not justified and, more importantly, eliminates opportunities to focus on lifestyle behaviors that are associated with benefit across a wide range of health outcomes.”

And an effective intervention that focuses on activity and fitness means that, at the least, patients should not gain weight, and they may lose weight as a side benefit, he stressed.

“We always advocate a balanced diet, so that people do not gain more weight.”

Dr. Ross also highlighted the usefulness of measuring fitness as an alternative to recording weight to track the response by patients with obesity to various interventions. Dr. Ross recommends nonexercise prediction equations for routine practice to easily estimate cardiorespiratory fitness, an approach detailed in a 2016 statement from the American Heart Association by a writing panel chaired by Dr. Ross.

The AHA statement notes that “not including cardiorespiratory fitness measurement in routine clinical practice fails to provide an optimal approach for stratifying patients according to risk.”

The AHA also advises that “routine estimation of cardiorespiratory fitness in clinical practice is no more difficult than measuring blood pressure,” and details ways of incorporating this into routine clinical assessment.

Dr. Gaesser and Dr. Kahan have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Ross has been an advisor to the Canadian Sugar Institute.

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

Obesity interventions would be more effective at preventing premature mortality if they focused less on weight loss and more on increased physical activity and improved cardiorespiratory fitness, a pair of researchers concluded in a recent review.

The authors promote a “weight-neutral approach to treating obesity-related health conditions,” which they say is “as or more effective than a weight-loss centric approach.”

One expert agrees. “The obsession with the bathroom scale as the primary determinant of treatment efficacy when managing obesity is just not right,” Robert Ross, PhD, said in an interview.

“It masks the tremendous health benefits of improved fitness regardless of obesity. If you increase fitness, you improve outcomes even when people don’t lose weight,” noted Dr. Ross, a researcher in the School of Kinesiology and Health Studies at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario, Canada.

However, this proposition reprises a long-standing gulf between two schools of thought on obesity intervention.

One indication of the divided sentiment came in another expert review, published just days later, that strongly calls for weight loss of at least 15% of starting body weight as the primary intervention goal for most patients with obesity and type 2 diabetes. (According to 2020 statistics from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, more than 60% of U.S. adults with diabetes are obese.)

However, some question whether it must be all one, or the other, when obesity management could instead combine these approaches and simultaneously promote weight loss, increased activity, and improved fitness.

“It only muddies the water to dichotomize this as either weight management or activity and physical fitness,” observed Scott Kahan, MD, an obesity specialist and director of the National Center for Weight and Wellness in Washington, D.C.
 

Weight-neutral ‘is the way to go’

“The most significant new information [in the review] is the direct comparison of the magnitude of mortality risk reduction associated with weight loss compared with increasing fitness, physical activity, or both,” said Glenn A. Gaesser, PhD, the first author of the new review and professor of exercise physiology at Arizona State University, Phoenix.

“The results are quite clear: Increasing fitness, physical activity, or both are associated with greater mortality reductions than intentional weight loss. We argue that a weight-neutral approach to treating obesity is the way to go.”

The data call “into question the widely perceived notion of ‘lose weight, live longer,’” resulting in a “paradigm shift,” Dr. Gaesser said in an interview.

“There are no downsides to exercise, but there are significant downsides to weight loss, especially when it is inevitably followed by weight regain, which gives rise to the undesirable ‘weight-loss futile cycle’,” he added.
 

No simple, single solutions

Dr. Kahan said, however, that comparison of the effects of weight loss with the effects of increased activity and fitness on mortality is inherently problematic.

“It’s hard to make definitive conclusions from observational studies,” he cautioned, noting that the data cited in the review of activity and fitness compared with weight loss are generally “estimations” that carry a “lot of cloudiness.”

Dr. Kahan also takes issue with the premise detailed in the review that targeting reduced weight and implementing healthful and evidence-based approaches to try to achieve it are bound to fail and have frequent adverse consequences.

“Managing weight in a reasonable, patient-centered, thoughtful way is a standard and central part of long-term health,” he said in an interview.

He did concede, however, that the U.S. weight-loss landscape is awash with hucksterism that takes advantage of many patients, and he cautioned against approaches that focus on weight loss at all costs and as a pathway to selling products.

“But staying focused on activity and not paying attention to healthy eating is extreme,” he said, reemphasizing that obesity management is not a simple intervention with a single solution.
 

Not the first time

This is not the first time that Dr. Gaesser, and others, have published articles promoting a pivot away from weight loss as the primary goal of obesity interventions. In 2015, Dr. Gaesser and colleagues published an evidence review that gave this recommendation for managing people with obesity: “We propose that the proxy for health improvements should not be weight loss but instead improvements in cardiometabolic parameters, functional status, and fitness.”

Dr. Gaesser’s latest review also acknowledges similar recommendations from others, including Dr. Ross, who said it’s nothing new to conclude that increased fitness and activity in the absence of weight loss is not failure.

“It’s something we’ve promoted for decades,” but “it’s not understood and acted on in clinical settings, and that’s unfortunate,” he said.

More than a decade ago, Dr. Ross and his coauthor wrote in a published review that “a monolithic focus on weight loss as the only determinant of success for strategies that aim to reduce obesity is not justified and, more importantly, eliminates opportunities to focus on lifestyle behaviors that are associated with benefit across a wide range of health outcomes.”

And an effective intervention that focuses on activity and fitness means that, at the least, patients should not gain weight, and they may lose weight as a side benefit, he stressed.

“We always advocate a balanced diet, so that people do not gain more weight.”

Dr. Ross also highlighted the usefulness of measuring fitness as an alternative to recording weight to track the response by patients with obesity to various interventions. Dr. Ross recommends nonexercise prediction equations for routine practice to easily estimate cardiorespiratory fitness, an approach detailed in a 2016 statement from the American Heart Association by a writing panel chaired by Dr. Ross.

The AHA statement notes that “not including cardiorespiratory fitness measurement in routine clinical practice fails to provide an optimal approach for stratifying patients according to risk.”

The AHA also advises that “routine estimation of cardiorespiratory fitness in clinical practice is no more difficult than measuring blood pressure,” and details ways of incorporating this into routine clinical assessment.

Dr. Gaesser and Dr. Kahan have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Ross has been an advisor to the Canadian Sugar Institute.

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

Obesity interventions would be more effective at preventing premature mortality if they focused less on weight loss and more on increased physical activity and improved cardiorespiratory fitness, a pair of researchers concluded in a recent review.

The authors promote a “weight-neutral approach to treating obesity-related health conditions,” which they say is “as or more effective than a weight-loss centric approach.”

One expert agrees. “The obsession with the bathroom scale as the primary determinant of treatment efficacy when managing obesity is just not right,” Robert Ross, PhD, said in an interview.

“It masks the tremendous health benefits of improved fitness regardless of obesity. If you increase fitness, you improve outcomes even when people don’t lose weight,” noted Dr. Ross, a researcher in the School of Kinesiology and Health Studies at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario, Canada.

However, this proposition reprises a long-standing gulf between two schools of thought on obesity intervention.

One indication of the divided sentiment came in another expert review, published just days later, that strongly calls for weight loss of at least 15% of starting body weight as the primary intervention goal for most patients with obesity and type 2 diabetes. (According to 2020 statistics from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, more than 60% of U.S. adults with diabetes are obese.)

However, some question whether it must be all one, or the other, when obesity management could instead combine these approaches and simultaneously promote weight loss, increased activity, and improved fitness.

“It only muddies the water to dichotomize this as either weight management or activity and physical fitness,” observed Scott Kahan, MD, an obesity specialist and director of the National Center for Weight and Wellness in Washington, D.C.
 

Weight-neutral ‘is the way to go’

“The most significant new information [in the review] is the direct comparison of the magnitude of mortality risk reduction associated with weight loss compared with increasing fitness, physical activity, or both,” said Glenn A. Gaesser, PhD, the first author of the new review and professor of exercise physiology at Arizona State University, Phoenix.

“The results are quite clear: Increasing fitness, physical activity, or both are associated with greater mortality reductions than intentional weight loss. We argue that a weight-neutral approach to treating obesity is the way to go.”

The data call “into question the widely perceived notion of ‘lose weight, live longer,’” resulting in a “paradigm shift,” Dr. Gaesser said in an interview.

“There are no downsides to exercise, but there are significant downsides to weight loss, especially when it is inevitably followed by weight regain, which gives rise to the undesirable ‘weight-loss futile cycle’,” he added.
 

No simple, single solutions

Dr. Kahan said, however, that comparison of the effects of weight loss with the effects of increased activity and fitness on mortality is inherently problematic.

“It’s hard to make definitive conclusions from observational studies,” he cautioned, noting that the data cited in the review of activity and fitness compared with weight loss are generally “estimations” that carry a “lot of cloudiness.”

Dr. Kahan also takes issue with the premise detailed in the review that targeting reduced weight and implementing healthful and evidence-based approaches to try to achieve it are bound to fail and have frequent adverse consequences.

“Managing weight in a reasonable, patient-centered, thoughtful way is a standard and central part of long-term health,” he said in an interview.

He did concede, however, that the U.S. weight-loss landscape is awash with hucksterism that takes advantage of many patients, and he cautioned against approaches that focus on weight loss at all costs and as a pathway to selling products.

“But staying focused on activity and not paying attention to healthy eating is extreme,” he said, reemphasizing that obesity management is not a simple intervention with a single solution.
 

Not the first time

This is not the first time that Dr. Gaesser, and others, have published articles promoting a pivot away from weight loss as the primary goal of obesity interventions. In 2015, Dr. Gaesser and colleagues published an evidence review that gave this recommendation for managing people with obesity: “We propose that the proxy for health improvements should not be weight loss but instead improvements in cardiometabolic parameters, functional status, and fitness.”

Dr. Gaesser’s latest review also acknowledges similar recommendations from others, including Dr. Ross, who said it’s nothing new to conclude that increased fitness and activity in the absence of weight loss is not failure.

“It’s something we’ve promoted for decades,” but “it’s not understood and acted on in clinical settings, and that’s unfortunate,” he said.

More than a decade ago, Dr. Ross and his coauthor wrote in a published review that “a monolithic focus on weight loss as the only determinant of success for strategies that aim to reduce obesity is not justified and, more importantly, eliminates opportunities to focus on lifestyle behaviors that are associated with benefit across a wide range of health outcomes.”

And an effective intervention that focuses on activity and fitness means that, at the least, patients should not gain weight, and they may lose weight as a side benefit, he stressed.

“We always advocate a balanced diet, so that people do not gain more weight.”

Dr. Ross also highlighted the usefulness of measuring fitness as an alternative to recording weight to track the response by patients with obesity to various interventions. Dr. Ross recommends nonexercise prediction equations for routine practice to easily estimate cardiorespiratory fitness, an approach detailed in a 2016 statement from the American Heart Association by a writing panel chaired by Dr. Ross.

The AHA statement notes that “not including cardiorespiratory fitness measurement in routine clinical practice fails to provide an optimal approach for stratifying patients according to risk.”

The AHA also advises that “routine estimation of cardiorespiratory fitness in clinical practice is no more difficult than measuring blood pressure,” and details ways of incorporating this into routine clinical assessment.

Dr. Gaesser and Dr. Kahan have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Ross has been an advisor to the Canadian Sugar Institute.

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

Drinking more than three cups of caffeinated coffee a day is associated with less liver stiffness, according to an analysis of a nationally representative survey, which was recently published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

amenic181/Getty Images

The study is likely the most rigorous look to date on the benefits of coffee on liver health in the U.S. It was based on data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), in which participants were asked about what they eat and drink. Crucially, in 2017, NHANES began to include elastography (FibroScan), of participants’ liver stiffness, not because of suspected problems with the liver but as across-the-board evaluations of all participants.

“Because it’s an unselected population for FibroScan and because of the detail, the granularity, the richness of the information from the nutritional surveys that they do, this is the closest we’re ever going to get to a linkage between what people are eating or drinking and the health of their liver, absent a longitudinal study where we set out to follow people for many, many years,” said Elliot Tapper, MD, assistant professor of gastroenterology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and the study’s senior author.

Researchers examined data from about 4,500 patients who had participated in the NHANES study in 2017-2018. The participants were aged 20 years or older, with an average age of 48; 73% were overweight, about the national average.

The researchers found no association between coffee consumption and controlled attenuation parameter (CAP), a measure of fatty liver. But they found a link between coffee and liver stiffness.

Those who drank more than three cups of coffee daily had a liver stiffness measure (LSM) that was 0.9 kilopascals (kPa) lower than others (P = .03). Drinking more than three cups a day also was found to be protective against an LSM of 9.5 kPa or higher, the threshold for advanced liver fibrosis (OR, 0.4; P = .05). Decaffeinated coffee was not found to be associated with LSM.

Caffeine is an antagonist to adenosine receptors in the liver cell that, if blocked, stops the production of scar tissue, according to the researchers. But when they looked at estimated caffeine consumption, calculated through the detailed, trained interviews performed by nutritionists, there was no association with liver stiffness. That said, Dr. Tapper noted that this could be due to the imperfection of making those estimations.

“If we had to hypothesize about a mechanism, it would most likely be caffeine, and the reason we couldn’t see that here is because these are estimated milligrams of caffeine per coffee – but the way that we brew coffee, and the beans that we’re using, are so highly variable it just can’t be captured in this kind of database,” he said.

He said the data will be reassuring to clinicians who suggest coffee-drinking to patients.

“There are hepatologists around the world who are actively recommending coffee – they’ll feel empowered by these data,” he said. “I would still like to see more robust longitudinal data before I start spending our precious time counseling patients about coffee. There are many other data-driven interventions for the management of liver disease that we should be focusing our time on.”

Moreover, he said that the data will be important for patients who are particularly interested in natural remedies.

“For patients who are very interested in a natural supplement, to feel like they’re taking an active role in the health of their liver, I will tell them to avoid carbohydrates and increase their exercise – and that it is OK to add coffee to their daily routine.”

A study based on a UK database found that coffee was associated with protection against chronic liver disease, but the association was seen for both caffeinated and decaffeinated drinks, noted Nathan Davies, PhD, professor of biochemistry at the Institute of the Liver and Digestive Health at the University College London.

Dr. Davies, a registered nutritionist who has studied coffee’s effects on the liver, said that while including elastography in the Michigan study is interesting, it “does not necessarily by itself add greatly” to the evidence base.

The outcomes from both studies do suggest a positive effect for coffee, but he said it’s important to remember that liver disease develops over years and decades.

“Looking at a snapshot moment does not necessarily reflect an individual’s behavior during the onset and development of their condition,” he said. “As such, there are a number of behavioral and nutritional factors that could be contributing to the observed effect over a period of years.”

He pointed out that while different coffee and brewing types affect the amount of caffeine in a cup, all cups of coffee in this study were treated the same way. He noted there was no apparent dose-dependent effect, which would have been expected if there is an active ingredient that affects liver stiffness.

“In general, my advice is to improve diet, take more exercise, and reduce alcohol consumption, which is likely to be more effective in preventing liver disease – and its progression – than drinking an extra cup of coffee,” Dr. Davies said. “That being said, for patients at increased risk for liver disease who currently drink three cups or more of coffee daily, it may be prudent for them to continue because this level of consumption might be actively lowering their chances of developing more serious disease.”

Dr. Tapper has done consulting for Novartis, Axcella and Allergan, has served on advisory boards for Mallinckrodt, Bausch Health, Kaleido, and Novo Nordisk, and has unrestricted research grants from Gilead and Valeant. The remaining authors disclose no conflicts. Dr. Davies reported no relevant disclosures.

Drinking more than three cups of caffeinated coffee a day is associated with less liver stiffness, according to an analysis of a nationally representative survey, which was recently published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

amenic181/Getty Images

The study is likely the most rigorous look to date on the benefits of coffee on liver health in the U.S. It was based on data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), in which participants were asked about what they eat and drink. Crucially, in 2017, NHANES began to include elastography (FibroScan), of participants’ liver stiffness, not because of suspected problems with the liver but as across-the-board evaluations of all participants.

“Because it’s an unselected population for FibroScan and because of the detail, the granularity, the richness of the information from the nutritional surveys that they do, this is the closest we’re ever going to get to a linkage between what people are eating or drinking and the health of their liver, absent a longitudinal study where we set out to follow people for many, many years,” said Elliot Tapper, MD, assistant professor of gastroenterology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and the study’s senior author.

Researchers examined data from about 4,500 patients who had participated in the NHANES study in 2017-2018. The participants were aged 20 years or older, with an average age of 48; 73% were overweight, about the national average.

The researchers found no association between coffee consumption and controlled attenuation parameter (CAP), a measure of fatty liver. But they found a link between coffee and liver stiffness.

Those who drank more than three cups of coffee daily had a liver stiffness measure (LSM) that was 0.9 kilopascals (kPa) lower than others (P = .03). Drinking more than three cups a day also was found to be protective against an LSM of 9.5 kPa or higher, the threshold for advanced liver fibrosis (OR, 0.4; P = .05). Decaffeinated coffee was not found to be associated with LSM.

Caffeine is an antagonist to adenosine receptors in the liver cell that, if blocked, stops the production of scar tissue, according to the researchers. But when they looked at estimated caffeine consumption, calculated through the detailed, trained interviews performed by nutritionists, there was no association with liver stiffness. That said, Dr. Tapper noted that this could be due to the imperfection of making those estimations.

“If we had to hypothesize about a mechanism, it would most likely be caffeine, and the reason we couldn’t see that here is because these are estimated milligrams of caffeine per coffee – but the way that we brew coffee, and the beans that we’re using, are so highly variable it just can’t be captured in this kind of database,” he said.

He said the data will be reassuring to clinicians who suggest coffee-drinking to patients.

“There are hepatologists around the world who are actively recommending coffee – they’ll feel empowered by these data,” he said. “I would still like to see more robust longitudinal data before I start spending our precious time counseling patients about coffee. There are many other data-driven interventions for the management of liver disease that we should be focusing our time on.”

Moreover, he said that the data will be important for patients who are particularly interested in natural remedies.

“For patients who are very interested in a natural supplement, to feel like they’re taking an active role in the health of their liver, I will tell them to avoid carbohydrates and increase their exercise – and that it is OK to add coffee to their daily routine.”

A study based on a UK database found that coffee was associated with protection against chronic liver disease, but the association was seen for both caffeinated and decaffeinated drinks, noted Nathan Davies, PhD, professor of biochemistry at the Institute of the Liver and Digestive Health at the University College London.

Dr. Davies, a registered nutritionist who has studied coffee’s effects on the liver, said that while including elastography in the Michigan study is interesting, it “does not necessarily by itself add greatly” to the evidence base.

The outcomes from both studies do suggest a positive effect for coffee, but he said it’s important to remember that liver disease develops over years and decades.

“Looking at a snapshot moment does not necessarily reflect an individual’s behavior during the onset and development of their condition,” he said. “As such, there are a number of behavioral and nutritional factors that could be contributing to the observed effect over a period of years.”

He pointed out that while different coffee and brewing types affect the amount of caffeine in a cup, all cups of coffee in this study were treated the same way. He noted there was no apparent dose-dependent effect, which would have been expected if there is an active ingredient that affects liver stiffness.

“In general, my advice is to improve diet, take more exercise, and reduce alcohol consumption, which is likely to be more effective in preventing liver disease – and its progression – than drinking an extra cup of coffee,” Dr. Davies said. “That being said, for patients at increased risk for liver disease who currently drink three cups or more of coffee daily, it may be prudent for them to continue because this level of consumption might be actively lowering their chances of developing more serious disease.”

Dr. Tapper has done consulting for Novartis, Axcella and Allergan, has served on advisory boards for Mallinckrodt, Bausch Health, Kaleido, and Novo Nordisk, and has unrestricted research grants from Gilead and Valeant. The remaining authors disclose no conflicts. Dr. Davies reported no relevant disclosures.

Drinking more than three cups of caffeinated coffee a day is associated with less liver stiffness, according to an analysis of a nationally representative survey, which was recently published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

amenic181/Getty Images

The study is likely the most rigorous look to date on the benefits of coffee on liver health in the U.S. It was based on data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), in which participants were asked about what they eat and drink. Crucially, in 2017, NHANES began to include elastography (FibroScan), of participants’ liver stiffness, not because of suspected problems with the liver but as across-the-board evaluations of all participants.

“Because it’s an unselected population for FibroScan and because of the detail, the granularity, the richness of the information from the nutritional surveys that they do, this is the closest we’re ever going to get to a linkage between what people are eating or drinking and the health of their liver, absent a longitudinal study where we set out to follow people for many, many years,” said Elliot Tapper, MD, assistant professor of gastroenterology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and the study’s senior author.

Researchers examined data from about 4,500 patients who had participated in the NHANES study in 2017-2018. The participants were aged 20 years or older, with an average age of 48; 73% were overweight, about the national average.

The researchers found no association between coffee consumption and controlled attenuation parameter (CAP), a measure of fatty liver. But they found a link between coffee and liver stiffness.

Those who drank more than three cups of coffee daily had a liver stiffness measure (LSM) that was 0.9 kilopascals (kPa) lower than others (P = .03). Drinking more than three cups a day also was found to be protective against an LSM of 9.5 kPa or higher, the threshold for advanced liver fibrosis (OR, 0.4; P = .05). Decaffeinated coffee was not found to be associated with LSM.

Caffeine is an antagonist to adenosine receptors in the liver cell that, if blocked, stops the production of scar tissue, according to the researchers. But when they looked at estimated caffeine consumption, calculated through the detailed, trained interviews performed by nutritionists, there was no association with liver stiffness. That said, Dr. Tapper noted that this could be due to the imperfection of making those estimations.

“If we had to hypothesize about a mechanism, it would most likely be caffeine, and the reason we couldn’t see that here is because these are estimated milligrams of caffeine per coffee – but the way that we brew coffee, and the beans that we’re using, are so highly variable it just can’t be captured in this kind of database,” he said.

He said the data will be reassuring to clinicians who suggest coffee-drinking to patients.

“There are hepatologists around the world who are actively recommending coffee – they’ll feel empowered by these data,” he said. “I would still like to see more robust longitudinal data before I start spending our precious time counseling patients about coffee. There are many other data-driven interventions for the management of liver disease that we should be focusing our time on.”

Moreover, he said that the data will be important for patients who are particularly interested in natural remedies.

“For patients who are very interested in a natural supplement, to feel like they’re taking an active role in the health of their liver, I will tell them to avoid carbohydrates and increase their exercise – and that it is OK to add coffee to their daily routine.”

A study based on a UK database found that coffee was associated with protection against chronic liver disease, but the association was seen for both caffeinated and decaffeinated drinks, noted Nathan Davies, PhD, professor of biochemistry at the Institute of the Liver and Digestive Health at the University College London.

Dr. Davies, a registered nutritionist who has studied coffee’s effects on the liver, said that while including elastography in the Michigan study is interesting, it “does not necessarily by itself add greatly” to the evidence base.

The outcomes from both studies do suggest a positive effect for coffee, but he said it’s important to remember that liver disease develops over years and decades.

“Looking at a snapshot moment does not necessarily reflect an individual’s behavior during the onset and development of their condition,” he said. “As such, there are a number of behavioral and nutritional factors that could be contributing to the observed effect over a period of years.”

He pointed out that while different coffee and brewing types affect the amount of caffeine in a cup, all cups of coffee in this study were treated the same way. He noted there was no apparent dose-dependent effect, which would have been expected if there is an active ingredient that affects liver stiffness.

“In general, my advice is to improve diet, take more exercise, and reduce alcohol consumption, which is likely to be more effective in preventing liver disease – and its progression – than drinking an extra cup of coffee,” Dr. Davies said. “That being said, for patients at increased risk for liver disease who currently drink three cups or more of coffee daily, it may be prudent for them to continue because this level of consumption might be actively lowering their chances of developing more serious disease.”

Dr. Tapper has done consulting for Novartis, Axcella and Allergan, has served on advisory boards for Mallinckrodt, Bausch Health, Kaleido, and Novo Nordisk, and has unrestricted research grants from Gilead and Valeant. The remaining authors disclose no conflicts. Dr. Davies reported no relevant disclosures.

Editor’s note: This story was updated with the CDC director’s endorsement.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, has signed off on an advisory panel’s earlier unanimous vote to recommend boosters for the Moderna and Johnson and Johnson COVID vaccines.

The decision now means that millions of Americans are eligible to get a booster shot for either the Pfizer, Moderna, or J&J COVID vaccines.

“The evidence shows that all three COVID-19 vaccines authorized in the United States are safe – as demonstrated by the over 400 million vaccine doses already given. And, they are all highly effective in reducing the risk of severe disease, hospitalization, and death, even in the midst of the widely circulating Delta variant,” Dr. Walensky said in a CDC news release.

She also signed off on the panel’s suggestion that individuals can mix or match the booster from any one of the three available COVID-19 vaccines.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommended in a late afternoon 15-0 vote that everyone over age 18 who are at least 2 months past their Johnson & Johnson vaccine should get a booster, an endorsement that affects an estimated 13 million Americans.

Those eligible for a booster at least 6 months after their last Moderna shot are the same groups who can get a Pfizer booster.

They are:

• Anyone over age 65.
• Those over age 18 with an underlying health condition that puts them at risk of severe COVID-19.
• Those over age 18 who may be at higher risk of a COVID-19 infection because they live or work in a risky setting.

These recommendations are in line with the Food and Drug Administration’s Oct. 20 authorization of the boosters, along with the ability to mix-and-match vaccines.

There are an estimated 47 million Pfizer recipients and 39 million people vaccinated with Moderna who are now eligible for a booster dose, according to data presented by the CDC.
 

Questions, concerns

Before voting, some committee members expressed discomfort in broadly recommending boosters, stressing that there is very little evidence supporting the need for boosters in people younger than age 50.

“I can’t say that I am comfortable that anybody under 50 – an otherwise healthy individual – needs a booster vaccine at this time with either Moderna or Pfizer,” said ACIP member Sarah Long, MD, professor of pediatrics at Drexel University in Philadelphia.

She said she would try to mitigate any potential harm by having some kind of age restriction on the otherwise worried well.

“We don’t usually have the vaccines [for] the worried well. We give it because we have a need that’s worth the risk, and there’s a burden of severity of disease,” Dr. Long said.

The evidence to date shows that all the vaccines authorized for use in the U.S. continue to protect people well against severe COVID-19 outcomes, including hospitalization and death.

But breakthrough infections are on the rise, especially for people who initially received the Johnson and Johnson one-dose vaccine.

On Oct. 21, Pfizer released data from a study of more than 10,000 fully vaccinated people. Half were randomly assigned to get a booster of their Comirnaty vaccine, the other half were given a placebo.

Over the ensuing 2.5 months, there were 5 COVID-19 cases in the boosted group, and 109 in the group that got a placebo.

The data were posted in a press release and have not yet been peer reviewed, but are the first to show clinical effectiveness of boosters at preventing COVID-19 infections.

Data recently considered by the FDA and CDC for booster doses come from studies that were mostly shorter and smaller. These studies looked at biomarkers of immunity like the concentration of antibodies in a person’s blood and the percentage of study participants who saw a boost to those antibodies.

The studies demonstrated that boosters indeed restore high levels of antibodies, but unlike the newest Pfizer data they were not able to show that these antibodies prevented COVID-19.

These studies also weren’t powered to pick up on any less common safety problems that might arise after another dose of the shots.
 

“Real world” recommendations

In the end, however, the panel felt it was more important to be permissive in allowing boosters so that individuals and their doctors could be free to make their own decisions.

“The decision made by the FDA and the ACIP recommendations, I think, reflects the real world. The public is going to do what they feel driven to do. This at least adds a scientific review of the currently available data,” said Jay Varkey, MD, an infectious disease physician and associate professor at Emory University in Atlanta, who was not involved in the ACIP’s deliberations.

Dr. Varkey said he would recommend that anyone who is younger than 65, and who has no underlying medical conditions such as diabetes or obesity, speak with their doctor about their individual benefits and risks before getting a booster.

The CDC is planning to release a detailed suite of clinical considerations to help people weigh the risks and benefits of getting a booster.

Safety updates presented at the meeting show that serious adverse events after vaccination are extremely rare, but in some cases, they may rise above the risk for those problems generally seen in the population.

Those rare events include the disabling autoimmune condition Guillain-Barré syndrome and the platelet disorder thrombosis with thrombocytopenia (TTS), which causes blood clots along with the risk of excess bleeding because of a low platelet count.

Both can occur after the J&J vaccine. Out of 15.3 million doses of the vaccine given to date, there have been 47 cases of TTS and five deaths. These events are more common in younger women.

The mRNA vaccines, such as those from Pfizer and Moderna, can cause heart inflammation called myocarditis or pericarditis. This side effect is more common in men 18-24 years old. The reported rate of myocarditis after vaccination is 39 cases for every 1 million doses.

In voting to permit boosters, committee member Wilbur Chen, MD, professor at the University of Maryland’s Center for Vaccine Development, said he hoped boosters wouldn’t give Americans false confidence.

Dr. Chen stressed that ending the pandemic would depend on “a multilayered approach” that includes masking, social distancing, avoiding large crowds indoors, and convincing more Americans to take their first doses of the vaccines.

“We’re not just going to vaccinate ourselves out of this situation,” Dr. Chen said.
 

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

Editor’s note: This story was updated with the CDC director’s endorsement.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, has signed off on an advisory panel’s earlier unanimous vote to recommend boosters for the Moderna and Johnson and Johnson COVID vaccines.

The decision now means that millions of Americans are eligible to get a booster shot for either the Pfizer, Moderna, or J&J COVID vaccines.

“The evidence shows that all three COVID-19 vaccines authorized in the United States are safe – as demonstrated by the over 400 million vaccine doses already given. And, they are all highly effective in reducing the risk of severe disease, hospitalization, and death, even in the midst of the widely circulating Delta variant,” Dr. Walensky said in a CDC news release.

She also signed off on the panel’s suggestion that individuals can mix or match the booster from any one of the three available COVID-19 vaccines.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommended in a late afternoon 15-0 vote that everyone over age 18 who are at least 2 months past their Johnson & Johnson vaccine should get a booster, an endorsement that affects an estimated 13 million Americans.

Those eligible for a booster at least 6 months after their last Moderna shot are the same groups who can get a Pfizer booster.

They are:

• Anyone over age 65.
• Those over age 18 with an underlying health condition that puts them at risk of severe COVID-19.
• Those over age 18 who may be at higher risk of a COVID-19 infection because they live or work in a risky setting.

These recommendations are in line with the Food and Drug Administration’s Oct. 20 authorization of the boosters, along with the ability to mix-and-match vaccines.

There are an estimated 47 million Pfizer recipients and 39 million people vaccinated with Moderna who are now eligible for a booster dose, according to data presented by the CDC.
 

Questions, concerns

Before voting, some committee members expressed discomfort in broadly recommending boosters, stressing that there is very little evidence supporting the need for boosters in people younger than age 50.

“I can’t say that I am comfortable that anybody under 50 – an otherwise healthy individual – needs a booster vaccine at this time with either Moderna or Pfizer,” said ACIP member Sarah Long, MD, professor of pediatrics at Drexel University in Philadelphia.

She said she would try to mitigate any potential harm by having some kind of age restriction on the otherwise worried well.

“We don’t usually have the vaccines [for] the worried well. We give it because we have a need that’s worth the risk, and there’s a burden of severity of disease,” Dr. Long said.

The evidence to date shows that all the vaccines authorized for use in the U.S. continue to protect people well against severe COVID-19 outcomes, including hospitalization and death.

But breakthrough infections are on the rise, especially for people who initially received the Johnson and Johnson one-dose vaccine.

On Oct. 21, Pfizer released data from a study of more than 10,000 fully vaccinated people. Half were randomly assigned to get a booster of their Comirnaty vaccine, the other half were given a placebo.

Over the ensuing 2.5 months, there were 5 COVID-19 cases in the boosted group, and 109 in the group that got a placebo.

The data were posted in a press release and have not yet been peer reviewed, but are the first to show clinical effectiveness of boosters at preventing COVID-19 infections.

Data recently considered by the FDA and CDC for booster doses come from studies that were mostly shorter and smaller. These studies looked at biomarkers of immunity like the concentration of antibodies in a person’s blood and the percentage of study participants who saw a boost to those antibodies.

The studies demonstrated that boosters indeed restore high levels of antibodies, but unlike the newest Pfizer data they were not able to show that these antibodies prevented COVID-19.

These studies also weren’t powered to pick up on any less common safety problems that might arise after another dose of the shots.
 

“Real world” recommendations

In the end, however, the panel felt it was more important to be permissive in allowing boosters so that individuals and their doctors could be free to make their own decisions.

“The decision made by the FDA and the ACIP recommendations, I think, reflects the real world. The public is going to do what they feel driven to do. This at least adds a scientific review of the currently available data,” said Jay Varkey, MD, an infectious disease physician and associate professor at Emory University in Atlanta, who was not involved in the ACIP’s deliberations.

Dr. Varkey said he would recommend that anyone who is younger than 65, and who has no underlying medical conditions such as diabetes or obesity, speak with their doctor about their individual benefits and risks before getting a booster.

The CDC is planning to release a detailed suite of clinical considerations to help people weigh the risks and benefits of getting a booster.

Safety updates presented at the meeting show that serious adverse events after vaccination are extremely rare, but in some cases, they may rise above the risk for those problems generally seen in the population.

Those rare events include the disabling autoimmune condition Guillain-Barré syndrome and the platelet disorder thrombosis with thrombocytopenia (TTS), which causes blood clots along with the risk of excess bleeding because of a low platelet count.

Both can occur after the J&J vaccine. Out of 15.3 million doses of the vaccine given to date, there have been 47 cases of TTS and five deaths. These events are more common in younger women.

The mRNA vaccines, such as those from Pfizer and Moderna, can cause heart inflammation called myocarditis or pericarditis. This side effect is more common in men 18-24 years old. The reported rate of myocarditis after vaccination is 39 cases for every 1 million doses.

In voting to permit boosters, committee member Wilbur Chen, MD, professor at the University of Maryland’s Center for Vaccine Development, said he hoped boosters wouldn’t give Americans false confidence.

Dr. Chen stressed that ending the pandemic would depend on “a multilayered approach” that includes masking, social distancing, avoiding large crowds indoors, and convincing more Americans to take their first doses of the vaccines.

“We’re not just going to vaccinate ourselves out of this situation,” Dr. Chen said.
 

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

Editor’s note: This story was updated with the CDC director’s endorsement.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, has signed off on an advisory panel’s earlier unanimous vote to recommend boosters for the Moderna and Johnson and Johnson COVID vaccines.

The decision now means that millions of Americans are eligible to get a booster shot for either the Pfizer, Moderna, or J&J COVID vaccines.

“The evidence shows that all three COVID-19 vaccines authorized in the United States are safe – as demonstrated by the over 400 million vaccine doses already given. And, they are all highly effective in reducing the risk of severe disease, hospitalization, and death, even in the midst of the widely circulating Delta variant,” Dr. Walensky said in a CDC news release.

She also signed off on the panel’s suggestion that individuals can mix or match the booster from any one of the three available COVID-19 vaccines.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommended in a late afternoon 15-0 vote that everyone over age 18 who are at least 2 months past their Johnson & Johnson vaccine should get a booster, an endorsement that affects an estimated 13 million Americans.

Those eligible for a booster at least 6 months after their last Moderna shot are the same groups who can get a Pfizer booster.

They are:

• Anyone over age 65.
• Those over age 18 with an underlying health condition that puts them at risk of severe COVID-19.
• Those over age 18 who may be at higher risk of a COVID-19 infection because they live or work in a risky setting.

These recommendations are in line with the Food and Drug Administration’s Oct. 20 authorization of the boosters, along with the ability to mix-and-match vaccines.

There are an estimated 47 million Pfizer recipients and 39 million people vaccinated with Moderna who are now eligible for a booster dose, according to data presented by the CDC.
 

Questions, concerns

Before voting, some committee members expressed discomfort in broadly recommending boosters, stressing that there is very little evidence supporting the need for boosters in people younger than age 50.

“I can’t say that I am comfortable that anybody under 50 – an otherwise healthy individual – needs a booster vaccine at this time with either Moderna or Pfizer,” said ACIP member Sarah Long, MD, professor of pediatrics at Drexel University in Philadelphia.

She said she would try to mitigate any potential harm by having some kind of age restriction on the otherwise worried well.

“We don’t usually have the vaccines [for] the worried well. We give it because we have a need that’s worth the risk, and there’s a burden of severity of disease,” Dr. Long said.

The evidence to date shows that all the vaccines authorized for use in the U.S. continue to protect people well against severe COVID-19 outcomes, including hospitalization and death.

But breakthrough infections are on the rise, especially for people who initially received the Johnson and Johnson one-dose vaccine.

On Oct. 21, Pfizer released data from a study of more than 10,000 fully vaccinated people. Half were randomly assigned to get a booster of their Comirnaty vaccine, the other half were given a placebo.

Over the ensuing 2.5 months, there were 5 COVID-19 cases in the boosted group, and 109 in the group that got a placebo.

The data were posted in a press release and have not yet been peer reviewed, but are the first to show clinical effectiveness of boosters at preventing COVID-19 infections.

Data recently considered by the FDA and CDC for booster doses come from studies that were mostly shorter and smaller. These studies looked at biomarkers of immunity like the concentration of antibodies in a person’s blood and the percentage of study participants who saw a boost to those antibodies.

The studies demonstrated that boosters indeed restore high levels of antibodies, but unlike the newest Pfizer data they were not able to show that these antibodies prevented COVID-19.

These studies also weren’t powered to pick up on any less common safety problems that might arise after another dose of the shots.
 

“Real world” recommendations

In the end, however, the panel felt it was more important to be permissive in allowing boosters so that individuals and their doctors could be free to make their own decisions.

“The decision made by the FDA and the ACIP recommendations, I think, reflects the real world. The public is going to do what they feel driven to do. This at least adds a scientific review of the currently available data,” said Jay Varkey, MD, an infectious disease physician and associate professor at Emory University in Atlanta, who was not involved in the ACIP’s deliberations.

Dr. Varkey said he would recommend that anyone who is younger than 65, and who has no underlying medical conditions such as diabetes or obesity, speak with their doctor about their individual benefits and risks before getting a booster.

The CDC is planning to release a detailed suite of clinical considerations to help people weigh the risks and benefits of getting a booster.

Safety updates presented at the meeting show that serious adverse events after vaccination are extremely rare, but in some cases, they may rise above the risk for those problems generally seen in the population.

Those rare events include the disabling autoimmune condition Guillain-Barré syndrome and the platelet disorder thrombosis with thrombocytopenia (TTS), which causes blood clots along with the risk of excess bleeding because of a low platelet count.

Both can occur after the J&J vaccine. Out of 15.3 million doses of the vaccine given to date, there have been 47 cases of TTS and five deaths. These events are more common in younger women.

The mRNA vaccines, such as those from Pfizer and Moderna, can cause heart inflammation called myocarditis or pericarditis. This side effect is more common in men 18-24 years old. The reported rate of myocarditis after vaccination is 39 cases for every 1 million doses.

In voting to permit boosters, committee member Wilbur Chen, MD, professor at the University of Maryland’s Center for Vaccine Development, said he hoped boosters wouldn’t give Americans false confidence.

Dr. Chen stressed that ending the pandemic would depend on “a multilayered approach” that includes masking, social distancing, avoiding large crowds indoors, and convincing more Americans to take their first doses of the vaccines.

“We’re not just going to vaccinate ourselves out of this situation,” Dr. Chen said.
 

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

A survey of more than 12,000 women of reproductive age found that one in three had experienced changes to their menstrual cycles and symptoms during the COVID-19 pandemic. Noticeably higher stress levels than prepandemic benchmarks could be affecting menstruation.

This has implications for women trying to conceive or struggling with infertility, said Shannon M. Malloy, a research and data associate with Ovia Health, a women’s and family health technology company in Boston. Ms. Malloy presented this study at the American Society of Reproductive Medicine’s 2021 meeting.

COVID-19 has introduced new psychosocial, interpersonal, and environmental stressors. The pandemic is “one of the most stressful, collectively experienced disasters modern society has ever seen,” said Ms. Malloy. Once imagined as an explicit event in time, COVID-19 has ingrained itself into daily life for the foreseeable future.

Research has shown that chronic, long-term stress produces high cortisol levels, which can alter endocrinology and regulation of menstrual cycles. This can make family building even more challenging, said Ms. Malloy. Physicians and other providers have always taken stress into account when managing patients, but never at this level of chronic, episodic stress, she said.
 

Survey examines impact on ART

Ovia Health decided to investigate the relationship between perceived stress and menstrual cycle and symptom changes during the COVID-19 pandemic, to see how it might affect assisted reproductive technology (ART).

From March 2020 to April 2021, users of Ovia Health’s Fertility mobile application in the United States took part in a survey. Items captured changes in menstruation pattern and symptomatology and included the Perceived Stress Scale 4-item version (PSS-4). A paired t-test evaluated differences between groups (menstrual changes versus no menstrual changes). The survey asked participants what changes they noticed in their menstrual cycle and why they thought cycle patterns or symptoms changed.
 

One-third report changes in cycle, symptoms

Among 12,302 respondents, 1 in 3 (36%) reported changes in cycle or symptoms. Eighty-seven percent said that their cycle started early or late. Twenty-nine percent reported stronger symptoms during menstruation such as low back pain, cramping, or discharge changes, and 27% said bleeding was heavier during periods.

These results are similar to other studies investigating the affect of episodic stress on menstruation, said Ms. Malloy.

Those who reported menstrual cycle or symptom changes scored higher on average on the PSS-4 compared with those who didn’t report any changes (8.5 v. 8.3, respectively, P < .05). PSS-4 scores across the board were notably higher in all respondents, regardless of cycle/symptom irregularity, compared with prepandemic benchmarking in similar populations.

Slightly more than half (55%) thought stress contributed to their menstrual cycle pattern and/or symptom changes, whereas 33% pointed to changes in mental health, such as depression or anxiety. “Interestingly, many users believed the COVID-19 vaccine impacted their menstrual cycle symptom changes,” said Ms. Malloy.
 

No definitive link between vaccine, menstruation

While known side effects of the vaccine include sore arm, fever, fatigue, and myalgia, some women have reported changes in their menstrual cycle, Mark P. Trolice, MD, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Central Florida and director of the IVF Center in Orlando, said in an interview.

“Vaccination reaction from the immune response rather than the vaccine may be the implicating factor,” said Dr. Trolice, who was not involved in the study.

Currently, there’s no direct link between the vaccine and subsequent effects on menstruation, he continued. “Most women experience resumption of normal intervals 1 month following vaccination. Further, there is no credible evidence that links the vaccine to infertility.

“Nevertheless, research in this area is vital and underway,” he added.
 

Physicians can help with stress

Menstrual cycle disruption is especially frustrating for women trying to build a family, said Ms. Malloy. Providers may be observing more menstrual irregularity in their patient populations, and seeing more patients struggle to conceive on their own, turning to ART.

Providers can’t make COVID-19 go away, but they could help patients by doing a better job of integrating mental health screening, connecting patients to treatments that optimize conception and fertility treatment outcomes, said Ms. Malloy.

The survey was limited in that its questions didn’t consider proper diagnostic criteria for irregularity, versus self-reported changes. But it does highlight the need for more research on the pandemic’s affect on menstruation and the vaccine on menstruation, said Ms. Malloy. “The National Institutes of Health in August committed $1.6 million to explore this connection. We’re looking forward to seeing what their results are.” 

Dr. Trolice and Ms. Malloy had no disclosures.

A survey of more than 12,000 women of reproductive age found that one in three had experienced changes to their menstrual cycles and symptoms during the COVID-19 pandemic. Noticeably higher stress levels than prepandemic benchmarks could be affecting menstruation.

This has implications for women trying to conceive or struggling with infertility, said Shannon M. Malloy, a research and data associate with Ovia Health, a women’s and family health technology company in Boston. Ms. Malloy presented this study at the American Society of Reproductive Medicine’s 2021 meeting.

COVID-19 has introduced new psychosocial, interpersonal, and environmental stressors. The pandemic is “one of the most stressful, collectively experienced disasters modern society has ever seen,” said Ms. Malloy. Once imagined as an explicit event in time, COVID-19 has ingrained itself into daily life for the foreseeable future.

Research has shown that chronic, long-term stress produces high cortisol levels, which can alter endocrinology and regulation of menstrual cycles. This can make family building even more challenging, said Ms. Malloy. Physicians and other providers have always taken stress into account when managing patients, but never at this level of chronic, episodic stress, she said.
 

Survey examines impact on ART

Ovia Health decided to investigate the relationship between perceived stress and menstrual cycle and symptom changes during the COVID-19 pandemic, to see how it might affect assisted reproductive technology (ART).

From March 2020 to April 2021, users of Ovia Health’s Fertility mobile application in the United States took part in a survey. Items captured changes in menstruation pattern and symptomatology and included the Perceived Stress Scale 4-item version (PSS-4). A paired t-test evaluated differences between groups (menstrual changes versus no menstrual changes). The survey asked participants what changes they noticed in their menstrual cycle and why they thought cycle patterns or symptoms changed.
 

One-third report changes in cycle, symptoms

Among 12,302 respondents, 1 in 3 (36%) reported changes in cycle or symptoms. Eighty-seven percent said that their cycle started early or late. Twenty-nine percent reported stronger symptoms during menstruation such as low back pain, cramping, or discharge changes, and 27% said bleeding was heavier during periods.

These results are similar to other studies investigating the affect of episodic stress on menstruation, said Ms. Malloy.

Those who reported menstrual cycle or symptom changes scored higher on average on the PSS-4 compared with those who didn’t report any changes (8.5 v. 8.3, respectively, P < .05). PSS-4 scores across the board were notably higher in all respondents, regardless of cycle/symptom irregularity, compared with prepandemic benchmarking in similar populations.

Slightly more than half (55%) thought stress contributed to their menstrual cycle pattern and/or symptom changes, whereas 33% pointed to changes in mental health, such as depression or anxiety. “Interestingly, many users believed the COVID-19 vaccine impacted their menstrual cycle symptom changes,” said Ms. Malloy.
 

No definitive link between vaccine, menstruation

While known side effects of the vaccine include sore arm, fever, fatigue, and myalgia, some women have reported changes in their menstrual cycle, Mark P. Trolice, MD, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Central Florida and director of the IVF Center in Orlando, said in an interview.

“Vaccination reaction from the immune response rather than the vaccine may be the implicating factor,” said Dr. Trolice, who was not involved in the study.

Currently, there’s no direct link between the vaccine and subsequent effects on menstruation, he continued. “Most women experience resumption of normal intervals 1 month following vaccination. Further, there is no credible evidence that links the vaccine to infertility.

“Nevertheless, research in this area is vital and underway,” he added.
 

Physicians can help with stress

Menstrual cycle disruption is especially frustrating for women trying to build a family, said Ms. Malloy. Providers may be observing more menstrual irregularity in their patient populations, and seeing more patients struggle to conceive on their own, turning to ART.

Providers can’t make COVID-19 go away, but they could help patients by doing a better job of integrating mental health screening, connecting patients to treatments that optimize conception and fertility treatment outcomes, said Ms. Malloy.

The survey was limited in that its questions didn’t consider proper diagnostic criteria for irregularity, versus self-reported changes. But it does highlight the need for more research on the pandemic’s affect on menstruation and the vaccine on menstruation, said Ms. Malloy. “The National Institutes of Health in August committed $1.6 million to explore this connection. We’re looking forward to seeing what their results are.” 

Dr. Trolice and Ms. Malloy had no disclosures.

A survey of more than 12,000 women of reproductive age found that one in three had experienced changes to their menstrual cycles and symptoms during the COVID-19 pandemic. Noticeably higher stress levels than prepandemic benchmarks could be affecting menstruation.

This has implications for women trying to conceive or struggling with infertility, said Shannon M. Malloy, a research and data associate with Ovia Health, a women’s and family health technology company in Boston. Ms. Malloy presented this study at the American Society of Reproductive Medicine’s 2021 meeting.

COVID-19 has introduced new psychosocial, interpersonal, and environmental stressors. The pandemic is “one of the most stressful, collectively experienced disasters modern society has ever seen,” said Ms. Malloy. Once imagined as an explicit event in time, COVID-19 has ingrained itself into daily life for the foreseeable future.

Research has shown that chronic, long-term stress produces high cortisol levels, which can alter endocrinology and regulation of menstrual cycles. This can make family building even more challenging, said Ms. Malloy. Physicians and other providers have always taken stress into account when managing patients, but never at this level of chronic, episodic stress, she said.
 

Survey examines impact on ART

Ovia Health decided to investigate the relationship between perceived stress and menstrual cycle and symptom changes during the COVID-19 pandemic, to see how it might affect assisted reproductive technology (ART).

From March 2020 to April 2021, users of Ovia Health’s Fertility mobile application in the United States took part in a survey. Items captured changes in menstruation pattern and symptomatology and included the Perceived Stress Scale 4-item version (PSS-4). A paired t-test evaluated differences between groups (menstrual changes versus no menstrual changes). The survey asked participants what changes they noticed in their menstrual cycle and why they thought cycle patterns or symptoms changed.
 

One-third report changes in cycle, symptoms

Among 12,302 respondents, 1 in 3 (36%) reported changes in cycle or symptoms. Eighty-seven percent said that their cycle started early or late. Twenty-nine percent reported stronger symptoms during menstruation such as low back pain, cramping, or discharge changes, and 27% said bleeding was heavier during periods.

These results are similar to other studies investigating the affect of episodic stress on menstruation, said Ms. Malloy.

Those who reported menstrual cycle or symptom changes scored higher on average on the PSS-4 compared with those who didn’t report any changes (8.5 v. 8.3, respectively, P < .05). PSS-4 scores across the board were notably higher in all respondents, regardless of cycle/symptom irregularity, compared with prepandemic benchmarking in similar populations.

Slightly more than half (55%) thought stress contributed to their menstrual cycle pattern and/or symptom changes, whereas 33% pointed to changes in mental health, such as depression or anxiety. “Interestingly, many users believed the COVID-19 vaccine impacted their menstrual cycle symptom changes,” said Ms. Malloy.
 

No definitive link between vaccine, menstruation

While known side effects of the vaccine include sore arm, fever, fatigue, and myalgia, some women have reported changes in their menstrual cycle, Mark P. Trolice, MD, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Central Florida and director of the IVF Center in Orlando, said in an interview.

“Vaccination reaction from the immune response rather than the vaccine may be the implicating factor,” said Dr. Trolice, who was not involved in the study.

Currently, there’s no direct link between the vaccine and subsequent effects on menstruation, he continued. “Most women experience resumption of normal intervals 1 month following vaccination. Further, there is no credible evidence that links the vaccine to infertility.

“Nevertheless, research in this area is vital and underway,” he added.
 

Physicians can help with stress

Menstrual cycle disruption is especially frustrating for women trying to build a family, said Ms. Malloy. Providers may be observing more menstrual irregularity in their patient populations, and seeing more patients struggle to conceive on their own, turning to ART.

Providers can’t make COVID-19 go away, but they could help patients by doing a better job of integrating mental health screening, connecting patients to treatments that optimize conception and fertility treatment outcomes, said Ms. Malloy.

The survey was limited in that its questions didn’t consider proper diagnostic criteria for irregularity, versus self-reported changes. But it does highlight the need for more research on the pandemic’s affect on menstruation and the vaccine on menstruation, said Ms. Malloy. “The National Institutes of Health in August committed $1.6 million to explore this connection. We’re looking forward to seeing what their results are.” 

Dr. Trolice and Ms. Malloy had no disclosures.

Physicians could be doing a better job of counseling patients with obesity and overweight on weight loss and fertility. A study of 48 women seeking infertility care at a large academic center found that less than half received advice on weight loss from their primary ob.gyn. prior to referral for infertility treatment.

Patients are thinking about this – many attempt to lose weight independently of support from their health care providers, said lead study author Margaret R. O’Neill, MD, a resident at the University of Massachusetts Medical Center in Worcester. Dr. O’Neill discussed these results at the American Society of Reproductive Medicine’s 2021 meeting.

Nearly half of all U.S. women of reproductive age have overweight or obesity, with a body mass index of >25 kg/m². Menstrual irregularity, ovulatory dysfunction, reduced fecundity, and lower efficacy of infertility treatment are some of the consequences of obesity on fertility, said Dr. O’Neill. Obesity also affects the health of expectant mothers and fetuses, increasing the likelihood of gestational diabetes, preterm delivery, and preeclampsia, and increased incidence of fetal anomalies.

“Unfortunately, even though the prevalence of obesity has been increasing substantially in our country, there’s not excellent rates of this being addressed by physicians,” said Dr. O’Neill. BMI is often left out of documentation and rates of referrals to weight loss specialists are also low.

Conversations have been taking place about IVF centers instituting different BMI cutoffs for certain types of assisted reproductive technology, she noted.

Dr. O’Neill and her colleagues undertook a survey to see what advice community providers were dispensing about weight management on fertility.
 

Infertility specialists offer the most guidance

The prospective study included 48 nonpregnant women of reproductive age women presenting for IVF who needed an anesthesia consultation because of elevated BMI (> 35) prior to initiation of IVF. Mean age was 36 years and mean BMI was 38.5. More than 70% of the patients were White and they were predominantly English speakers.

All participants had attempted weight loss, including an attempt in the last year, and 93.8% reported trying to lose weight in the last year. On average, patients weighed about 20 pounds less than their heaviest adult weight. Nineteen percent of the participants were at their heaviest adult weight.

While 60% said they’d received weight loss/infertility counseling by any health care provider, just 41.7% reported that their primary ob.gyn. counseled them about weight loss before referring them for treatment. Infertility specialists seem to provide the most assistance: Nearly 70% of the respondents said they’ve been counseled by these providers.

Women with a higher-than-average BMI (39) were more likely to report a referral to weight loss counseling compared with women not referred (37.9, P = .2). 

Investigators also asked patients about their knowledge of obesity and its relationship to other health conditions. About 90% understood that infertility and excess weight were related. Overall, they were less sure about the link between obesity and still birth, breast cancer, and birth defects. Only 37% were able to identify a normal BMI range.
 

Avoiding a touchy subject

BMI is a highly sensitive area for many women, despite its detrimental effect on fertility, Mark P. Trolice, MD, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Central Florida and director of the IVF Center in Orlando, said in an interview.

“By the time their journey has led them to an infertility specialist, most women are very anxious to begin treatment,” said Dr. Trolice, who was not involved in the survey. These patients, however, could interpret any medical advice to achieve a more optimal BMI and healthier lifestyle as a negative judgment that could delay their goal of having a healthy child, he said.

Physicians in turn may avoid these conversations because they don’t want to encourage the ire of patients and/or risk a negative online rating review, he added.

Don’t say ‘just lose weight’

When asked what type of counseling works best, many said that nonspecific recommendations such as “you need to lose weight” or “exercise more” were the least helpful. Targeted advice such as “avoid eating at night and take walks every day,” works more effectively. “Any kind of referral to a bariatrics team or weight loss program was seen as helpful by patients,” said Dr. O’Neill.

Suggestions that considered the difficulty of this process, such as seeking therapy, were also helpful. “Patients appreciated empathy, compassion, and encouragement” from their physicians, she said.
 

The role of physicians in weight loss

Physicians can make a difference. Studies show that patients who received weight loss counseling were more likely to attempt weight loss and report clinically significant weight loss.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and ASRM recommend counseling patients with overweight and obesity to lose weight before getting pregnant. A modest weight loss of 10% is associated with improved ovulatory function and higher pregnancy rates, said Dr. O’Neill.

“Appropriately, the infertility specialist should strongly recommend [that women who are obese] obtain a more optimal BMI prior to fertility treatment. While there is no guarantee of decreased infertility and decreased pregnancy complications following weight loss, a lower BMI improves outcomes,” said Dr. Trolice.

Future research should address the fertility outcomes of women who have been counseled by their providers to lose weight and the most effective method of counseling, noted Dr. O’Neill. “We have to find the best ways to address this at each fertility institution.”

The study had limited generalizability because of its narrow patient population and regional differences in access to insurance and weight loss specialists. COVID-19 also reduced the sample size, said Dr. O’Neill. She noted that patient perceptions might not equate with actual counseling delivered.

Dr. O’Neill and Dr. Trolice had no disclosures.

Physicians could be doing a better job of counseling patients with obesity and overweight on weight loss and fertility. A study of 48 women seeking infertility care at a large academic center found that less than half received advice on weight loss from their primary ob.gyn. prior to referral for infertility treatment.

Patients are thinking about this – many attempt to lose weight independently of support from their health care providers, said lead study author Margaret R. O’Neill, MD, a resident at the University of Massachusetts Medical Center in Worcester. Dr. O’Neill discussed these results at the American Society of Reproductive Medicine’s 2021 meeting.

Nearly half of all U.S. women of reproductive age have overweight or obesity, with a body mass index of >25 kg/m². Menstrual irregularity, ovulatory dysfunction, reduced fecundity, and lower efficacy of infertility treatment are some of the consequences of obesity on fertility, said Dr. O’Neill. Obesity also affects the health of expectant mothers and fetuses, increasing the likelihood of gestational diabetes, preterm delivery, and preeclampsia, and increased incidence of fetal anomalies.

“Unfortunately, even though the prevalence of obesity has been increasing substantially in our country, there’s not excellent rates of this being addressed by physicians,” said Dr. O’Neill. BMI is often left out of documentation and rates of referrals to weight loss specialists are also low.

Conversations have been taking place about IVF centers instituting different BMI cutoffs for certain types of assisted reproductive technology, she noted.

Dr. O’Neill and her colleagues undertook a survey to see what advice community providers were dispensing about weight management on fertility.
 

Infertility specialists offer the most guidance

The prospective study included 48 nonpregnant women of reproductive age women presenting for IVF who needed an anesthesia consultation because of elevated BMI (> 35) prior to initiation of IVF. Mean age was 36 years and mean BMI was 38.5. More than 70% of the patients were White and they were predominantly English speakers.

All participants had attempted weight loss, including an attempt in the last year, and 93.8% reported trying to lose weight in the last year. On average, patients weighed about 20 pounds less than their heaviest adult weight. Nineteen percent of the participants were at their heaviest adult weight.

While 60% said they’d received weight loss/infertility counseling by any health care provider, just 41.7% reported that their primary ob.gyn. counseled them about weight loss before referring them for treatment. Infertility specialists seem to provide the most assistance: Nearly 70% of the respondents said they’ve been counseled by these providers.

Women with a higher-than-average BMI (39) were more likely to report a referral to weight loss counseling compared with women not referred (37.9, P = .2). 

Investigators also asked patients about their knowledge of obesity and its relationship to other health conditions. About 90% understood that infertility and excess weight were related. Overall, they were less sure about the link between obesity and still birth, breast cancer, and birth defects. Only 37% were able to identify a normal BMI range.
 

Avoiding a touchy subject

BMI is a highly sensitive area for many women, despite its detrimental effect on fertility, Mark P. Trolice, MD, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Central Florida and director of the IVF Center in Orlando, said in an interview.

“By the time their journey has led them to an infertility specialist, most women are very anxious to begin treatment,” said Dr. Trolice, who was not involved in the survey. These patients, however, could interpret any medical advice to achieve a more optimal BMI and healthier lifestyle as a negative judgment that could delay their goal of having a healthy child, he said.

Physicians in turn may avoid these conversations because they don’t want to encourage the ire of patients and/or risk a negative online rating review, he added.

Don’t say ‘just lose weight’

When asked what type of counseling works best, many said that nonspecific recommendations such as “you need to lose weight” or “exercise more” were the least helpful. Targeted advice such as “avoid eating at night and take walks every day,” works more effectively. “Any kind of referral to a bariatrics team or weight loss program was seen as helpful by patients,” said Dr. O’Neill.

Suggestions that considered the difficulty of this process, such as seeking therapy, were also helpful. “Patients appreciated empathy, compassion, and encouragement” from their physicians, she said.
 

The role of physicians in weight loss

Physicians can make a difference. Studies show that patients who received weight loss counseling were more likely to attempt weight loss and report clinically significant weight loss.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and ASRM recommend counseling patients with overweight and obesity to lose weight before getting pregnant. A modest weight loss of 10% is associated with improved ovulatory function and higher pregnancy rates, said Dr. O’Neill.

“Appropriately, the infertility specialist should strongly recommend [that women who are obese] obtain a more optimal BMI prior to fertility treatment. While there is no guarantee of decreased infertility and decreased pregnancy complications following weight loss, a lower BMI improves outcomes,” said Dr. Trolice.

Future research should address the fertility outcomes of women who have been counseled by their providers to lose weight and the most effective method of counseling, noted Dr. O’Neill. “We have to find the best ways to address this at each fertility institution.”

The study had limited generalizability because of its narrow patient population and regional differences in access to insurance and weight loss specialists. COVID-19 also reduced the sample size, said Dr. O’Neill. She noted that patient perceptions might not equate with actual counseling delivered.

Dr. O’Neill and Dr. Trolice had no disclosures.

Physicians could be doing a better job of counseling patients with obesity and overweight on weight loss and fertility. A study of 48 women seeking infertility care at a large academic center found that less than half received advice on weight loss from their primary ob.gyn. prior to referral for infertility treatment.

Patients are thinking about this – many attempt to lose weight independently of support from their health care providers, said lead study author Margaret R. O’Neill, MD, a resident at the University of Massachusetts Medical Center in Worcester. Dr. O’Neill discussed these results at the American Society of Reproductive Medicine’s 2021 meeting.

Nearly half of all U.S. women of reproductive age have overweight or obesity, with a body mass index of >25 kg/m². Menstrual irregularity, ovulatory dysfunction, reduced fecundity, and lower efficacy of infertility treatment are some of the consequences of obesity on fertility, said Dr. O’Neill. Obesity also affects the health of expectant mothers and fetuses, increasing the likelihood of gestational diabetes, preterm delivery, and preeclampsia, and increased incidence of fetal anomalies.

“Unfortunately, even though the prevalence of obesity has been increasing substantially in our country, there’s not excellent rates of this being addressed by physicians,” said Dr. O’Neill. BMI is often left out of documentation and rates of referrals to weight loss specialists are also low.

Conversations have been taking place about IVF centers instituting different BMI cutoffs for certain types of assisted reproductive technology, she noted.

Dr. O’Neill and her colleagues undertook a survey to see what advice community providers were dispensing about weight management on fertility.
 

Infertility specialists offer the most guidance

The prospective study included 48 nonpregnant women of reproductive age women presenting for IVF who needed an anesthesia consultation because of elevated BMI (> 35) prior to initiation of IVF. Mean age was 36 years and mean BMI was 38.5. More than 70% of the patients were White and they were predominantly English speakers.

All participants had attempted weight loss, including an attempt in the last year, and 93.8% reported trying to lose weight in the last year. On average, patients weighed about 20 pounds less than their heaviest adult weight. Nineteen percent of the participants were at their heaviest adult weight.

While 60% said they’d received weight loss/infertility counseling by any health care provider, just 41.7% reported that their primary ob.gyn. counseled them about weight loss before referring them for treatment. Infertility specialists seem to provide the most assistance: Nearly 70% of the respondents said they’ve been counseled by these providers.

Women with a higher-than-average BMI (39) were more likely to report a referral to weight loss counseling compared with women not referred (37.9, P = .2). 

Investigators also asked patients about their knowledge of obesity and its relationship to other health conditions. About 90% understood that infertility and excess weight were related. Overall, they were less sure about the link between obesity and still birth, breast cancer, and birth defects. Only 37% were able to identify a normal BMI range.
 

Avoiding a touchy subject

BMI is a highly sensitive area for many women, despite its detrimental effect on fertility, Mark P. Trolice, MD, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Central Florida and director of the IVF Center in Orlando, said in an interview.

“By the time their journey has led them to an infertility specialist, most women are very anxious to begin treatment,” said Dr. Trolice, who was not involved in the survey. These patients, however, could interpret any medical advice to achieve a more optimal BMI and healthier lifestyle as a negative judgment that could delay their goal of having a healthy child, he said.

Physicians in turn may avoid these conversations because they don’t want to encourage the ire of patients and/or risk a negative online rating review, he added.

Don’t say ‘just lose weight’

When asked what type of counseling works best, many said that nonspecific recommendations such as “you need to lose weight” or “exercise more” were the least helpful. Targeted advice such as “avoid eating at night and take walks every day,” works more effectively. “Any kind of referral to a bariatrics team or weight loss program was seen as helpful by patients,” said Dr. O’Neill.

Suggestions that considered the difficulty of this process, such as seeking therapy, were also helpful. “Patients appreciated empathy, compassion, and encouragement” from their physicians, she said.
 

The role of physicians in weight loss

Physicians can make a difference. Studies show that patients who received weight loss counseling were more likely to attempt weight loss and report clinically significant weight loss.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and ASRM recommend counseling patients with overweight and obesity to lose weight before getting pregnant. A modest weight loss of 10% is associated with improved ovulatory function and higher pregnancy rates, said Dr. O’Neill.

“Appropriately, the infertility specialist should strongly recommend [that women who are obese] obtain a more optimal BMI prior to fertility treatment. While there is no guarantee of decreased infertility and decreased pregnancy complications following weight loss, a lower BMI improves outcomes,” said Dr. Trolice.

Future research should address the fertility outcomes of women who have been counseled by their providers to lose weight and the most effective method of counseling, noted Dr. O’Neill. “We have to find the best ways to address this at each fertility institution.”

The study had limited generalizability because of its narrow patient population and regional differences in access to insurance and weight loss specialists. COVID-19 also reduced the sample size, said Dr. O’Neill. She noted that patient perceptions might not equate with actual counseling delivered.

Dr. O’Neill and Dr. Trolice had no disclosures.

Calculating the estimated glucose disposal rate (eGDR) as a proxy for the level of insulin resistance may be useful way to determine if someone with type 2 diabetes (T2D) is at risk for having a first stroke, Swedish researchers have found.

purestock/Thinkstock

In a large population-based study, the lower the eGDR score went, the higher the risk for having a first stroke became.

The eGDR score was also predictive of the chance of dying from any or a cardiovascular cause, Alexander Zabala, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (Abstract OP 01-4).

The link between insulin resistance and an increased risk for stroke has been known for some time, and not just in people with T2D. However, the current way of determining insulin resistance is not suitable for widespread practice.

“The goal standard technique for measuring insulin resistance is the euglycemic clamp method,” said Dr. Zabala, an internal medical resident at Södersjukhuset hospital and researcher at the Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm.

“For that reason, [the eGDR], a method based on readily available clinical factors – waist circumference, hypertension, and glycosylated hemoglobin was developed,” he explained. Body mass index can also be used in place of waist circumference, he qualified.

The eGDR has already been proven to be very precise in people with type 1 diabetes, said Dr. Zabala, and could be an “excellent tool to measure insulin resistance in a large patient population.”
 

Investigating the link between eGDR and first stroke risk

The aim of the study he presented was to see if changes in the eGDR were associated with changes in the risk of someone with T2D experiencing a first stroke, or dying from a cardiovascular or other cause.

An observational cohort was formed by first considering data on all adult patients with T2D who were logged in the Swedish National Diabetes Registry (NDR) during 2004-2016. Then anyone with a history of stroke, or with any missing data on the clinical variables needed to calculate the eGDR, were excluded.

This resulted in an overall population of 104,697 individuals, aged a mean of 63 years, who had developed T2D at around the age of 59 years. About 44% of the study population were women. The mean eGDR for the whole population was 5.6 mg/kg per min.

The study subjects were grouped according to four eGDR levels: 24,706 were in the lowest quartile of eGDR (less than 4 mg/kg per min), signifying the highest level of insulin resistance, and 18,762 were in the upper quartile of eGDR (greater than 8 mg/kg per min), signifying the lowest level of insulin resistance. The middle two groups had an eGDR between 4 and 6 mg/kg per min (40,187), and 6 and 8 mg/kg/min (21,042).

Data from the NDR were then combined with the Swedish Cause of Death register, the Swedish In-patient Care Diagnoses registry, and the Longitudinal Database for Health Insurance and Labour Market Studies (LISA) to determine the rates of stroke, ischemic stroke, hemorrhagic stroke, all-cause mortality, and cardiovascular mortality.
 

Increasing insulin resistance ups risk for stroke, death

After a median follow-up of 5.6 years, 4% (4,201) of the study population had had a stroke.

“We clearly see an increased occurrence of first-time stroke in the group with the lowest eGDR, indicating worst insulin resistance, in comparison with the group with the highest eGDR, indicating less insulin resistance,” Dr. Zabala reported.

After adjustment for potential confounding factors, including age at baseline, gender, diabetes duration, among other variables, the risk for stroke was lowest in those with a high eGDR value and highest for those with a low eGDR value.

Using individuals with the lowest eGDR (less than 4 mg/kg per min) and thus greatest risk of stroke as the reference, adjusted hazard ratios (aHR) for first-time stroke were: 0.60, 0.68, and 0.77 for those with an eGDR of greater than 8, 6-8, and 4-6 mg/kg per min, respectively.

The corresponding values for risk of ischemic stroke were 0.55, 0.68, and 0.75. Regarding hemorrhagic stroke, there was no statistically significant correlation between eGDR levels and stroke occurrence. This was due to the small number of cases recorded.

As for all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, a similar pattern was seen, with higher rates of death linked to increasing insulin resistance. Adjusted hazard ratios according to increasing insulin resistance (decreasing eGDR scores) for all-cause death were 0.68, 0.75, and 0.82 and for cardiovascular mortality were 0.65, 0.75, and 0.82.

A sensitivity analysis, using BMI instead of waist circumference to calculate the eGDR, showed a similar pattern, and “interestingly, a correlation between eGDR levels and risk of hemorrhagic stroke.” Dr. Zabala said.
 

Limitations and take-homes

Of course, this is an observational cohort study, so no conclusions on causality can be made and there are no data on the use of anti-diabetic treatments specifically. But there are strengths such as covering almost all adults with T2D in Sweden and a relatively long-follow-up time.

The findings suggest that “eGDR, which may reflect insulin resistance may be a useful risk marker for stroke and death in people with type 2 diabetes,” said Dr. Zabala.

“You had a very large cohort, and that certainly makes your results very valid,” observed Peter Novodvorsky, MUDr. (Hons), PhD, MRCP, a consultant diabetologist in Trenčín, Slovakia.

Dr. Novodvorsky, who chaired the session, picked up on the lack of information about how many people were taking newer diabetes drugs, such as the glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor antagonists and sodium glucose-lowering transport 2 inhibitors.

“As we all know, these might have protective effects which are not necessarily related to the glucose lowering or insulin resistance-lowering” effects, so could have influenced the results. In terms of how practical the eGDR is for clinical practice, Dr. Zabala observed in a press release: “eGDR could be used to help T2D patients better understand and manage their risk of stroke and death. 

“It could also be of importance in research. In this era of personalized medicine, better stratification of type 2 diabetes patients will help optimize clinical trials and further vital research into treatment, diagnosis, care and prevention.”

The research was a collaboration between the Karolinska Institutet, Gothenburg University and the Swedish National Diabetes Registry. Dr. Zabala and coauthors reported having no conflicts of interest.

Calculating the estimated glucose disposal rate (eGDR) as a proxy for the level of insulin resistance may be useful way to determine if someone with type 2 diabetes (T2D) is at risk for having a first stroke, Swedish researchers have found.

purestock/Thinkstock

In a large population-based study, the lower the eGDR score went, the higher the risk for having a first stroke became.

The eGDR score was also predictive of the chance of dying from any or a cardiovascular cause, Alexander Zabala, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (Abstract OP 01-4).

The link between insulin resistance and an increased risk for stroke has been known for some time, and not just in people with T2D. However, the current way of determining insulin resistance is not suitable for widespread practice.

“The goal standard technique for measuring insulin resistance is the euglycemic clamp method,” said Dr. Zabala, an internal medical resident at Södersjukhuset hospital and researcher at the Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm.

“For that reason, [the eGDR], a method based on readily available clinical factors – waist circumference, hypertension, and glycosylated hemoglobin was developed,” he explained. Body mass index can also be used in place of waist circumference, he qualified.

The eGDR has already been proven to be very precise in people with type 1 diabetes, said Dr. Zabala, and could be an “excellent tool to measure insulin resistance in a large patient population.”
 

Investigating the link between eGDR and first stroke risk

The aim of the study he presented was to see if changes in the eGDR were associated with changes in the risk of someone with T2D experiencing a first stroke, or dying from a cardiovascular or other cause.

An observational cohort was formed by first considering data on all adult patients with T2D who were logged in the Swedish National Diabetes Registry (NDR) during 2004-2016. Then anyone with a history of stroke, or with any missing data on the clinical variables needed to calculate the eGDR, were excluded.

This resulted in an overall population of 104,697 individuals, aged a mean of 63 years, who had developed T2D at around the age of 59 years. About 44% of the study population were women. The mean eGDR for the whole population was 5.6 mg/kg per min.

The study subjects were grouped according to four eGDR levels: 24,706 were in the lowest quartile of eGDR (less than 4 mg/kg per min), signifying the highest level of insulin resistance, and 18,762 were in the upper quartile of eGDR (greater than 8 mg/kg per min), signifying the lowest level of insulin resistance. The middle two groups had an eGDR between 4 and 6 mg/kg per min (40,187), and 6 and 8 mg/kg/min (21,042).

Data from the NDR were then combined with the Swedish Cause of Death register, the Swedish In-patient Care Diagnoses registry, and the Longitudinal Database for Health Insurance and Labour Market Studies (LISA) to determine the rates of stroke, ischemic stroke, hemorrhagic stroke, all-cause mortality, and cardiovascular mortality.
 

Increasing insulin resistance ups risk for stroke, death

After a median follow-up of 5.6 years, 4% (4,201) of the study population had had a stroke.

“We clearly see an increased occurrence of first-time stroke in the group with the lowest eGDR, indicating worst insulin resistance, in comparison with the group with the highest eGDR, indicating less insulin resistance,” Dr. Zabala reported.

After adjustment for potential confounding factors, including age at baseline, gender, diabetes duration, among other variables, the risk for stroke was lowest in those with a high eGDR value and highest for those with a low eGDR value.

Using individuals with the lowest eGDR (less than 4 mg/kg per min) and thus greatest risk of stroke as the reference, adjusted hazard ratios (aHR) for first-time stroke were: 0.60, 0.68, and 0.77 for those with an eGDR of greater than 8, 6-8, and 4-6 mg/kg per min, respectively.

The corresponding values for risk of ischemic stroke were 0.55, 0.68, and 0.75. Regarding hemorrhagic stroke, there was no statistically significant correlation between eGDR levels and stroke occurrence. This was due to the small number of cases recorded.

As for all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, a similar pattern was seen, with higher rates of death linked to increasing insulin resistance. Adjusted hazard ratios according to increasing insulin resistance (decreasing eGDR scores) for all-cause death were 0.68, 0.75, and 0.82 and for cardiovascular mortality were 0.65, 0.75, and 0.82.

A sensitivity analysis, using BMI instead of waist circumference to calculate the eGDR, showed a similar pattern, and “interestingly, a correlation between eGDR levels and risk of hemorrhagic stroke.” Dr. Zabala said.
 

Limitations and take-homes

Of course, this is an observational cohort study, so no conclusions on causality can be made and there are no data on the use of anti-diabetic treatments specifically. But there are strengths such as covering almost all adults with T2D in Sweden and a relatively long-follow-up time.

The findings suggest that “eGDR, which may reflect insulin resistance may be a useful risk marker for stroke and death in people with type 2 diabetes,” said Dr. Zabala.

“You had a very large cohort, and that certainly makes your results very valid,” observed Peter Novodvorsky, MUDr. (Hons), PhD, MRCP, a consultant diabetologist in Trenčín, Slovakia.

Dr. Novodvorsky, who chaired the session, picked up on the lack of information about how many people were taking newer diabetes drugs, such as the glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor antagonists and sodium glucose-lowering transport 2 inhibitors.

“As we all know, these might have protective effects which are not necessarily related to the glucose lowering or insulin resistance-lowering” effects, so could have influenced the results. In terms of how practical the eGDR is for clinical practice, Dr. Zabala observed in a press release: “eGDR could be used to help T2D patients better understand and manage their risk of stroke and death. 

“It could also be of importance in research. In this era of personalized medicine, better stratification of type 2 diabetes patients will help optimize clinical trials and further vital research into treatment, diagnosis, care and prevention.”

The research was a collaboration between the Karolinska Institutet, Gothenburg University and the Swedish National Diabetes Registry. Dr. Zabala and coauthors reported having no conflicts of interest.

Calculating the estimated glucose disposal rate (eGDR) as a proxy for the level of insulin resistance may be useful way to determine if someone with type 2 diabetes (T2D) is at risk for having a first stroke, Swedish researchers have found.

purestock/Thinkstock

In a large population-based study, the lower the eGDR score went, the higher the risk for having a first stroke became.

The eGDR score was also predictive of the chance of dying from any or a cardiovascular cause, Alexander Zabala, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (Abstract OP 01-4).

The link between insulin resistance and an increased risk for stroke has been known for some time, and not just in people with T2D. However, the current way of determining insulin resistance is not suitable for widespread practice.

“The goal standard technique for measuring insulin resistance is the euglycemic clamp method,” said Dr. Zabala, an internal medical resident at Södersjukhuset hospital and researcher at the Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm.

“For that reason, [the eGDR], a method based on readily available clinical factors – waist circumference, hypertension, and glycosylated hemoglobin was developed,” he explained. Body mass index can also be used in place of waist circumference, he qualified.

The eGDR has already been proven to be very precise in people with type 1 diabetes, said Dr. Zabala, and could be an “excellent tool to measure insulin resistance in a large patient population.”
 

Investigating the link between eGDR and first stroke risk

The aim of the study he presented was to see if changes in the eGDR were associated with changes in the risk of someone with T2D experiencing a first stroke, or dying from a cardiovascular or other cause.

An observational cohort was formed by first considering data on all adult patients with T2D who were logged in the Swedish National Diabetes Registry (NDR) during 2004-2016. Then anyone with a history of stroke, or with any missing data on the clinical variables needed to calculate the eGDR, were excluded.

This resulted in an overall population of 104,697 individuals, aged a mean of 63 years, who had developed T2D at around the age of 59 years. About 44% of the study population were women. The mean eGDR for the whole population was 5.6 mg/kg per min.

The study subjects were grouped according to four eGDR levels: 24,706 were in the lowest quartile of eGDR (less than 4 mg/kg per min), signifying the highest level of insulin resistance, and 18,762 were in the upper quartile of eGDR (greater than 8 mg/kg per min), signifying the lowest level of insulin resistance. The middle two groups had an eGDR between 4 and 6 mg/kg per min (40,187), and 6 and 8 mg/kg/min (21,042).

Data from the NDR were then combined with the Swedish Cause of Death register, the Swedish In-patient Care Diagnoses registry, and the Longitudinal Database for Health Insurance and Labour Market Studies (LISA) to determine the rates of stroke, ischemic stroke, hemorrhagic stroke, all-cause mortality, and cardiovascular mortality.
 

Increasing insulin resistance ups risk for stroke, death

After a median follow-up of 5.6 years, 4% (4,201) of the study population had had a stroke.

“We clearly see an increased occurrence of first-time stroke in the group with the lowest eGDR, indicating worst insulin resistance, in comparison with the group with the highest eGDR, indicating less insulin resistance,” Dr. Zabala reported.

After adjustment for potential confounding factors, including age at baseline, gender, diabetes duration, among other variables, the risk for stroke was lowest in those with a high eGDR value and highest for those with a low eGDR value.

Using individuals with the lowest eGDR (less than 4 mg/kg per min) and thus greatest risk of stroke as the reference, adjusted hazard ratios (aHR) for first-time stroke were: 0.60, 0.68, and 0.77 for those with an eGDR of greater than 8, 6-8, and 4-6 mg/kg per min, respectively.

The corresponding values for risk of ischemic stroke were 0.55, 0.68, and 0.75. Regarding hemorrhagic stroke, there was no statistically significant correlation between eGDR levels and stroke occurrence. This was due to the small number of cases recorded.

As for all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, a similar pattern was seen, with higher rates of death linked to increasing insulin resistance. Adjusted hazard ratios according to increasing insulin resistance (decreasing eGDR scores) for all-cause death were 0.68, 0.75, and 0.82 and for cardiovascular mortality were 0.65, 0.75, and 0.82.

A sensitivity analysis, using BMI instead of waist circumference to calculate the eGDR, showed a similar pattern, and “interestingly, a correlation between eGDR levels and risk of hemorrhagic stroke.” Dr. Zabala said.
 

Limitations and take-homes

Of course, this is an observational cohort study, so no conclusions on causality can be made and there are no data on the use of anti-diabetic treatments specifically. But there are strengths such as covering almost all adults with T2D in Sweden and a relatively long-follow-up time.

The findings suggest that “eGDR, which may reflect insulin resistance may be a useful risk marker for stroke and death in people with type 2 diabetes,” said Dr. Zabala.

“You had a very large cohort, and that certainly makes your results very valid,” observed Peter Novodvorsky, MUDr. (Hons), PhD, MRCP, a consultant diabetologist in Trenčín, Slovakia.

Dr. Novodvorsky, who chaired the session, picked up on the lack of information about how many people were taking newer diabetes drugs, such as the glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor antagonists and sodium glucose-lowering transport 2 inhibitors.

“As we all know, these might have protective effects which are not necessarily related to the glucose lowering or insulin resistance-lowering” effects, so could have influenced the results. In terms of how practical the eGDR is for clinical practice, Dr. Zabala observed in a press release: “eGDR could be used to help T2D patients better understand and manage their risk of stroke and death. 

“It could also be of importance in research. In this era of personalized medicine, better stratification of type 2 diabetes patients will help optimize clinical trials and further vital research into treatment, diagnosis, care and prevention.”

The research was a collaboration between the Karolinska Institutet, Gothenburg University and the Swedish National Diabetes Registry. Dr. Zabala and coauthors reported having no conflicts of interest.