Federal Practitioner

A newly published consensus statement on the management of type 1 diabetes in adults addresses the unique clinical needs of the population compared with those of children with type 1 diabetes or adults with type 2 diabetes.

“The focus on adults is kind of new and it is important. ... I do think it’s a bit of a forgotten population. Whenever we talk about diabetes in adults it’s assumed to be about type 2,” document coauthor M. Sue Kirkman, MD, said in an interview.

The document covers diagnosis of type 1 diabetes, goals and targets, schedule of care, self-management education and lifestyle, glucose monitoring, insulin therapy, hypoglycemia, psychosocial care, diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA), pancreas transplant/islet cell transplantation, adjunctive therapies, special populations (pregnant, older, hospitalized), and emergent and future perspectives.

Initially presented in draft form in June at the American Diabetes Association (ADA) 81st scientific sessions, the final version of the joint ADA/EASD statement was presented Oct. 1 at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes and simultaneously published in Diabetologia and Diabetes Care.

“We are aware of the many and rapid advances in the diagnosis and treatment of type 1 diabetes ... However, despite these advances, there is also a growing recognition of the psychosocial burden of living with type 1 diabetes,” writing group cochair Richard I.G. Holt, MB BChir, PhD, professor of diabetes and endocrinology at the University of Southampton, England, said when introducing the 90-minute EASD session.

“Although there is guidance for the management of type 1 diabetes, the aim of this report is to highlight the major areas that health care professionals should consider when managing adults with type 1 diabetes,” he added.

Noting that the joint EASD/ADA consensus report on type 2 diabetes has been “highly influential,” Dr. Holt said, “EASD and ADA recognized the need to develop a comparable consensus report specifically addressing type 1 diabetes.”

The overriding goals, Dr. Holt said, are to “support people with type 1 diabetes to live a long and healthy life” with four specific strategies: delivery of insulin to keep glucose levels as close to target as possible to prevent complications while minimizing hypoglycemia and preventing DKA; managing cardiovascular risk factors; minimizing psychosocial burden; and promoting psychological well-being.
 

Diagnostic algorithm

Another coauthor, J. Hans de Vries, MD, PhD, professor of internal medicine at the University of Amsterdam, explained the recommended approach to distinguishing type 1 diabetes from type 2 diabetes or monogenic diabetes in adults, which is often a clinical challenge.

This also was the topic prompting the most questions during the EASD session.

“Especially in adults, misdiagnosis of type of diabetes is common, occurring in up to 40% of patients diagnosed after the age of 30 years,” Dr. de Vries said.

Among the many reasons for the confusion are that C-peptide levels, a reflection of endogenous insulin secretion, can still be relatively high at the time of clinical onset of type 1 diabetes, but islet antibodies don’t have 100% positive predictive value.

Obesity and type 2 diabetes are increasingly seen at younger ages, and DKA can occur in type 2 diabetes (“ketosis-prone”). In addition, monogenic forms of diabetes can be disguised as type 1 diabetes.

“So, we thought there was a need for a diagnostic algorithm,” Dr. de Vries said, adding that the algorithm – displayed as a graphic in the statement – is only for adults in whom type 1 diabetes is suspected, not other types. Also, it’s based on data from White European populations.

The first step is to test islet autoantibodies. If positive, the diagnosis of type 1 diabetes can be made. If negative and the person is younger than 35 years and without signs of type 2 diabetes, testing C-peptide is advised. If that’s below 200 pmol/L, type 1 diabetes is the diagnosis. If above 200 pmol/L, genetic testing for monogenic diabetes is advised. If there are signs of type 2 diabetes and/or the person is over age 35, type 2 diabetes is the most likely diagnosis.

And if uncertainty remains, the recommendation is to try noninsulin therapy and retest C-peptide again in 3 years, as by that time it will be below 200 pmol/L in a person with type 1 diabetes.

Dr. Kirkman commented regarding the algorithm: “It’s very much from a European population perspective. In some ways that’s a limitation, especially in the U.S. where the population is diverse, but I do think it’s still useful to help guide people through how to think about somebody who presents as an adult where it’s not obviously type 2 or type 1 ... There is a lot of in-between stuff.”
 

Psychosocial support: Essential but often overlooked

Frank J. Snoek, PhD, professor of psychology at Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Vrije Universiteit, presented the section on behavioral and psychosocial care. He pointed out that diabetes-related emotional distress is reported by 20%-40% of adults with type 1 diabetes, and that the risk of such distress is especially high at the time of diagnosis and when complications develop.

About 15% of people with type 1 diabetes have depression, which is linked to elevated A1c levels, increased complication risk, and mortality. Anxiety also is very common and linked with diabetes-specific fears including hypoglycemia. Eating disorders are more prevalent among people with type 1 diabetes than in the general population and can further complicate diabetes management.

Recommendations include periodic evaluation of psychological health and social barriers to self-management and having clear referral pathways and access to psychological or psychiatric care for individuals in need. “All members of the diabetes care team have a responsibility when it comes to offering psychosocial support as part of ongoing diabetes care and education.”

Dr. Kirkman had identified this section as noteworthy: “I think the focus on psychosocial care and making that an ongoing part of diabetes care and assessment is important.”

More data needed on diets, many other areas

During the discussion, several attendees asked about low-carbohydrate diets, embraced by many individuals with type 1 diabetes.

The document states: “While low-carbohydrate and very low-carbohydrate eating patterns have become increasingly popular and reduce A1c levels in the short term, it is important to incorporate these in conjunction with healthy eating guidelines. Additional components of the meal, including high fat and/or high protein, may contribute to delayed hyperglycemia and the need for insulin dose adjustments. Since this is highly variable between individuals, postprandial glucose measurements for up to 3 hours or more may be needed to determine initial dose adjustments.”

Beyond that, Tomasz Klupa, MD, PhD, of the department of metabolic diseases, Jagiellonian University, Krakow, Poland, responded: “We don’t have much data on low-carb diets in type 1 diabetes. ... Compliance to those diets is pretty poor. We don’t have long-term follow-up and the studies are simply not conclusive. Initial results do show reductions in body weight and A1c, but with time the compliance goes down dramatically.”

“Certainly, when we think of low-carb diets, we have to meet our patients where they are,” said Amy Hess-Fischl, a nutritionist and certified diabetes care and education specialist at the University of Chicago. “We don’t have enough data to really say there’s positive long-term evidence. But we can find a happy medium to find some benefits in glycemic and weight control. ... It’s really that collaboration with that person to identify what’s going to work for them in a healthy way.”

The EASD session concluded with writing group cochair Anne L. Peters, MD, director of clinical diabetes programs at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, summing up the many other knowledge gaps, including personalizing use of diabetes technology, the problems of health disparities and lack of access to care, and the feasibility of prevention and/or cure.  

She observed: “There is no one-size-fits-all approach to diabetes care, and the more we can individualize our approaches, the more successful we are likely to be. ... Hopefully this consensus statement has pushed the bar a bit higher, telling the powers that be that people with type 1 diabetes need and deserve the best.

“We have a very long way to go before all of our patients reach their goals and health equity is achieved. ... We need to provide each and every person the access to the care we describe in this consensus statement, so that all can prosper and thrive and look forward to a long and healthy life lived with type 1 diabetes.”  

Dr. Holt has financial relationships with Novo Nordisk, Abbott, Eli Lilly, Otsuka, and Roche. Dr. de Vries has financial relationships with Afon, Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Adocia, and Zealand Pharma. Ms. Hess-Fischl has financial relationships with Abbott Diabetes Care and Xeris. Dr. Klupa has financial relationships with numerous drug and device companies. Dr. Snoek has financial relationships with Abbott, Eli Lilly, Sanofi, and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Peters has financial relationships with Abbott Diabetes Care, Dexcom, Eli Lilly, Insulet, Novo Nordisk, Medscape, and Zealand Pharmaceuticals. She holds stock options in Omada Health and Livongo and is a special government employee of the Food and Drug Administration.
 

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

A newly published consensus statement on the management of type 1 diabetes in adults addresses the unique clinical needs of the population compared with those of children with type 1 diabetes or adults with type 2 diabetes.

“The focus on adults is kind of new and it is important. ... I do think it’s a bit of a forgotten population. Whenever we talk about diabetes in adults it’s assumed to be about type 2,” document coauthor M. Sue Kirkman, MD, said in an interview.

The document covers diagnosis of type 1 diabetes, goals and targets, schedule of care, self-management education and lifestyle, glucose monitoring, insulin therapy, hypoglycemia, psychosocial care, diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA), pancreas transplant/islet cell transplantation, adjunctive therapies, special populations (pregnant, older, hospitalized), and emergent and future perspectives.

Initially presented in draft form in June at the American Diabetes Association (ADA) 81st scientific sessions, the final version of the joint ADA/EASD statement was presented Oct. 1 at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes and simultaneously published in Diabetologia and Diabetes Care.

“We are aware of the many and rapid advances in the diagnosis and treatment of type 1 diabetes ... However, despite these advances, there is also a growing recognition of the psychosocial burden of living with type 1 diabetes,” writing group cochair Richard I.G. Holt, MB BChir, PhD, professor of diabetes and endocrinology at the University of Southampton, England, said when introducing the 90-minute EASD session.

“Although there is guidance for the management of type 1 diabetes, the aim of this report is to highlight the major areas that health care professionals should consider when managing adults with type 1 diabetes,” he added.

Noting that the joint EASD/ADA consensus report on type 2 diabetes has been “highly influential,” Dr. Holt said, “EASD and ADA recognized the need to develop a comparable consensus report specifically addressing type 1 diabetes.”

The overriding goals, Dr. Holt said, are to “support people with type 1 diabetes to live a long and healthy life” with four specific strategies: delivery of insulin to keep glucose levels as close to target as possible to prevent complications while minimizing hypoglycemia and preventing DKA; managing cardiovascular risk factors; minimizing psychosocial burden; and promoting psychological well-being.
 

Diagnostic algorithm

Another coauthor, J. Hans de Vries, MD, PhD, professor of internal medicine at the University of Amsterdam, explained the recommended approach to distinguishing type 1 diabetes from type 2 diabetes or monogenic diabetes in adults, which is often a clinical challenge.

This also was the topic prompting the most questions during the EASD session.

“Especially in adults, misdiagnosis of type of diabetes is common, occurring in up to 40% of patients diagnosed after the age of 30 years,” Dr. de Vries said.

Among the many reasons for the confusion are that C-peptide levels, a reflection of endogenous insulin secretion, can still be relatively high at the time of clinical onset of type 1 diabetes, but islet antibodies don’t have 100% positive predictive value.

Obesity and type 2 diabetes are increasingly seen at younger ages, and DKA can occur in type 2 diabetes (“ketosis-prone”). In addition, monogenic forms of diabetes can be disguised as type 1 diabetes.

“So, we thought there was a need for a diagnostic algorithm,” Dr. de Vries said, adding that the algorithm – displayed as a graphic in the statement – is only for adults in whom type 1 diabetes is suspected, not other types. Also, it’s based on data from White European populations.

The first step is to test islet autoantibodies. If positive, the diagnosis of type 1 diabetes can be made. If negative and the person is younger than 35 years and without signs of type 2 diabetes, testing C-peptide is advised. If that’s below 200 pmol/L, type 1 diabetes is the diagnosis. If above 200 pmol/L, genetic testing for monogenic diabetes is advised. If there are signs of type 2 diabetes and/or the person is over age 35, type 2 diabetes is the most likely diagnosis.

And if uncertainty remains, the recommendation is to try noninsulin therapy and retest C-peptide again in 3 years, as by that time it will be below 200 pmol/L in a person with type 1 diabetes.

Dr. Kirkman commented regarding the algorithm: “It’s very much from a European population perspective. In some ways that’s a limitation, especially in the U.S. where the population is diverse, but I do think it’s still useful to help guide people through how to think about somebody who presents as an adult where it’s not obviously type 2 or type 1 ... There is a lot of in-between stuff.”
 

Psychosocial support: Essential but often overlooked

Frank J. Snoek, PhD, professor of psychology at Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Vrije Universiteit, presented the section on behavioral and psychosocial care. He pointed out that diabetes-related emotional distress is reported by 20%-40% of adults with type 1 diabetes, and that the risk of such distress is especially high at the time of diagnosis and when complications develop.

About 15% of people with type 1 diabetes have depression, which is linked to elevated A1c levels, increased complication risk, and mortality. Anxiety also is very common and linked with diabetes-specific fears including hypoglycemia. Eating disorders are more prevalent among people with type 1 diabetes than in the general population and can further complicate diabetes management.

Recommendations include periodic evaluation of psychological health and social barriers to self-management and having clear referral pathways and access to psychological or psychiatric care for individuals in need. “All members of the diabetes care team have a responsibility when it comes to offering psychosocial support as part of ongoing diabetes care and education.”

Dr. Kirkman had identified this section as noteworthy: “I think the focus on psychosocial care and making that an ongoing part of diabetes care and assessment is important.”

More data needed on diets, many other areas

During the discussion, several attendees asked about low-carbohydrate diets, embraced by many individuals with type 1 diabetes.

The document states: “While low-carbohydrate and very low-carbohydrate eating patterns have become increasingly popular and reduce A1c levels in the short term, it is important to incorporate these in conjunction with healthy eating guidelines. Additional components of the meal, including high fat and/or high protein, may contribute to delayed hyperglycemia and the need for insulin dose adjustments. Since this is highly variable between individuals, postprandial glucose measurements for up to 3 hours or more may be needed to determine initial dose adjustments.”

Beyond that, Tomasz Klupa, MD, PhD, of the department of metabolic diseases, Jagiellonian University, Krakow, Poland, responded: “We don’t have much data on low-carb diets in type 1 diabetes. ... Compliance to those diets is pretty poor. We don’t have long-term follow-up and the studies are simply not conclusive. Initial results do show reductions in body weight and A1c, but with time the compliance goes down dramatically.”

“Certainly, when we think of low-carb diets, we have to meet our patients where they are,” said Amy Hess-Fischl, a nutritionist and certified diabetes care and education specialist at the University of Chicago. “We don’t have enough data to really say there’s positive long-term evidence. But we can find a happy medium to find some benefits in glycemic and weight control. ... It’s really that collaboration with that person to identify what’s going to work for them in a healthy way.”

The EASD session concluded with writing group cochair Anne L. Peters, MD, director of clinical diabetes programs at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, summing up the many other knowledge gaps, including personalizing use of diabetes technology, the problems of health disparities and lack of access to care, and the feasibility of prevention and/or cure.  

She observed: “There is no one-size-fits-all approach to diabetes care, and the more we can individualize our approaches, the more successful we are likely to be. ... Hopefully this consensus statement has pushed the bar a bit higher, telling the powers that be that people with type 1 diabetes need and deserve the best.

“We have a very long way to go before all of our patients reach their goals and health equity is achieved. ... We need to provide each and every person the access to the care we describe in this consensus statement, so that all can prosper and thrive and look forward to a long and healthy life lived with type 1 diabetes.”  

Dr. Holt has financial relationships with Novo Nordisk, Abbott, Eli Lilly, Otsuka, and Roche. Dr. de Vries has financial relationships with Afon, Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Adocia, and Zealand Pharma. Ms. Hess-Fischl has financial relationships with Abbott Diabetes Care and Xeris. Dr. Klupa has financial relationships with numerous drug and device companies. Dr. Snoek has financial relationships with Abbott, Eli Lilly, Sanofi, and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Peters has financial relationships with Abbott Diabetes Care, Dexcom, Eli Lilly, Insulet, Novo Nordisk, Medscape, and Zealand Pharmaceuticals. She holds stock options in Omada Health and Livongo and is a special government employee of the Food and Drug Administration.
 

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

A newly published consensus statement on the management of type 1 diabetes in adults addresses the unique clinical needs of the population compared with those of children with type 1 diabetes or adults with type 2 diabetes.

“The focus on adults is kind of new and it is important. ... I do think it’s a bit of a forgotten population. Whenever we talk about diabetes in adults it’s assumed to be about type 2,” document coauthor M. Sue Kirkman, MD, said in an interview.

The document covers diagnosis of type 1 diabetes, goals and targets, schedule of care, self-management education and lifestyle, glucose monitoring, insulin therapy, hypoglycemia, psychosocial care, diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA), pancreas transplant/islet cell transplantation, adjunctive therapies, special populations (pregnant, older, hospitalized), and emergent and future perspectives.

Initially presented in draft form in June at the American Diabetes Association (ADA) 81st scientific sessions, the final version of the joint ADA/EASD statement was presented Oct. 1 at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes and simultaneously published in Diabetologia and Diabetes Care.

“We are aware of the many and rapid advances in the diagnosis and treatment of type 1 diabetes ... However, despite these advances, there is also a growing recognition of the psychosocial burden of living with type 1 diabetes,” writing group cochair Richard I.G. Holt, MB BChir, PhD, professor of diabetes and endocrinology at the University of Southampton, England, said when introducing the 90-minute EASD session.

“Although there is guidance for the management of type 1 diabetes, the aim of this report is to highlight the major areas that health care professionals should consider when managing adults with type 1 diabetes,” he added.

Noting that the joint EASD/ADA consensus report on type 2 diabetes has been “highly influential,” Dr. Holt said, “EASD and ADA recognized the need to develop a comparable consensus report specifically addressing type 1 diabetes.”

The overriding goals, Dr. Holt said, are to “support people with type 1 diabetes to live a long and healthy life” with four specific strategies: delivery of insulin to keep glucose levels as close to target as possible to prevent complications while minimizing hypoglycemia and preventing DKA; managing cardiovascular risk factors; minimizing psychosocial burden; and promoting psychological well-being.
 

Diagnostic algorithm

Another coauthor, J. Hans de Vries, MD, PhD, professor of internal medicine at the University of Amsterdam, explained the recommended approach to distinguishing type 1 diabetes from type 2 diabetes or monogenic diabetes in adults, which is often a clinical challenge.

This also was the topic prompting the most questions during the EASD session.

“Especially in adults, misdiagnosis of type of diabetes is common, occurring in up to 40% of patients diagnosed after the age of 30 years,” Dr. de Vries said.

Among the many reasons for the confusion are that C-peptide levels, a reflection of endogenous insulin secretion, can still be relatively high at the time of clinical onset of type 1 diabetes, but islet antibodies don’t have 100% positive predictive value.

Obesity and type 2 diabetes are increasingly seen at younger ages, and DKA can occur in type 2 diabetes (“ketosis-prone”). In addition, monogenic forms of diabetes can be disguised as type 1 diabetes.

“So, we thought there was a need for a diagnostic algorithm,” Dr. de Vries said, adding that the algorithm – displayed as a graphic in the statement – is only for adults in whom type 1 diabetes is suspected, not other types. Also, it’s based on data from White European populations.

The first step is to test islet autoantibodies. If positive, the diagnosis of type 1 diabetes can be made. If negative and the person is younger than 35 years and without signs of type 2 diabetes, testing C-peptide is advised. If that’s below 200 pmol/L, type 1 diabetes is the diagnosis. If above 200 pmol/L, genetic testing for monogenic diabetes is advised. If there are signs of type 2 diabetes and/or the person is over age 35, type 2 diabetes is the most likely diagnosis.

And if uncertainty remains, the recommendation is to try noninsulin therapy and retest C-peptide again in 3 years, as by that time it will be below 200 pmol/L in a person with type 1 diabetes.

Dr. Kirkman commented regarding the algorithm: “It’s very much from a European population perspective. In some ways that’s a limitation, especially in the U.S. where the population is diverse, but I do think it’s still useful to help guide people through how to think about somebody who presents as an adult where it’s not obviously type 2 or type 1 ... There is a lot of in-between stuff.”
 

Psychosocial support: Essential but often overlooked

Frank J. Snoek, PhD, professor of psychology at Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Vrije Universiteit, presented the section on behavioral and psychosocial care. He pointed out that diabetes-related emotional distress is reported by 20%-40% of adults with type 1 diabetes, and that the risk of such distress is especially high at the time of diagnosis and when complications develop.

About 15% of people with type 1 diabetes have depression, which is linked to elevated A1c levels, increased complication risk, and mortality. Anxiety also is very common and linked with diabetes-specific fears including hypoglycemia. Eating disorders are more prevalent among people with type 1 diabetes than in the general population and can further complicate diabetes management.

Recommendations include periodic evaluation of psychological health and social barriers to self-management and having clear referral pathways and access to psychological or psychiatric care for individuals in need. “All members of the diabetes care team have a responsibility when it comes to offering psychosocial support as part of ongoing diabetes care and education.”

Dr. Kirkman had identified this section as noteworthy: “I think the focus on psychosocial care and making that an ongoing part of diabetes care and assessment is important.”

More data needed on diets, many other areas

During the discussion, several attendees asked about low-carbohydrate diets, embraced by many individuals with type 1 diabetes.

The document states: “While low-carbohydrate and very low-carbohydrate eating patterns have become increasingly popular and reduce A1c levels in the short term, it is important to incorporate these in conjunction with healthy eating guidelines. Additional components of the meal, including high fat and/or high protein, may contribute to delayed hyperglycemia and the need for insulin dose adjustments. Since this is highly variable between individuals, postprandial glucose measurements for up to 3 hours or more may be needed to determine initial dose adjustments.”

Beyond that, Tomasz Klupa, MD, PhD, of the department of metabolic diseases, Jagiellonian University, Krakow, Poland, responded: “We don’t have much data on low-carb diets in type 1 diabetes. ... Compliance to those diets is pretty poor. We don’t have long-term follow-up and the studies are simply not conclusive. Initial results do show reductions in body weight and A1c, but with time the compliance goes down dramatically.”

“Certainly, when we think of low-carb diets, we have to meet our patients where they are,” said Amy Hess-Fischl, a nutritionist and certified diabetes care and education specialist at the University of Chicago. “We don’t have enough data to really say there’s positive long-term evidence. But we can find a happy medium to find some benefits in glycemic and weight control. ... It’s really that collaboration with that person to identify what’s going to work for them in a healthy way.”

The EASD session concluded with writing group cochair Anne L. Peters, MD, director of clinical diabetes programs at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, summing up the many other knowledge gaps, including personalizing use of diabetes technology, the problems of health disparities and lack of access to care, and the feasibility of prevention and/or cure.  

She observed: “There is no one-size-fits-all approach to diabetes care, and the more we can individualize our approaches, the more successful we are likely to be. ... Hopefully this consensus statement has pushed the bar a bit higher, telling the powers that be that people with type 1 diabetes need and deserve the best.

“We have a very long way to go before all of our patients reach their goals and health equity is achieved. ... We need to provide each and every person the access to the care we describe in this consensus statement, so that all can prosper and thrive and look forward to a long and healthy life lived with type 1 diabetes.”  

Dr. Holt has financial relationships with Novo Nordisk, Abbott, Eli Lilly, Otsuka, and Roche. Dr. de Vries has financial relationships with Afon, Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Adocia, and Zealand Pharma. Ms. Hess-Fischl has financial relationships with Abbott Diabetes Care and Xeris. Dr. Klupa has financial relationships with numerous drug and device companies. Dr. Snoek has financial relationships with Abbott, Eli Lilly, Sanofi, and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Peters has financial relationships with Abbott Diabetes Care, Dexcom, Eli Lilly, Insulet, Novo Nordisk, Medscape, and Zealand Pharmaceuticals. She holds stock options in Omada Health and Livongo and is a special government employee of the Food and Drug Administration.
 

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

Men had a much higher rate of death following bariatric surgery performed in Austria during 2010-2018, compared with women in a retrospective analysis of nearly 20,000 patients based on health insurance records.

The reason may be that men undergoing bariatric surgery have “worse overall health at the time of surgery” than women, Hannes Beiglböck, MD, suggested at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

The results also showed that “men tend to be older [at time of surgery] and that might have the biggest impact on outcomes after bariatric surgery,” said Dr. Beiglböck, a researcher in the division of endocrinology and metabolism at the Medical University of Vienna.

The findings confirm those of prior studies in various worldwide locations, he noted; that is, men undergoing bariatric surgery tend to be older than women and have more comorbidities and perioperative mortality. 

Dr. Beiglböck also highlighted earlier reports that indicate “profound” sex-specific differences in why patients undergo bariatric surgery, with men often driven by a medical condition and women motivated by appearance.

Hence, for men, it may be important to focus on preoperative counseling to try to get them to think about bariatric surgery earlier, “which may improve their postsurgical mortality rate,” he observed.
 

Nearly threefold higher mortality among men

Dr. Beiglböck and associates used medical claims data filed with the Austrian health system, which includes nearly all residents. In 2010-2018, 19,901 Austrian patients underwent bariatric surgery, and researchers tracked their outcomes for a median of 5.4 years, through April 2020.

During the 9-year period, 74% of patients who underwent bariatric surgery were women, again, a finding consistent with prior reports from other countries.

The 5,220 men were an average of 41.8 years old, with 65% undergoing gastric bypass and 30% gastric banding. The 14,681 women were an average of 40.1 years old, with 70% undergoing gastric bypass and 22% gastric banding.

During follow-up, 367 patients (1.8%) died. Among men, the overall mortality rate was 2.6-fold higher, compared with women (1.3% vs. 3.4%) and average mortality per year was 2.8-fold higher (0.64% vs. 0.24%).

The rate of death on the day of surgery among men also substantially exceeded that of women (0.29% vs. 0.05%), as did death within 30 days of surgery (0.48% vs. 0.08%). All of these between-sex differences were significant.

Baseline prevalence of four categories of comorbidities and how these differed by sex among patients who died during follow-up was also examined. Underlying cardiovascular disease was prevalent in 299 patients (81% of the deceased group), 200 (54%) had a psychiatric disorder, 138 (38%) had diabetes, and 132 (36%) had a malignancy.

The prevalence of cardiovascular disease and psychiatric disorders was roughly the same in men and women. Men had a significantly higher prevalence of diabetes, and a higher proportion of women had a malignancy.
 

Consistent with U.S. studies

A U.S. report in 2015 documented a higher prevalence of comorbidities and more severe illness among men undergoing bariatric surgery, compared with women, noted session chair Zhila Semnani-Azad, PhD, a researcher in the department of nutrition at Harvard School of Public Health in Boston.

“I think the [Austrian] data presented have relevance to the U.S. population,” Dr. Semnani-Azad said in an interview.

“The main limitation of these univariate analyses is they don’t account for potential confounding variables that could affect the association, such as lifestyle variables, age, and family history. There is always potential for other variables” to influence apparent sex-specific associations, she commented. Another limitation is the small total number of deaths analyzed, at 367.

“These results are a good starting point for future studies. More work is needed to better understand the impact of comorbidities and sex on postsurgical mortality,” Dr. Semnani-Azad concluded.

Dr. Beiglböck and Dr. Semnani-Azad have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Men had a much higher rate of death following bariatric surgery performed in Austria during 2010-2018, compared with women in a retrospective analysis of nearly 20,000 patients based on health insurance records.

The reason may be that men undergoing bariatric surgery have “worse overall health at the time of surgery” than women, Hannes Beiglböck, MD, suggested at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

The results also showed that “men tend to be older [at time of surgery] and that might have the biggest impact on outcomes after bariatric surgery,” said Dr. Beiglböck, a researcher in the division of endocrinology and metabolism at the Medical University of Vienna.

The findings confirm those of prior studies in various worldwide locations, he noted; that is, men undergoing bariatric surgery tend to be older than women and have more comorbidities and perioperative mortality. 

Dr. Beiglböck also highlighted earlier reports that indicate “profound” sex-specific differences in why patients undergo bariatric surgery, with men often driven by a medical condition and women motivated by appearance.

Hence, for men, it may be important to focus on preoperative counseling to try to get them to think about bariatric surgery earlier, “which may improve their postsurgical mortality rate,” he observed.
 

Nearly threefold higher mortality among men

Dr. Beiglböck and associates used medical claims data filed with the Austrian health system, which includes nearly all residents. In 2010-2018, 19,901 Austrian patients underwent bariatric surgery, and researchers tracked their outcomes for a median of 5.4 years, through April 2020.

During the 9-year period, 74% of patients who underwent bariatric surgery were women, again, a finding consistent with prior reports from other countries.

The 5,220 men were an average of 41.8 years old, with 65% undergoing gastric bypass and 30% gastric banding. The 14,681 women were an average of 40.1 years old, with 70% undergoing gastric bypass and 22% gastric banding.

During follow-up, 367 patients (1.8%) died. Among men, the overall mortality rate was 2.6-fold higher, compared with women (1.3% vs. 3.4%) and average mortality per year was 2.8-fold higher (0.64% vs. 0.24%).

The rate of death on the day of surgery among men also substantially exceeded that of women (0.29% vs. 0.05%), as did death within 30 days of surgery (0.48% vs. 0.08%). All of these between-sex differences were significant.

Baseline prevalence of four categories of comorbidities and how these differed by sex among patients who died during follow-up was also examined. Underlying cardiovascular disease was prevalent in 299 patients (81% of the deceased group), 200 (54%) had a psychiatric disorder, 138 (38%) had diabetes, and 132 (36%) had a malignancy.

The prevalence of cardiovascular disease and psychiatric disorders was roughly the same in men and women. Men had a significantly higher prevalence of diabetes, and a higher proportion of women had a malignancy.
 

Consistent with U.S. studies

A U.S. report in 2015 documented a higher prevalence of comorbidities and more severe illness among men undergoing bariatric surgery, compared with women, noted session chair Zhila Semnani-Azad, PhD, a researcher in the department of nutrition at Harvard School of Public Health in Boston.

“I think the [Austrian] data presented have relevance to the U.S. population,” Dr. Semnani-Azad said in an interview.

“The main limitation of these univariate analyses is they don’t account for potential confounding variables that could affect the association, such as lifestyle variables, age, and family history. There is always potential for other variables” to influence apparent sex-specific associations, she commented. Another limitation is the small total number of deaths analyzed, at 367.

“These results are a good starting point for future studies. More work is needed to better understand the impact of comorbidities and sex on postsurgical mortality,” Dr. Semnani-Azad concluded.

Dr. Beiglböck and Dr. Semnani-Azad have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Men had a much higher rate of death following bariatric surgery performed in Austria during 2010-2018, compared with women in a retrospective analysis of nearly 20,000 patients based on health insurance records.

The reason may be that men undergoing bariatric surgery have “worse overall health at the time of surgery” than women, Hannes Beiglböck, MD, suggested at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

The results also showed that “men tend to be older [at time of surgery] and that might have the biggest impact on outcomes after bariatric surgery,” said Dr. Beiglböck, a researcher in the division of endocrinology and metabolism at the Medical University of Vienna.

The findings confirm those of prior studies in various worldwide locations, he noted; that is, men undergoing bariatric surgery tend to be older than women and have more comorbidities and perioperative mortality. 

Dr. Beiglböck also highlighted earlier reports that indicate “profound” sex-specific differences in why patients undergo bariatric surgery, with men often driven by a medical condition and women motivated by appearance.

Hence, for men, it may be important to focus on preoperative counseling to try to get them to think about bariatric surgery earlier, “which may improve their postsurgical mortality rate,” he observed.
 

Nearly threefold higher mortality among men

Dr. Beiglböck and associates used medical claims data filed with the Austrian health system, which includes nearly all residents. In 2010-2018, 19,901 Austrian patients underwent bariatric surgery, and researchers tracked their outcomes for a median of 5.4 years, through April 2020.

During the 9-year period, 74% of patients who underwent bariatric surgery were women, again, a finding consistent with prior reports from other countries.

The 5,220 men were an average of 41.8 years old, with 65% undergoing gastric bypass and 30% gastric banding. The 14,681 women were an average of 40.1 years old, with 70% undergoing gastric bypass and 22% gastric banding.

During follow-up, 367 patients (1.8%) died. Among men, the overall mortality rate was 2.6-fold higher, compared with women (1.3% vs. 3.4%) and average mortality per year was 2.8-fold higher (0.64% vs. 0.24%).

The rate of death on the day of surgery among men also substantially exceeded that of women (0.29% vs. 0.05%), as did death within 30 days of surgery (0.48% vs. 0.08%). All of these between-sex differences were significant.

Baseline prevalence of four categories of comorbidities and how these differed by sex among patients who died during follow-up was also examined. Underlying cardiovascular disease was prevalent in 299 patients (81% of the deceased group), 200 (54%) had a psychiatric disorder, 138 (38%) had diabetes, and 132 (36%) had a malignancy.

The prevalence of cardiovascular disease and psychiatric disorders was roughly the same in men and women. Men had a significantly higher prevalence of diabetes, and a higher proportion of women had a malignancy.
 

Consistent with U.S. studies

A U.S. report in 2015 documented a higher prevalence of comorbidities and more severe illness among men undergoing bariatric surgery, compared with women, noted session chair Zhila Semnani-Azad, PhD, a researcher in the department of nutrition at Harvard School of Public Health in Boston.

“I think the [Austrian] data presented have relevance to the U.S. population,” Dr. Semnani-Azad said in an interview.

“The main limitation of these univariate analyses is they don’t account for potential confounding variables that could affect the association, such as lifestyle variables, age, and family history. There is always potential for other variables” to influence apparent sex-specific associations, she commented. Another limitation is the small total number of deaths analyzed, at 367.

“These results are a good starting point for future studies. More work is needed to better understand the impact of comorbidities and sex on postsurgical mortality,” Dr. Semnani-Azad concluded.

Dr. Beiglböck and Dr. Semnani-Azad have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

“Postmenopausal women with low bone mass should obtain adequate calcium and vitamin D and participate in bone-loading exercises,” researchers noted in a recent study published in Osteoporosis International.

sbm Hotting/Fotolia.com

“Additional use of bisphosphonates will increase bone mineral density (BMD), especially at the spine,” wrote Nancy Waltman, PhD, College of Nursing, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, and colleagues.

The findings are partial results from the Heartland Osteoporosis Prevention Study (HOPS), which randomized women who had entered menopause within the previous 6 months and had osteopenia (low bone mass, T score –1.0 to –2.49) to receive one of three treatments for 12 months:

• Bone-loading and resistance exercise plus calcium and vitamin D supplements.
• Risedronate plus calcium and vitamin D supplements.
• Calcium and vitamin D supplements alone (control).

At 1 year, “risedronate significantly increased BMD at the spine, compared to exercise and control, and serum biomarkers of bone turnover also significantly reduced in the risedronate group,” Laura Bilek, PT, PhD, said during an oral presentation of the research at the annual meeting of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

However, the results also showed that, importantly, “in postmenopausal women, exercise appears to improve strength at the hip through changes in structure, not BMD,” stressed Dr. Bilek, of the College of Allied Health Professionals, University of Nebraska Medical Center.
 

Bone health is about more than just bone mineral density

“The key takeaway for clinicians is that bone health is about more than just density!” she noted in an email.

Current guidelines don’t recommend prescribing risedronate until a woman has overt osteoporosis, she said.

On the other hand, many studies have shown that, to be most effective, bone-loading exercises should be a lifelong habit and women should begin to do them at least during menopause and should not wait until bone loss occurs.

Other studies have shown that exercise changes bone structure (size or geometry), which improves bone strength. The current study supports both prior observations.

And exercise also improves muscle strength and decreases the risk of falls and fractures, Dr. Bilek noted.

Invited to comment, Pauline M. Camacho, MD, cochair of the task force for the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE) guidelines for osteoporosis, noted that all three measures – pharmacotherapy, exercise, and calcium/vitamin D – are important in the successful management of osteoporosis.

This study showed that risedronate is superior to calcium/vitamin D supplementation as well as exercise for BMD and for bone turnover in these women with osteopenia, said Dr. Camacho, professor of medicine and director of the Osteoporosis and Metabolic Bone Disease Center, Loyola University Medical Center, Chicago.

“Most women with osteopenia do not receive pharmacologic therapy,” she noted, and receive it only “if there is a history of fractures or they have other features that change that diagnosis to osteoporosis.

“There is no downside to exercise, and this needs to be advised to all patients,” she said. “The other aspect of exercise that was not assessed in this study is its effect on balance. Patients who exercise will have improved balance, which should translate into fewer falls, and thus fewer fractures.”
 

How can women with osteopenia maintain bone health?

In their article, Dr. Waltman and colleagues say the Lifting Intervention for Training Muscle and Osteoporosis Rehabilitation (LIFTMOR) clinical trial is one of the first to address clinician concerns about the safety and effectiveness of exercise to improve bone health.

In that trial of 101 postmenopausal women with low bone mass, 8 months of 30-minute, twice-weekly, supervised high-intensity resistance and impact training was safe and BMD increased by 2.9% at the lumbar spine and 0.3% at the femoral neck.

“Our [HOPS] study,” Dr. Waltman and colleagues explained, “builds on the LIFTMOR clinical trial and adds further data to inform whether postmenopausal women with low bone mass can effectively maintain or even improve BMD with bone-loading exercises prior to prescriptions for medication.

“Our long-term goal is to contribute to the development of clinical practice guidelines for the prevention of fractures in postmenopausal women with low bone mass,” they said.

They randomized 276 postmenopausal women who were a mean age of 54 (range, 44-63); most were White (78%) or Hispanic (6%).

Women were excluded from the study if they had a diagnosis of osteoporosis (T-score < −2.5); had an increased risk of a major fracture or hip fracture; had been on bisphosphonates within the last 6 months; were currently on estrogen, tamoxifen, or aromatase inhibitors; had a serum vitamin D level < 10 mg/mL or > 100 mg/mL; had any conditions that prohibited prescriptions for calcium and vitamin D supplements, risedronate, or exercise; or weighed more than 300 pounds.

All women received 1,200 mg/day of calcium (from supplements or diet) and 1,000-3,000 IU/day of vitamin D supplements, based on their serum 25(OH) vitamin D levels.  

The exercise program consisted of visiting a gym three times a week for 45 minutes of bone-loading exercise – jogging with a weighted vest – and resistance exercises, which were supervised by a trainer for the first 2 weeks.

Women in the risedronate group received a 150-mg tablet of risedronate every 4 weeks.  

At baseline, 6 months, and 12 months, the women had DXA scans to determine BMD and hip structure, and had blood tests to determine levels of serum markers for bone formation (bone specific alkaline phosphatase [Alkphase B]) and bone resorption (N-terminal telopeptide [NTx]).

Compared with baseline, at 12 months, the women had the following changes in BMD at the following sites:

• Spine: +1.9%, +0.9%, and –0.4%, in the risedronate, exercise, and control groups.
• Total hip: +0.9%, +0.5%, and +0.5%, in the risedronate, exercise, and control groups.
• Femoral neck: +0.09%, –0.4%, and –0.5%, in the risedronate, exercise, and control groups.

These improvements in BMD were significantly greater in the risedronate group than in the exercise or control groups (P < .01 for both).

The decreases in serum levels of NtX and Alkphase B were also greater with risedronate than in the exercise or control groups (P < .01 for all).

The most frequent adverse effect with the calcium supplement was constipation (n = 4). Some women taking risedronate had gastrointestinal disturbances (n = 4), muscle or joint pain (n = 11), or chest pain and dizziness (n = 2). None of the women had adverse effects from vitamin D. A few women had muscle soreness from exercise that went away after the exercises were adapted. None of the women had a serious injury or fracture from exercise.

More women in the exercise group withdrew from the study (n = 20), with most citing lack of time as the reason; 13 women withdrew from the risedronate group, and 16 withdrew from the control group.

Of the 276 participants who completed the 12-month study, treatment adherence was 92% for calcium, 94% for vitamin D, 75% for risedronate, and 59% for exercise.

Exercise was associated with positive changes in intertrochanter hip structural analysis measures, which will be described in an upcoming study, Dr. Bilek said.

The study was funded by the National Institute of Nursing Research of the National Institutes of Health. The researchers have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

“Postmenopausal women with low bone mass should obtain adequate calcium and vitamin D and participate in bone-loading exercises,” researchers noted in a recent study published in Osteoporosis International.

sbm Hotting/Fotolia.com

“Additional use of bisphosphonates will increase bone mineral density (BMD), especially at the spine,” wrote Nancy Waltman, PhD, College of Nursing, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, and colleagues.

The findings are partial results from the Heartland Osteoporosis Prevention Study (HOPS), which randomized women who had entered menopause within the previous 6 months and had osteopenia (low bone mass, T score –1.0 to –2.49) to receive one of three treatments for 12 months:

• Bone-loading and resistance exercise plus calcium and vitamin D supplements.
• Risedronate plus calcium and vitamin D supplements.
• Calcium and vitamin D supplements alone (control).

At 1 year, “risedronate significantly increased BMD at the spine, compared to exercise and control, and serum biomarkers of bone turnover also significantly reduced in the risedronate group,” Laura Bilek, PT, PhD, said during an oral presentation of the research at the annual meeting of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

However, the results also showed that, importantly, “in postmenopausal women, exercise appears to improve strength at the hip through changes in structure, not BMD,” stressed Dr. Bilek, of the College of Allied Health Professionals, University of Nebraska Medical Center.
 

Bone health is about more than just bone mineral density

“The key takeaway for clinicians is that bone health is about more than just density!” she noted in an email.

Current guidelines don’t recommend prescribing risedronate until a woman has overt osteoporosis, she said.

On the other hand, many studies have shown that, to be most effective, bone-loading exercises should be a lifelong habit and women should begin to do them at least during menopause and should not wait until bone loss occurs.

Other studies have shown that exercise changes bone structure (size or geometry), which improves bone strength. The current study supports both prior observations.

And exercise also improves muscle strength and decreases the risk of falls and fractures, Dr. Bilek noted.

Invited to comment, Pauline M. Camacho, MD, cochair of the task force for the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE) guidelines for osteoporosis, noted that all three measures – pharmacotherapy, exercise, and calcium/vitamin D – are important in the successful management of osteoporosis.

This study showed that risedronate is superior to calcium/vitamin D supplementation as well as exercise for BMD and for bone turnover in these women with osteopenia, said Dr. Camacho, professor of medicine and director of the Osteoporosis and Metabolic Bone Disease Center, Loyola University Medical Center, Chicago.

“Most women with osteopenia do not receive pharmacologic therapy,” she noted, and receive it only “if there is a history of fractures or they have other features that change that diagnosis to osteoporosis.

“There is no downside to exercise, and this needs to be advised to all patients,” she said. “The other aspect of exercise that was not assessed in this study is its effect on balance. Patients who exercise will have improved balance, which should translate into fewer falls, and thus fewer fractures.”
 

How can women with osteopenia maintain bone health?

In their article, Dr. Waltman and colleagues say the Lifting Intervention for Training Muscle and Osteoporosis Rehabilitation (LIFTMOR) clinical trial is one of the first to address clinician concerns about the safety and effectiveness of exercise to improve bone health.

In that trial of 101 postmenopausal women with low bone mass, 8 months of 30-minute, twice-weekly, supervised high-intensity resistance and impact training was safe and BMD increased by 2.9% at the lumbar spine and 0.3% at the femoral neck.

“Our [HOPS] study,” Dr. Waltman and colleagues explained, “builds on the LIFTMOR clinical trial and adds further data to inform whether postmenopausal women with low bone mass can effectively maintain or even improve BMD with bone-loading exercises prior to prescriptions for medication.

“Our long-term goal is to contribute to the development of clinical practice guidelines for the prevention of fractures in postmenopausal women with low bone mass,” they said.

They randomized 276 postmenopausal women who were a mean age of 54 (range, 44-63); most were White (78%) or Hispanic (6%).

Women were excluded from the study if they had a diagnosis of osteoporosis (T-score < −2.5); had an increased risk of a major fracture or hip fracture; had been on bisphosphonates within the last 6 months; were currently on estrogen, tamoxifen, or aromatase inhibitors; had a serum vitamin D level < 10 mg/mL or > 100 mg/mL; had any conditions that prohibited prescriptions for calcium and vitamin D supplements, risedronate, or exercise; or weighed more than 300 pounds.

All women received 1,200 mg/day of calcium (from supplements or diet) and 1,000-3,000 IU/day of vitamin D supplements, based on their serum 25(OH) vitamin D levels.  

The exercise program consisted of visiting a gym three times a week for 45 minutes of bone-loading exercise – jogging with a weighted vest – and resistance exercises, which were supervised by a trainer for the first 2 weeks.

Women in the risedronate group received a 150-mg tablet of risedronate every 4 weeks.  

At baseline, 6 months, and 12 months, the women had DXA scans to determine BMD and hip structure, and had blood tests to determine levels of serum markers for bone formation (bone specific alkaline phosphatase [Alkphase B]) and bone resorption (N-terminal telopeptide [NTx]).

Compared with baseline, at 12 months, the women had the following changes in BMD at the following sites:

• Spine: +1.9%, +0.9%, and –0.4%, in the risedronate, exercise, and control groups.
• Total hip: +0.9%, +0.5%, and +0.5%, in the risedronate, exercise, and control groups.
• Femoral neck: +0.09%, –0.4%, and –0.5%, in the risedronate, exercise, and control groups.

These improvements in BMD were significantly greater in the risedronate group than in the exercise or control groups (P < .01 for both).

The decreases in serum levels of NtX and Alkphase B were also greater with risedronate than in the exercise or control groups (P < .01 for all).

The most frequent adverse effect with the calcium supplement was constipation (n = 4). Some women taking risedronate had gastrointestinal disturbances (n = 4), muscle or joint pain (n = 11), or chest pain and dizziness (n = 2). None of the women had adverse effects from vitamin D. A few women had muscle soreness from exercise that went away after the exercises were adapted. None of the women had a serious injury or fracture from exercise.

More women in the exercise group withdrew from the study (n = 20), with most citing lack of time as the reason; 13 women withdrew from the risedronate group, and 16 withdrew from the control group.

Of the 276 participants who completed the 12-month study, treatment adherence was 92% for calcium, 94% for vitamin D, 75% for risedronate, and 59% for exercise.

Exercise was associated with positive changes in intertrochanter hip structural analysis measures, which will be described in an upcoming study, Dr. Bilek said.

The study was funded by the National Institute of Nursing Research of the National Institutes of Health. The researchers have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

“Postmenopausal women with low bone mass should obtain adequate calcium and vitamin D and participate in bone-loading exercises,” researchers noted in a recent study published in Osteoporosis International.

sbm Hotting/Fotolia.com

“Additional use of bisphosphonates will increase bone mineral density (BMD), especially at the spine,” wrote Nancy Waltman, PhD, College of Nursing, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, and colleagues.

The findings are partial results from the Heartland Osteoporosis Prevention Study (HOPS), which randomized women who had entered menopause within the previous 6 months and had osteopenia (low bone mass, T score –1.0 to –2.49) to receive one of three treatments for 12 months:

• Bone-loading and resistance exercise plus calcium and vitamin D supplements.
• Risedronate plus calcium and vitamin D supplements.
• Calcium and vitamin D supplements alone (control).

At 1 year, “risedronate significantly increased BMD at the spine, compared to exercise and control, and serum biomarkers of bone turnover also significantly reduced in the risedronate group,” Laura Bilek, PT, PhD, said during an oral presentation of the research at the annual meeting of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

However, the results also showed that, importantly, “in postmenopausal women, exercise appears to improve strength at the hip through changes in structure, not BMD,” stressed Dr. Bilek, of the College of Allied Health Professionals, University of Nebraska Medical Center.
 

Bone health is about more than just bone mineral density

“The key takeaway for clinicians is that bone health is about more than just density!” she noted in an email.

Current guidelines don’t recommend prescribing risedronate until a woman has overt osteoporosis, she said.

On the other hand, many studies have shown that, to be most effective, bone-loading exercises should be a lifelong habit and women should begin to do them at least during menopause and should not wait until bone loss occurs.

Other studies have shown that exercise changes bone structure (size or geometry), which improves bone strength. The current study supports both prior observations.

And exercise also improves muscle strength and decreases the risk of falls and fractures, Dr. Bilek noted.

Invited to comment, Pauline M. Camacho, MD, cochair of the task force for the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE) guidelines for osteoporosis, noted that all three measures – pharmacotherapy, exercise, and calcium/vitamin D – are important in the successful management of osteoporosis.

This study showed that risedronate is superior to calcium/vitamin D supplementation as well as exercise for BMD and for bone turnover in these women with osteopenia, said Dr. Camacho, professor of medicine and director of the Osteoporosis and Metabolic Bone Disease Center, Loyola University Medical Center, Chicago.

“Most women with osteopenia do not receive pharmacologic therapy,” she noted, and receive it only “if there is a history of fractures or they have other features that change that diagnosis to osteoporosis.

“There is no downside to exercise, and this needs to be advised to all patients,” she said. “The other aspect of exercise that was not assessed in this study is its effect on balance. Patients who exercise will have improved balance, which should translate into fewer falls, and thus fewer fractures.”
 

How can women with osteopenia maintain bone health?

In their article, Dr. Waltman and colleagues say the Lifting Intervention for Training Muscle and Osteoporosis Rehabilitation (LIFTMOR) clinical trial is one of the first to address clinician concerns about the safety and effectiveness of exercise to improve bone health.

In that trial of 101 postmenopausal women with low bone mass, 8 months of 30-minute, twice-weekly, supervised high-intensity resistance and impact training was safe and BMD increased by 2.9% at the lumbar spine and 0.3% at the femoral neck.

“Our [HOPS] study,” Dr. Waltman and colleagues explained, “builds on the LIFTMOR clinical trial and adds further data to inform whether postmenopausal women with low bone mass can effectively maintain or even improve BMD with bone-loading exercises prior to prescriptions for medication.

“Our long-term goal is to contribute to the development of clinical practice guidelines for the prevention of fractures in postmenopausal women with low bone mass,” they said.

They randomized 276 postmenopausal women who were a mean age of 54 (range, 44-63); most were White (78%) or Hispanic (6%).

Women were excluded from the study if they had a diagnosis of osteoporosis (T-score < −2.5); had an increased risk of a major fracture or hip fracture; had been on bisphosphonates within the last 6 months; were currently on estrogen, tamoxifen, or aromatase inhibitors; had a serum vitamin D level < 10 mg/mL or > 100 mg/mL; had any conditions that prohibited prescriptions for calcium and vitamin D supplements, risedronate, or exercise; or weighed more than 300 pounds.

All women received 1,200 mg/day of calcium (from supplements or diet) and 1,000-3,000 IU/day of vitamin D supplements, based on their serum 25(OH) vitamin D levels.  

The exercise program consisted of visiting a gym three times a week for 45 minutes of bone-loading exercise – jogging with a weighted vest – and resistance exercises, which were supervised by a trainer for the first 2 weeks.

Women in the risedronate group received a 150-mg tablet of risedronate every 4 weeks.  

At baseline, 6 months, and 12 months, the women had DXA scans to determine BMD and hip structure, and had blood tests to determine levels of serum markers for bone formation (bone specific alkaline phosphatase [Alkphase B]) and bone resorption (N-terminal telopeptide [NTx]).

Compared with baseline, at 12 months, the women had the following changes in BMD at the following sites:

• Spine: +1.9%, +0.9%, and –0.4%, in the risedronate, exercise, and control groups.
• Total hip: +0.9%, +0.5%, and +0.5%, in the risedronate, exercise, and control groups.
• Femoral neck: +0.09%, –0.4%, and –0.5%, in the risedronate, exercise, and control groups.

These improvements in BMD were significantly greater in the risedronate group than in the exercise or control groups (P < .01 for both).

The decreases in serum levels of NtX and Alkphase B were also greater with risedronate than in the exercise or control groups (P < .01 for all).

The most frequent adverse effect with the calcium supplement was constipation (n = 4). Some women taking risedronate had gastrointestinal disturbances (n = 4), muscle or joint pain (n = 11), or chest pain and dizziness (n = 2). None of the women had adverse effects from vitamin D. A few women had muscle soreness from exercise that went away after the exercises were adapted. None of the women had a serious injury or fracture from exercise.

More women in the exercise group withdrew from the study (n = 20), with most citing lack of time as the reason; 13 women withdrew from the risedronate group, and 16 withdrew from the control group.

Of the 276 participants who completed the 12-month study, treatment adherence was 92% for calcium, 94% for vitamin D, 75% for risedronate, and 59% for exercise.

Exercise was associated with positive changes in intertrochanter hip structural analysis measures, which will be described in an upcoming study, Dr. Bilek said.

The study was funded by the National Institute of Nursing Research of the National Institutes of Health. The researchers have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Northwell Health, the largest hospital system in New York state, fired 1,400 employees Oct. 3 for not complying with the state’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate.

The employees represented less than 2% of Northwell’s 76,000 employees, who are now all fully vaccinated against COVID-19, Joe Kemp, the assistant vice president of public relations for the company, told The Hill.

“Northwell Health is proud to announce that our workforce -- the largest in New York State -- is 100% vaccinated,” the company said in a statement to several news outlets.

“This allows us to continue to provide exceptional care at all of our facilities, without interruption and remain open and fully operational,” Northwell Health said.

Having a fully vaccinated workforce is part of the health system’s duty to protect others, the company said. Northwell Health includes 23 hospitals and more than 830 outpatient facilities, according to ABC News.

“Northwell regrets losing any employee under such circumstances,” the company said. “We owe it to our staff, our patients, and the communities we serve to be 100% vaccinated against COVID-19.”

Former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo announced in August that the state would require health care workers to receive at least one COVID-19 vaccine shot by Sept. 27. Employees didn’t have the option for weekly testing or religious exemptions, which is being challenged in several lawsuits, according to The New York Times.

The order went into effect last week, prompting tens of thousands of employees to get vaccinated. As of last week, 87% of hospital staff were fully vaccinated, and 92% of hospital and retirement home workers had received at least one dose, according to state health data.

Northwell announced its own vaccine mandate in August as well, which sparked protests among some workers. The order applied to both clinical and non-clinical staff.

A few thousand Northwell employees got vaccinated as the deadline approached, Mr. Kemp told The New York Times. Some who lost their jobs at first were able to return to work, and those who have been terminated can interview for reinstatement for 30 days. The hospital system is also “openly recruiting” for the vacant positions.

“The goal was to get people vaccinated, not to get people terminated,” Mr. Kemp said.

Hospitalized COVID-19 patients in New York hit a low of 350 in mid-July, according to state hospitalization data. Now, about 2,200 people are hospitalized throughout the state, most of whom are unvaccinated.

As of Oct. 3, nearly 72% of New York residents had received at least one vaccine dose, according to the latest state data. About 64% are fully vaccinated.

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

Northwell Health, the largest hospital system in New York state, fired 1,400 employees Oct. 3 for not complying with the state’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate.

The employees represented less than 2% of Northwell’s 76,000 employees, who are now all fully vaccinated against COVID-19, Joe Kemp, the assistant vice president of public relations for the company, told The Hill.

“Northwell Health is proud to announce that our workforce -- the largest in New York State -- is 100% vaccinated,” the company said in a statement to several news outlets.

“This allows us to continue to provide exceptional care at all of our facilities, without interruption and remain open and fully operational,” Northwell Health said.

Having a fully vaccinated workforce is part of the health system’s duty to protect others, the company said. Northwell Health includes 23 hospitals and more than 830 outpatient facilities, according to ABC News.

“Northwell regrets losing any employee under such circumstances,” the company said. “We owe it to our staff, our patients, and the communities we serve to be 100% vaccinated against COVID-19.”

Former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo announced in August that the state would require health care workers to receive at least one COVID-19 vaccine shot by Sept. 27. Employees didn’t have the option for weekly testing or religious exemptions, which is being challenged in several lawsuits, according to The New York Times.

The order went into effect last week, prompting tens of thousands of employees to get vaccinated. As of last week, 87% of hospital staff were fully vaccinated, and 92% of hospital and retirement home workers had received at least one dose, according to state health data.

Northwell announced its own vaccine mandate in August as well, which sparked protests among some workers. The order applied to both clinical and non-clinical staff.

A few thousand Northwell employees got vaccinated as the deadline approached, Mr. Kemp told The New York Times. Some who lost their jobs at first were able to return to work, and those who have been terminated can interview for reinstatement for 30 days. The hospital system is also “openly recruiting” for the vacant positions.

“The goal was to get people vaccinated, not to get people terminated,” Mr. Kemp said.

Hospitalized COVID-19 patients in New York hit a low of 350 in mid-July, according to state hospitalization data. Now, about 2,200 people are hospitalized throughout the state, most of whom are unvaccinated.

As of Oct. 3, nearly 72% of New York residents had received at least one vaccine dose, according to the latest state data. About 64% are fully vaccinated.

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

Northwell Health, the largest hospital system in New York state, fired 1,400 employees Oct. 3 for not complying with the state’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate.

The employees represented less than 2% of Northwell’s 76,000 employees, who are now all fully vaccinated against COVID-19, Joe Kemp, the assistant vice president of public relations for the company, told The Hill.

“Northwell Health is proud to announce that our workforce -- the largest in New York State -- is 100% vaccinated,” the company said in a statement to several news outlets.

“This allows us to continue to provide exceptional care at all of our facilities, without interruption and remain open and fully operational,” Northwell Health said.

Having a fully vaccinated workforce is part of the health system’s duty to protect others, the company said. Northwell Health includes 23 hospitals and more than 830 outpatient facilities, according to ABC News.

“Northwell regrets losing any employee under such circumstances,” the company said. “We owe it to our staff, our patients, and the communities we serve to be 100% vaccinated against COVID-19.”

Former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo announced in August that the state would require health care workers to receive at least one COVID-19 vaccine shot by Sept. 27. Employees didn’t have the option for weekly testing or religious exemptions, which is being challenged in several lawsuits, according to The New York Times.

The order went into effect last week, prompting tens of thousands of employees to get vaccinated. As of last week, 87% of hospital staff were fully vaccinated, and 92% of hospital and retirement home workers had received at least one dose, according to state health data.

Northwell announced its own vaccine mandate in August as well, which sparked protests among some workers. The order applied to both clinical and non-clinical staff.

A few thousand Northwell employees got vaccinated as the deadline approached, Mr. Kemp told The New York Times. Some who lost their jobs at first were able to return to work, and those who have been terminated can interview for reinstatement for 30 days. The hospital system is also “openly recruiting” for the vacant positions.

“The goal was to get people vaccinated, not to get people terminated,” Mr. Kemp said.

Hospitalized COVID-19 patients in New York hit a low of 350 in mid-July, according to state hospitalization data. Now, about 2,200 people are hospitalized throughout the state, most of whom are unvaccinated.

As of Oct. 3, nearly 72% of New York residents had received at least one vaccine dose, according to the latest state data. About 64% are fully vaccinated.

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

Statin use is associated with increased likelihood of diabetes progression, according to a new matched cohort analysis of data from the Department of Veteran Affairs.

Patients with diabetes who were on statins were more likely to begin taking insulin, become hyperglycemic, and to develop acute glycemic complications, and they were also more likely to be prescribed medications from more glucose-lowering drug classes.

Although previous observational and randomized, controlled trials suggested a link between statin use and diabetes progression, they typically relied on measures like insulin resistance, hemoglobin A1c, or fasting blood glucose levels. The new work, however, outlines changes in glycemic control.

The differences between fasting glucose levels and A1c levels were generally smaller than the differences in insulin sensitivity. But A1c and fasting glucose may underestimate a potential effect of statins, since physicians may escalate antidiabetes therapy in response to changes.

Insulin sensitivity is also rarely measured in real-world settings. “This study translated findings reported on academic studies of increased insulin resistance associated with statin use in research papers into everyday language of patient care. That is, patients on statins may need to escalate their antidiabetes therapy and there may have higher occurrences of uncontrolled diabetes events,” lead author Ishak Mansi, MD, said in an interview.

The study was published online in JAMA Internal Medicine.

Dr. Mansi, who is staff internist at the VA North Texas Health System and a professor of medicine and data and population science at the University of Texas, both in Dallas, cautioned about overinterpretation of the findings. “This is an observational study; therefore, it can establish association, but not causation.”
 

No reason to turn down statins

Dr. Mansi noted that it’s important to distinguish between those being prescribed statins as a primary preventive measurement against cardiovascular disease, and those starting statins with preexisting cardiovascular disease for secondary prevention. Statins are a key therapeutic class for secondary prevention. “Their benefits are tremendous, and we should emphasize that no patient should stop taking their statins based on our study – rather, they should talk to their doctors,” said Dr. Mansi.

The study is one of few to look at statin use and diabetes progression in patients who already have diabetes, and the first with a propensity-matched design, according to Om Ganda, MD, who was asked for comment. The results should not deter physicians from prescribing and patients from accepting statins. “Statins should not be withheld in people with high risk of cardiovascular disease, even for primary prevention, as the risk of progression of glucose levels is relatively much smaller and manageable, rather than risking cardiovascular events by stopping or not initiating when indicated by current guidelines,” said Dr. Ganda, who is the medical director of the Lipid Clinic at the Joslin Diabetes Center and an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

It’s possible that statins could increase risk of diabetes progression through promoting insulin resistance, and they may also reduce beta-cell function, which could in turn reduce insulin secretion, according to Dr. Ganda.

The study group included 83,022 pairs of statin users and matched controls, of whom 95% were men; 68.2% were White; 22% were Black; 2.1% were Native American, Pacific Islander, or Alaska Native; and 0.8% were Asian. The mean age was 60 years.

Some 56% of statin users experienced diabetes progression, compared with 48% of control patients (odds ratio, 1.37; P < .001). Progression was defined as intensification of diabetes therapy through new use of insulin or increase in the number of medication classes, new onset chronic hyperglycemia, or acute complications from hyperglycemia.

The association was seen in the component measures, including an increased number of glucose-lowering medication classes (OR, 1.41; P < .001), the frequency of new insulin use (OR, 1.16; P < .001), persistent glycemia (OR, 1.13; P < .001), and a new diagnosis of ketoacidosis or uncontrolled diabetes (OR, 1.24; P < .001).

There was also a dose-response relationship between the intensity of LDL cholesterol–lowering medication and diabetes progression.
 

More research needed

The findings don’t necessarily have a strong clinical impact, but the researchers hope it pushes toward greater personalization of statin treatment. The benefits of statins have been well studied, but their potential harms have not received the same attention. Dr. Mansi hopes to learn more about which populations stand to gain the most for primary cardiovascular disease prevention, such as older versus younger populations, healthier or sicker patients, and those with well-controlled versus uncontrolled diabetes. “Answering these questions [would] impact hundreds of millions of patients and cannot be postponed,” said Dr. Mansi. He also called for dedicated funding for research into the adverse events of frequently used medications.

Dr. Mansi and Dr. Ganda have no relevant financial disclosures.

Statin use is associated with increased likelihood of diabetes progression, according to a new matched cohort analysis of data from the Department of Veteran Affairs.

Patients with diabetes who were on statins were more likely to begin taking insulin, become hyperglycemic, and to develop acute glycemic complications, and they were also more likely to be prescribed medications from more glucose-lowering drug classes.

Although previous observational and randomized, controlled trials suggested a link between statin use and diabetes progression, they typically relied on measures like insulin resistance, hemoglobin A1c, or fasting blood glucose levels. The new work, however, outlines changes in glycemic control.

The differences between fasting glucose levels and A1c levels were generally smaller than the differences in insulin sensitivity. But A1c and fasting glucose may underestimate a potential effect of statins, since physicians may escalate antidiabetes therapy in response to changes.

Insulin sensitivity is also rarely measured in real-world settings. “This study translated findings reported on academic studies of increased insulin resistance associated with statin use in research papers into everyday language of patient care. That is, patients on statins may need to escalate their antidiabetes therapy and there may have higher occurrences of uncontrolled diabetes events,” lead author Ishak Mansi, MD, said in an interview.

The study was published online in JAMA Internal Medicine.

Dr. Mansi, who is staff internist at the VA North Texas Health System and a professor of medicine and data and population science at the University of Texas, both in Dallas, cautioned about overinterpretation of the findings. “This is an observational study; therefore, it can establish association, but not causation.”
 

No reason to turn down statins

Dr. Mansi noted that it’s important to distinguish between those being prescribed statins as a primary preventive measurement against cardiovascular disease, and those starting statins with preexisting cardiovascular disease for secondary prevention. Statins are a key therapeutic class for secondary prevention. “Their benefits are tremendous, and we should emphasize that no patient should stop taking their statins based on our study – rather, they should talk to their doctors,” said Dr. Mansi.

The study is one of few to look at statin use and diabetes progression in patients who already have diabetes, and the first with a propensity-matched design, according to Om Ganda, MD, who was asked for comment. The results should not deter physicians from prescribing and patients from accepting statins. “Statins should not be withheld in people with high risk of cardiovascular disease, even for primary prevention, as the risk of progression of glucose levels is relatively much smaller and manageable, rather than risking cardiovascular events by stopping or not initiating when indicated by current guidelines,” said Dr. Ganda, who is the medical director of the Lipid Clinic at the Joslin Diabetes Center and an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

It’s possible that statins could increase risk of diabetes progression through promoting insulin resistance, and they may also reduce beta-cell function, which could in turn reduce insulin secretion, according to Dr. Ganda.

The study group included 83,022 pairs of statin users and matched controls, of whom 95% were men; 68.2% were White; 22% were Black; 2.1% were Native American, Pacific Islander, or Alaska Native; and 0.8% were Asian. The mean age was 60 years.

Some 56% of statin users experienced diabetes progression, compared with 48% of control patients (odds ratio, 1.37; P < .001). Progression was defined as intensification of diabetes therapy through new use of insulin or increase in the number of medication classes, new onset chronic hyperglycemia, or acute complications from hyperglycemia.

The association was seen in the component measures, including an increased number of glucose-lowering medication classes (OR, 1.41; P < .001), the frequency of new insulin use (OR, 1.16; P < .001), persistent glycemia (OR, 1.13; P < .001), and a new diagnosis of ketoacidosis or uncontrolled diabetes (OR, 1.24; P < .001).

There was also a dose-response relationship between the intensity of LDL cholesterol–lowering medication and diabetes progression.
 

More research needed

The findings don’t necessarily have a strong clinical impact, but the researchers hope it pushes toward greater personalization of statin treatment. The benefits of statins have been well studied, but their potential harms have not received the same attention. Dr. Mansi hopes to learn more about which populations stand to gain the most for primary cardiovascular disease prevention, such as older versus younger populations, healthier or sicker patients, and those with well-controlled versus uncontrolled diabetes. “Answering these questions [would] impact hundreds of millions of patients and cannot be postponed,” said Dr. Mansi. He also called for dedicated funding for research into the adverse events of frequently used medications.

Dr. Mansi and Dr. Ganda have no relevant financial disclosures.

Statin use is associated with increased likelihood of diabetes progression, according to a new matched cohort analysis of data from the Department of Veteran Affairs.

Patients with diabetes who were on statins were more likely to begin taking insulin, become hyperglycemic, and to develop acute glycemic complications, and they were also more likely to be prescribed medications from more glucose-lowering drug classes.

Although previous observational and randomized, controlled trials suggested a link between statin use and diabetes progression, they typically relied on measures like insulin resistance, hemoglobin A1c, or fasting blood glucose levels. The new work, however, outlines changes in glycemic control.

The differences between fasting glucose levels and A1c levels were generally smaller than the differences in insulin sensitivity. But A1c and fasting glucose may underestimate a potential effect of statins, since physicians may escalate antidiabetes therapy in response to changes.

Insulin sensitivity is also rarely measured in real-world settings. “This study translated findings reported on academic studies of increased insulin resistance associated with statin use in research papers into everyday language of patient care. That is, patients on statins may need to escalate their antidiabetes therapy and there may have higher occurrences of uncontrolled diabetes events,” lead author Ishak Mansi, MD, said in an interview.

The study was published online in JAMA Internal Medicine.

Dr. Mansi, who is staff internist at the VA North Texas Health System and a professor of medicine and data and population science at the University of Texas, both in Dallas, cautioned about overinterpretation of the findings. “This is an observational study; therefore, it can establish association, but not causation.”
 

No reason to turn down statins

Dr. Mansi noted that it’s important to distinguish between those being prescribed statins as a primary preventive measurement against cardiovascular disease, and those starting statins with preexisting cardiovascular disease for secondary prevention. Statins are a key therapeutic class for secondary prevention. “Their benefits are tremendous, and we should emphasize that no patient should stop taking their statins based on our study – rather, they should talk to their doctors,” said Dr. Mansi.

The study is one of few to look at statin use and diabetes progression in patients who already have diabetes, and the first with a propensity-matched design, according to Om Ganda, MD, who was asked for comment. The results should not deter physicians from prescribing and patients from accepting statins. “Statins should not be withheld in people with high risk of cardiovascular disease, even for primary prevention, as the risk of progression of glucose levels is relatively much smaller and manageable, rather than risking cardiovascular events by stopping or not initiating when indicated by current guidelines,” said Dr. Ganda, who is the medical director of the Lipid Clinic at the Joslin Diabetes Center and an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

It’s possible that statins could increase risk of diabetes progression through promoting insulin resistance, and they may also reduce beta-cell function, which could in turn reduce insulin secretion, according to Dr. Ganda.

The study group included 83,022 pairs of statin users and matched controls, of whom 95% were men; 68.2% were White; 22% were Black; 2.1% were Native American, Pacific Islander, or Alaska Native; and 0.8% were Asian. The mean age was 60 years.

Some 56% of statin users experienced diabetes progression, compared with 48% of control patients (odds ratio, 1.37; P < .001). Progression was defined as intensification of diabetes therapy through new use of insulin or increase in the number of medication classes, new onset chronic hyperglycemia, or acute complications from hyperglycemia.

The association was seen in the component measures, including an increased number of glucose-lowering medication classes (OR, 1.41; P < .001), the frequency of new insulin use (OR, 1.16; P < .001), persistent glycemia (OR, 1.13; P < .001), and a new diagnosis of ketoacidosis or uncontrolled diabetes (OR, 1.24; P < .001).

There was also a dose-response relationship between the intensity of LDL cholesterol–lowering medication and diabetes progression.
 

More research needed

The findings don’t necessarily have a strong clinical impact, but the researchers hope it pushes toward greater personalization of statin treatment. The benefits of statins have been well studied, but their potential harms have not received the same attention. Dr. Mansi hopes to learn more about which populations stand to gain the most for primary cardiovascular disease prevention, such as older versus younger populations, healthier or sicker patients, and those with well-controlled versus uncontrolled diabetes. “Answering these questions [would] impact hundreds of millions of patients and cannot be postponed,” said Dr. Mansi. He also called for dedicated funding for research into the adverse events of frequently used medications.

Dr. Mansi and Dr. Ganda have no relevant financial disclosures.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has cleared SyncThink’s Eye-Sync technology to aid in the diagnosis of mild traumatic brain injury, the company has announced.

Eye-Sync is a virtual reality eye-tracking platform that provides objective measurements to aid in the assessment of concussion. It’s the first mobile, rapid test for concussion that has been cleared by the FDA, the company said.

As reported by this news organization, Eye-Sync received breakthrough designation from the FDA for this indication in March 2019.

The FDA initially cleared the Eye-Sync platform for recording, viewing, and analyzing eye movements to help clinicians identify visual tracking impairment.

The Eye-Sync technology uses a series of 60-second eye tracking assessments, neurocognitive batteries, symptom inventories, and standardized patient inventories to identify the type and severity of impairment after concussion.

“The platform generates customizable and interpretive reports that support clinical decision making and offers visual and vestibular therapies to remedy deficits and monitor improvement over time,” the company said.

In support of the application for use in concussion, SyncThink enrolled 1,655 children and adults into a clinical study that collected comprehensive patient and concussion-related data for over 12 months.

The company used these data to develop proprietary algorithms and deep learning models to identify a positive or negative indication of concussion.

The study showed that Eye-Sinc had sensitivity greater than 82% and specificity greater than 93%, “thereby providing clinicians with significant and actionable data when evaluating individuals with concussion,” the company said in a news release.

“The outcome of this study very clearly shows the effectiveness of our technology at detecting concussion and definitively demonstrates the clinical utility of Eye-Sinc,” SyncThink Chief Clinical Officer Scott Anderson said in the release.

“It also shows that the future of concussion diagnosis is no longer purely symptom-based but that of a technology driven multi-modal approach,” Mr. Anderson said.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has cleared SyncThink’s Eye-Sync technology to aid in the diagnosis of mild traumatic brain injury, the company has announced.

Eye-Sync is a virtual reality eye-tracking platform that provides objective measurements to aid in the assessment of concussion. It’s the first mobile, rapid test for concussion that has been cleared by the FDA, the company said.

As reported by this news organization, Eye-Sync received breakthrough designation from the FDA for this indication in March 2019.

The FDA initially cleared the Eye-Sync platform for recording, viewing, and analyzing eye movements to help clinicians identify visual tracking impairment.

The Eye-Sync technology uses a series of 60-second eye tracking assessments, neurocognitive batteries, symptom inventories, and standardized patient inventories to identify the type and severity of impairment after concussion.

“The platform generates customizable and interpretive reports that support clinical decision making and offers visual and vestibular therapies to remedy deficits and monitor improvement over time,” the company said.

In support of the application for use in concussion, SyncThink enrolled 1,655 children and adults into a clinical study that collected comprehensive patient and concussion-related data for over 12 months.

The company used these data to develop proprietary algorithms and deep learning models to identify a positive or negative indication of concussion.

The study showed that Eye-Sinc had sensitivity greater than 82% and specificity greater than 93%, “thereby providing clinicians with significant and actionable data when evaluating individuals with concussion,” the company said in a news release.

“The outcome of this study very clearly shows the effectiveness of our technology at detecting concussion and definitively demonstrates the clinical utility of Eye-Sinc,” SyncThink Chief Clinical Officer Scott Anderson said in the release.

“It also shows that the future of concussion diagnosis is no longer purely symptom-based but that of a technology driven multi-modal approach,” Mr. Anderson said.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has cleared SyncThink’s Eye-Sync technology to aid in the diagnosis of mild traumatic brain injury, the company has announced.

Eye-Sync is a virtual reality eye-tracking platform that provides objective measurements to aid in the assessment of concussion. It’s the first mobile, rapid test for concussion that has been cleared by the FDA, the company said.

As reported by this news organization, Eye-Sync received breakthrough designation from the FDA for this indication in March 2019.

The FDA initially cleared the Eye-Sync platform for recording, viewing, and analyzing eye movements to help clinicians identify visual tracking impairment.

The Eye-Sync technology uses a series of 60-second eye tracking assessments, neurocognitive batteries, symptom inventories, and standardized patient inventories to identify the type and severity of impairment after concussion.

“The platform generates customizable and interpretive reports that support clinical decision making and offers visual and vestibular therapies to remedy deficits and monitor improvement over time,” the company said.

In support of the application for use in concussion, SyncThink enrolled 1,655 children and adults into a clinical study that collected comprehensive patient and concussion-related data for over 12 months.

The company used these data to develop proprietary algorithms and deep learning models to identify a positive or negative indication of concussion.

The study showed that Eye-Sinc had sensitivity greater than 82% and specificity greater than 93%, “thereby providing clinicians with significant and actionable data when evaluating individuals with concussion,” the company said in a news release.

“The outcome of this study very clearly shows the effectiveness of our technology at detecting concussion and definitively demonstrates the clinical utility of Eye-Sinc,” SyncThink Chief Clinical Officer Scott Anderson said in the release.

“It also shows that the future of concussion diagnosis is no longer purely symptom-based but that of a technology driven multi-modal approach,” Mr. Anderson said.

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

Dr. Paula Braveman, director of the Center on Social Disparities in Health at the University of California, San Francisco, says her latest research revealed an “astounding” level of evidence that racism is a decisive “upstream” cause of higher rates of preterm birth among Black women.

The tipping point for Dr. Paula Braveman came when a longtime patient of hers at a community clinic in San Francisco’s Mission District slipped past the front desk and knocked on her office door to say goodbye. He wouldn’t be coming to the clinic anymore, he told her, because he could no longer afford it.

It was a decisive moment for Dr. Braveman, who decided she wanted not only to heal ailing patients but also to advocate for policies that would help them be healthier when they arrived at her clinic. In the nearly four decades since, Dr. Braveman has dedicated herself to studying the “social determinants of health” – how the spaces where we live, work, play and learn, and the relationships we have in those places influence how healthy we are.

As director of the Center on Social Disparities in Health at the University of California, San Francisco, Dr. Braveman has studied the link between neighborhood wealth and children’s health, and how access to insurance influences prenatal care. A longtime advocate of translating research into policy, she has collaborated on major health initiatives with the health department in San Francisco, the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the World Health Organization.

Dr. Braveman has a particular interest in maternal and infant health. Her latest research reviews what’s known about the persistent gap in preterm birth rates between Black and White women in the United States. Black women are about 1.6 times as likely as White women to give birth more than three weeks before the due date. That statistic bears alarming and costly health consequences, as infants born prematurely are at higher risk for breathing, heart, and brain abnormalities, among other complications.

Dr. Braveman coauthored the review with a group of experts convened by the March of Dimes that included geneticists, clinicians, epidemiologists, biomedical experts, and neurologists. They examined more than two dozen suspected causes of preterm births – including quality of prenatal care, environmental toxics, chronic stress, poverty and obesity – and determined that racism, directly or indirectly, best explained the racial disparities in preterm birth rates.

(Note: In the review, the authors make extensive use of the terms “upstream” and “downstream” to describe what determines people’s health. A downstream risk is the condition or factor most directly responsible for a health outcome, while an upstream factor is what causes or fuels the downstream risk – and often what needs to change to prevent someone from becoming sick. For example, a person living near drinking water polluted with toxic chemicals might get sick from drinking the water. The downstream fix would be telling individuals to use filters. The upstream solution would be to stop the dumping of toxic chemicals.)

KHN spoke with Dr. Braveman about the study and its findings. The excerpts have been edited for length and style.
 

Q: You have been studying the issue of preterm birth and racial disparities for so long. Were there any findings from this review that surprised you?

The process of systematically going through all of the risk factors that are written about in the literature and then seeing how the story of racism was an upstream determinant for virtually all of them. That was kind of astounding.

The other thing that was very impressive: When we looked at the idea that genetic factors could be the cause of the Black-White disparity in preterm birth. The genetics experts in the group, and there were three or four of them, concluded from the evidence that genetic factors might influence the disparity in preterm birth, but at most the effect would be very small, very small indeed. This could not account for the greater rate of preterm birth among Black women compared to White women.
 

Q: You were looking to identify not just what causes preterm birth but also to explain racial differences in rates of preterm birth. Are there examples of factors that can influence preterm birth that don’t explain racial disparities?

It does look like there are genetic components to preterm birth, but they don’t explain the Black-White disparity in preterm birth. Another example is having an early elective C-section. That’s one of the problems contributing to avoidable preterm birth, but it doesn’t look like that’s really contributing to the Black-White disparity in preterm birth.
 

Q: You and your colleagues listed exactly one upstream cause of preterm birth: racism. How would you characterize the certainty that racism is a decisive upstream cause of higher rates of preterm birth among Black women?

It makes me think of this saying: A randomized clinical trial wouldn’t be necessary to give certainty about the importance of having a parachute on if you jump from a plane. To me, at this point, it is close to that.

Going through that paper – and we worked on that paper over a three- or four-year period, so there was a lot of time to think about it – I don’t see how the evidence that we have could be explained otherwise.
 

Q: What did you learn about how a mother’s broader lifetime experience of racism might affect birth outcomes versus what she experienced within the medical establishment during pregnancy?

There were many ways that experiencing racial discrimination would affect a woman’s pregnancy, but one major way would be through pathways and biological mechanisms involved in stress and stress physiology. In neuroscience, what’s been clear is that a chronic stressor seems to be more damaging to health than an acute stressor.

So it doesn’t make much sense to be looking only during pregnancy. But that’s where most of that research has been done: stress during pregnancy and racial discrimination, and its role in birth outcomes. Very few studies have looked at experiences of racial discrimination across the life course.

My colleagues and I have published a paper where we asked African American women about their experiences of racism, and we didn’t even define what we meant. Women did not talk a lot about the experiences of racism during pregnancy from their medical providers; they talked about the lifetime experience and particularly experiences going back to childhood. And they talked about having to worry, and constant vigilance, so that even if they’re not experiencing an incident, their antennae have to be out to be prepared in case an incident does occur.

Putting all of it together with what we know about stress physiology, I would put my money on the lifetime experiences being so much more important than experiences during pregnancy. There isn’t enough known about preterm birth, but from what is known, inflammation is involved, immune dysfunction, and that’s what stress leads to. The neuroscientists have shown us that chronic stress produces inflammation and immune system dysfunction.

Q: What policies do you think are most important at this stage for reducing preterm birth for Black women?

I wish I could just say one policy or two policies, but I think it does get back to the need to dismantle racism in our society. In all of its manifestations. That’s unfortunate, not to be able to say, “Oh, here, I have this magic bullet, and if you just go with that, that will solve the problem.”

If you take the conclusions of this study seriously, you say, well, policies to just go after these downstream factors are not going to work. It’s up to the upstream investment in trying to achieve a more equitable and less racist society. Ultimately, I think that’s the take-home, and it’s a tall, tall order.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

Dr. Paula Braveman, director of the Center on Social Disparities in Health at the University of California, San Francisco, says her latest research revealed an “astounding” level of evidence that racism is a decisive “upstream” cause of higher rates of preterm birth among Black women.

The tipping point for Dr. Paula Braveman came when a longtime patient of hers at a community clinic in San Francisco’s Mission District slipped past the front desk and knocked on her office door to say goodbye. He wouldn’t be coming to the clinic anymore, he told her, because he could no longer afford it.

It was a decisive moment for Dr. Braveman, who decided she wanted not only to heal ailing patients but also to advocate for policies that would help them be healthier when they arrived at her clinic. In the nearly four decades since, Dr. Braveman has dedicated herself to studying the “social determinants of health” – how the spaces where we live, work, play and learn, and the relationships we have in those places influence how healthy we are.

As director of the Center on Social Disparities in Health at the University of California, San Francisco, Dr. Braveman has studied the link between neighborhood wealth and children’s health, and how access to insurance influences prenatal care. A longtime advocate of translating research into policy, she has collaborated on major health initiatives with the health department in San Francisco, the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the World Health Organization.

Dr. Braveman has a particular interest in maternal and infant health. Her latest research reviews what’s known about the persistent gap in preterm birth rates between Black and White women in the United States. Black women are about 1.6 times as likely as White women to give birth more than three weeks before the due date. That statistic bears alarming and costly health consequences, as infants born prematurely are at higher risk for breathing, heart, and brain abnormalities, among other complications.

Dr. Braveman coauthored the review with a group of experts convened by the March of Dimes that included geneticists, clinicians, epidemiologists, biomedical experts, and neurologists. They examined more than two dozen suspected causes of preterm births – including quality of prenatal care, environmental toxics, chronic stress, poverty and obesity – and determined that racism, directly or indirectly, best explained the racial disparities in preterm birth rates.

(Note: In the review, the authors make extensive use of the terms “upstream” and “downstream” to describe what determines people’s health. A downstream risk is the condition or factor most directly responsible for a health outcome, while an upstream factor is what causes or fuels the downstream risk – and often what needs to change to prevent someone from becoming sick. For example, a person living near drinking water polluted with toxic chemicals might get sick from drinking the water. The downstream fix would be telling individuals to use filters. The upstream solution would be to stop the dumping of toxic chemicals.)

KHN spoke with Dr. Braveman about the study and its findings. The excerpts have been edited for length and style.
 

Q: You have been studying the issue of preterm birth and racial disparities for so long. Were there any findings from this review that surprised you?

The process of systematically going through all of the risk factors that are written about in the literature and then seeing how the story of racism was an upstream determinant for virtually all of them. That was kind of astounding.

The other thing that was very impressive: When we looked at the idea that genetic factors could be the cause of the Black-White disparity in preterm birth. The genetics experts in the group, and there were three or four of them, concluded from the evidence that genetic factors might influence the disparity in preterm birth, but at most the effect would be very small, very small indeed. This could not account for the greater rate of preterm birth among Black women compared to White women.
 

Q: You were looking to identify not just what causes preterm birth but also to explain racial differences in rates of preterm birth. Are there examples of factors that can influence preterm birth that don’t explain racial disparities?

It does look like there are genetic components to preterm birth, but they don’t explain the Black-White disparity in preterm birth. Another example is having an early elective C-section. That’s one of the problems contributing to avoidable preterm birth, but it doesn’t look like that’s really contributing to the Black-White disparity in preterm birth.
 

Q: You and your colleagues listed exactly one upstream cause of preterm birth: racism. How would you characterize the certainty that racism is a decisive upstream cause of higher rates of preterm birth among Black women?

It makes me think of this saying: A randomized clinical trial wouldn’t be necessary to give certainty about the importance of having a parachute on if you jump from a plane. To me, at this point, it is close to that.

Going through that paper – and we worked on that paper over a three- or four-year period, so there was a lot of time to think about it – I don’t see how the evidence that we have could be explained otherwise.
 

Q: What did you learn about how a mother’s broader lifetime experience of racism might affect birth outcomes versus what she experienced within the medical establishment during pregnancy?

There were many ways that experiencing racial discrimination would affect a woman’s pregnancy, but one major way would be through pathways and biological mechanisms involved in stress and stress physiology. In neuroscience, what’s been clear is that a chronic stressor seems to be more damaging to health than an acute stressor.

So it doesn’t make much sense to be looking only during pregnancy. But that’s where most of that research has been done: stress during pregnancy and racial discrimination, and its role in birth outcomes. Very few studies have looked at experiences of racial discrimination across the life course.

My colleagues and I have published a paper where we asked African American women about their experiences of racism, and we didn’t even define what we meant. Women did not talk a lot about the experiences of racism during pregnancy from their medical providers; they talked about the lifetime experience and particularly experiences going back to childhood. And they talked about having to worry, and constant vigilance, so that even if they’re not experiencing an incident, their antennae have to be out to be prepared in case an incident does occur.

Putting all of it together with what we know about stress physiology, I would put my money on the lifetime experiences being so much more important than experiences during pregnancy. There isn’t enough known about preterm birth, but from what is known, inflammation is involved, immune dysfunction, and that’s what stress leads to. The neuroscientists have shown us that chronic stress produces inflammation and immune system dysfunction.

Q: What policies do you think are most important at this stage for reducing preterm birth for Black women?

I wish I could just say one policy or two policies, but I think it does get back to the need to dismantle racism in our society. In all of its manifestations. That’s unfortunate, not to be able to say, “Oh, here, I have this magic bullet, and if you just go with that, that will solve the problem.”

If you take the conclusions of this study seriously, you say, well, policies to just go after these downstream factors are not going to work. It’s up to the upstream investment in trying to achieve a more equitable and less racist society. Ultimately, I think that’s the take-home, and it’s a tall, tall order.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

Dr. Paula Braveman, director of the Center on Social Disparities in Health at the University of California, San Francisco, says her latest research revealed an “astounding” level of evidence that racism is a decisive “upstream” cause of higher rates of preterm birth among Black women.

The tipping point for Dr. Paula Braveman came when a longtime patient of hers at a community clinic in San Francisco’s Mission District slipped past the front desk and knocked on her office door to say goodbye. He wouldn’t be coming to the clinic anymore, he told her, because he could no longer afford it.

It was a decisive moment for Dr. Braveman, who decided she wanted not only to heal ailing patients but also to advocate for policies that would help them be healthier when they arrived at her clinic. In the nearly four decades since, Dr. Braveman has dedicated herself to studying the “social determinants of health” – how the spaces where we live, work, play and learn, and the relationships we have in those places influence how healthy we are.

As director of the Center on Social Disparities in Health at the University of California, San Francisco, Dr. Braveman has studied the link between neighborhood wealth and children’s health, and how access to insurance influences prenatal care. A longtime advocate of translating research into policy, she has collaborated on major health initiatives with the health department in San Francisco, the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the World Health Organization.

Dr. Braveman has a particular interest in maternal and infant health. Her latest research reviews what’s known about the persistent gap in preterm birth rates between Black and White women in the United States. Black women are about 1.6 times as likely as White women to give birth more than three weeks before the due date. That statistic bears alarming and costly health consequences, as infants born prematurely are at higher risk for breathing, heart, and brain abnormalities, among other complications.

Dr. Braveman coauthored the review with a group of experts convened by the March of Dimes that included geneticists, clinicians, epidemiologists, biomedical experts, and neurologists. They examined more than two dozen suspected causes of preterm births – including quality of prenatal care, environmental toxics, chronic stress, poverty and obesity – and determined that racism, directly or indirectly, best explained the racial disparities in preterm birth rates.

(Note: In the review, the authors make extensive use of the terms “upstream” and “downstream” to describe what determines people’s health. A downstream risk is the condition or factor most directly responsible for a health outcome, while an upstream factor is what causes or fuels the downstream risk – and often what needs to change to prevent someone from becoming sick. For example, a person living near drinking water polluted with toxic chemicals might get sick from drinking the water. The downstream fix would be telling individuals to use filters. The upstream solution would be to stop the dumping of toxic chemicals.)

KHN spoke with Dr. Braveman about the study and its findings. The excerpts have been edited for length and style.
 

Q: You have been studying the issue of preterm birth and racial disparities for so long. Were there any findings from this review that surprised you?

The process of systematically going through all of the risk factors that are written about in the literature and then seeing how the story of racism was an upstream determinant for virtually all of them. That was kind of astounding.

The other thing that was very impressive: When we looked at the idea that genetic factors could be the cause of the Black-White disparity in preterm birth. The genetics experts in the group, and there were three or four of them, concluded from the evidence that genetic factors might influence the disparity in preterm birth, but at most the effect would be very small, very small indeed. This could not account for the greater rate of preterm birth among Black women compared to White women.
 

Q: You were looking to identify not just what causes preterm birth but also to explain racial differences in rates of preterm birth. Are there examples of factors that can influence preterm birth that don’t explain racial disparities?

It does look like there are genetic components to preterm birth, but they don’t explain the Black-White disparity in preterm birth. Another example is having an early elective C-section. That’s one of the problems contributing to avoidable preterm birth, but it doesn’t look like that’s really contributing to the Black-White disparity in preterm birth.
 

Q: You and your colleagues listed exactly one upstream cause of preterm birth: racism. How would you characterize the certainty that racism is a decisive upstream cause of higher rates of preterm birth among Black women?

It makes me think of this saying: A randomized clinical trial wouldn’t be necessary to give certainty about the importance of having a parachute on if you jump from a plane. To me, at this point, it is close to that.

Going through that paper – and we worked on that paper over a three- or four-year period, so there was a lot of time to think about it – I don’t see how the evidence that we have could be explained otherwise.
 

Q: What did you learn about how a mother’s broader lifetime experience of racism might affect birth outcomes versus what she experienced within the medical establishment during pregnancy?

There were many ways that experiencing racial discrimination would affect a woman’s pregnancy, but one major way would be through pathways and biological mechanisms involved in stress and stress physiology. In neuroscience, what’s been clear is that a chronic stressor seems to be more damaging to health than an acute stressor.

So it doesn’t make much sense to be looking only during pregnancy. But that’s where most of that research has been done: stress during pregnancy and racial discrimination, and its role in birth outcomes. Very few studies have looked at experiences of racial discrimination across the life course.

My colleagues and I have published a paper where we asked African American women about their experiences of racism, and we didn’t even define what we meant. Women did not talk a lot about the experiences of racism during pregnancy from their medical providers; they talked about the lifetime experience and particularly experiences going back to childhood. And they talked about having to worry, and constant vigilance, so that even if they’re not experiencing an incident, their antennae have to be out to be prepared in case an incident does occur.

Putting all of it together with what we know about stress physiology, I would put my money on the lifetime experiences being so much more important than experiences during pregnancy. There isn’t enough known about preterm birth, but from what is known, inflammation is involved, immune dysfunction, and that’s what stress leads to. The neuroscientists have shown us that chronic stress produces inflammation and immune system dysfunction.

Q: What policies do you think are most important at this stage for reducing preterm birth for Black women?

I wish I could just say one policy or two policies, but I think it does get back to the need to dismantle racism in our society. In all of its manifestations. That’s unfortunate, not to be able to say, “Oh, here, I have this magic bullet, and if you just go with that, that will solve the problem.”

If you take the conclusions of this study seriously, you say, well, policies to just go after these downstream factors are not going to work. It’s up to the upstream investment in trying to achieve a more equitable and less racist society. Ultimately, I think that’s the take-home, and it’s a tall, tall order.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

Medtronic has updated a previous recall of its MiniMed 600 series insulin pumps to include all with a potentially problematic clear retainer ring, not just those that appear damaged.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration announced on Oct. 5 that Medtronic will now replace any MiniMed 600 series pump that has a clear retainer ring with an updated pump that includes a black retainer ring at no extra charge, regardless of warranty status.

In November 2019, Medtronic first advised patients to examine their pumps for potential damage to the ring, and to contact the company if it appeared to be loose, damaged, or missing. In February 2020, the FDA designated the recall as class 1, “the most serious type of recall,” for which use of the devices “may cause serious injuries or death.”

In this case, one potential risk is hyperglycemia. This can occur if the reservoir isn’t properly locked into place by the retainer ring, and insulin isn’t infused into the body. That, in turn, can lead to diabetic ketoacidosis. Another risk is hypoglycemia, which could result from over-delivery of insulin if the retainer ring breaks or detaches and the user inserts the reservoir back into the pump with the infusion set still connected to the body.

While serious injuries and deaths have been reported with the use of Minimed series 600 insulin pumps, “those adverse events may not have been directly related to the damaged clear retainer rings that are the basis for this recall,” according to the FDA notice. Nonetheless, lawsuits have reportedly been filed.

The new update is not a result of any new issues, Medtronic spokesperson Pamela Reese told this news organization. “Medtronic will proactively replace all MiniMed 600 series insulin pumps with the clear retainer ring design with an equivalent pump that has an updated black retainer ring design, which is designed to better withstand damage sustained by an accidental drop or bump on a hard surface.”

She added, “As we analyze the information that we continuously collect on the safety and performance of our insulin pumps, we recognize that patients who are still using the clear retainer ring could potentially encounter future problems. Therefore, we are currently accelerating our replacement as inventory allows over the coming months to eliminate any potential performance concerns and optimize patient safety and experience.”

The company has replaced nearly half of the clear retainer ring pumps that were in use since November 2019, she said.

The specific insulin pump products are the model 630G, distributed between September 2016 and February 2020; and the 670G, distributed between May 2015 and December 2020. The 630G is approved for people aged 16 years and older, and the 670G – which works with a continuous glucose monitor in a “hybrid closed-loop system – is available for people with type 1 diabetes as young as 7 years of age.

Medtronic has updated a previous recall of its MiniMed 600 series insulin pumps to include all with a potentially problematic clear retainer ring, not just those that appear damaged.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration announced on Oct. 5 that Medtronic will now replace any MiniMed 600 series pump that has a clear retainer ring with an updated pump that includes a black retainer ring at no extra charge, regardless of warranty status.

In November 2019, Medtronic first advised patients to examine their pumps for potential damage to the ring, and to contact the company if it appeared to be loose, damaged, or missing. In February 2020, the FDA designated the recall as class 1, “the most serious type of recall,” for which use of the devices “may cause serious injuries or death.”

In this case, one potential risk is hyperglycemia. This can occur if the reservoir isn’t properly locked into place by the retainer ring, and insulin isn’t infused into the body. That, in turn, can lead to diabetic ketoacidosis. Another risk is hypoglycemia, which could result from over-delivery of insulin if the retainer ring breaks or detaches and the user inserts the reservoir back into the pump with the infusion set still connected to the body.

While serious injuries and deaths have been reported with the use of Minimed series 600 insulin pumps, “those adverse events may not have been directly related to the damaged clear retainer rings that are the basis for this recall,” according to the FDA notice. Nonetheless, lawsuits have reportedly been filed.

The new update is not a result of any new issues, Medtronic spokesperson Pamela Reese told this news organization. “Medtronic will proactively replace all MiniMed 600 series insulin pumps with the clear retainer ring design with an equivalent pump that has an updated black retainer ring design, which is designed to better withstand damage sustained by an accidental drop or bump on a hard surface.”

She added, “As we analyze the information that we continuously collect on the safety and performance of our insulin pumps, we recognize that patients who are still using the clear retainer ring could potentially encounter future problems. Therefore, we are currently accelerating our replacement as inventory allows over the coming months to eliminate any potential performance concerns and optimize patient safety and experience.”

The company has replaced nearly half of the clear retainer ring pumps that were in use since November 2019, she said.

The specific insulin pump products are the model 630G, distributed between September 2016 and February 2020; and the 670G, distributed between May 2015 and December 2020. The 630G is approved for people aged 16 years and older, and the 670G – which works with a continuous glucose monitor in a “hybrid closed-loop system – is available for people with type 1 diabetes as young as 7 years of age.

Medtronic has updated a previous recall of its MiniMed 600 series insulin pumps to include all with a potentially problematic clear retainer ring, not just those that appear damaged.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration announced on Oct. 5 that Medtronic will now replace any MiniMed 600 series pump that has a clear retainer ring with an updated pump that includes a black retainer ring at no extra charge, regardless of warranty status.

In November 2019, Medtronic first advised patients to examine their pumps for potential damage to the ring, and to contact the company if it appeared to be loose, damaged, or missing. In February 2020, the FDA designated the recall as class 1, “the most serious type of recall,” for which use of the devices “may cause serious injuries or death.”

In this case, one potential risk is hyperglycemia. This can occur if the reservoir isn’t properly locked into place by the retainer ring, and insulin isn’t infused into the body. That, in turn, can lead to diabetic ketoacidosis. Another risk is hypoglycemia, which could result from over-delivery of insulin if the retainer ring breaks or detaches and the user inserts the reservoir back into the pump with the infusion set still connected to the body.

While serious injuries and deaths have been reported with the use of Minimed series 600 insulin pumps, “those adverse events may not have been directly related to the damaged clear retainer rings that are the basis for this recall,” according to the FDA notice. Nonetheless, lawsuits have reportedly been filed.

The new update is not a result of any new issues, Medtronic spokesperson Pamela Reese told this news organization. “Medtronic will proactively replace all MiniMed 600 series insulin pumps with the clear retainer ring design with an equivalent pump that has an updated black retainer ring design, which is designed to better withstand damage sustained by an accidental drop or bump on a hard surface.”

She added, “As we analyze the information that we continuously collect on the safety and performance of our insulin pumps, we recognize that patients who are still using the clear retainer ring could potentially encounter future problems. Therefore, we are currently accelerating our replacement as inventory allows over the coming months to eliminate any potential performance concerns and optimize patient safety and experience.”

The company has replaced nearly half of the clear retainer ring pumps that were in use since November 2019, she said.

The specific insulin pump products are the model 630G, distributed between September 2016 and February 2020; and the 670G, distributed between May 2015 and December 2020. The 630G is approved for people aged 16 years and older, and the 670G – which works with a continuous glucose monitor in a “hybrid closed-loop system – is available for people with type 1 diabetes as young as 7 years of age.

Johnson & Johnson asked the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on Tuesday to authorize an extra dose of its COVID-19 vaccine as a booster shot.

The company said it filed a request for people ages 18 and older who have received the one-shot vaccine. Johnson & Johnson submitted data for several different booster intervals -- ranging from 2 months to 6 months -- but didn’t formally recommend one to the FDA, The Associated Press reported.

“We’re describing the data to them,” Mathai Mammen, MD, head of global research and development for Janssen, the company’s vaccine division, told CNN.

“The process is not that we asked for a very specific interval -- we’re providing them data and we’re going to be presenting to the committee,” he said. “They’ll take all that into consideration when they ultimately decide on an appropriate interval.”

The FDA’s independent vaccine advisory committee meets next week to review data on booster shots from both Johnson & Johnson and Moderna. It’s the first step in the review process, which then requires approval from leaders at the FDA and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. If both agencies authorize the extra shots, Americans could receive boosters from Johnson & Johnson and Moderna later this month, the AP reported.

Johnson & Johnson previously released data that showed the vaccine remains highly effective against COVID-19 at least 5 months after vaccination, with 81% efficacy against hospitalizations in the United States.

Two weeks ago, the company reported that a booster dose at 2 months or 6 months further lifted immunity, with a booster at 2 months providing 94% protection against moderate and severe COVID-19. The company said the 6-month booster raised antibodies by 12 times but didn’t release additional data at that time.

In September, the FDA authorized booster shots of the Pfizer vaccine for ages 65 and older, those who live in long-term care facilities, and those with higher risks for contracting COVID-19. The Biden administration is supporting a booster campaign to address potential waning vaccine immunity and remaining surges of the more contagious Delta variant, the AP reported.

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

Johnson & Johnson asked the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on Tuesday to authorize an extra dose of its COVID-19 vaccine as a booster shot.

The company said it filed a request for people ages 18 and older who have received the one-shot vaccine. Johnson & Johnson submitted data for several different booster intervals -- ranging from 2 months to 6 months -- but didn’t formally recommend one to the FDA, The Associated Press reported.

“We’re describing the data to them,” Mathai Mammen, MD, head of global research and development for Janssen, the company’s vaccine division, told CNN.

“The process is not that we asked for a very specific interval -- we’re providing them data and we’re going to be presenting to the committee,” he said. “They’ll take all that into consideration when they ultimately decide on an appropriate interval.”

The FDA’s independent vaccine advisory committee meets next week to review data on booster shots from both Johnson & Johnson and Moderna. It’s the first step in the review process, which then requires approval from leaders at the FDA and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. If both agencies authorize the extra shots, Americans could receive boosters from Johnson & Johnson and Moderna later this month, the AP reported.

Johnson & Johnson previously released data that showed the vaccine remains highly effective against COVID-19 at least 5 months after vaccination, with 81% efficacy against hospitalizations in the United States.

Two weeks ago, the company reported that a booster dose at 2 months or 6 months further lifted immunity, with a booster at 2 months providing 94% protection against moderate and severe COVID-19. The company said the 6-month booster raised antibodies by 12 times but didn’t release additional data at that time.

In September, the FDA authorized booster shots of the Pfizer vaccine for ages 65 and older, those who live in long-term care facilities, and those with higher risks for contracting COVID-19. The Biden administration is supporting a booster campaign to address potential waning vaccine immunity and remaining surges of the more contagious Delta variant, the AP reported.

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

Johnson & Johnson asked the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on Tuesday to authorize an extra dose of its COVID-19 vaccine as a booster shot.

The company said it filed a request for people ages 18 and older who have received the one-shot vaccine. Johnson & Johnson submitted data for several different booster intervals -- ranging from 2 months to 6 months -- but didn’t formally recommend one to the FDA, The Associated Press reported.

“We’re describing the data to them,” Mathai Mammen, MD, head of global research and development for Janssen, the company’s vaccine division, told CNN.

“The process is not that we asked for a very specific interval -- we’re providing them data and we’re going to be presenting to the committee,” he said. “They’ll take all that into consideration when they ultimately decide on an appropriate interval.”

The FDA’s independent vaccine advisory committee meets next week to review data on booster shots from both Johnson & Johnson and Moderna. It’s the first step in the review process, which then requires approval from leaders at the FDA and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. If both agencies authorize the extra shots, Americans could receive boosters from Johnson & Johnson and Moderna later this month, the AP reported.

Johnson & Johnson previously released data that showed the vaccine remains highly effective against COVID-19 at least 5 months after vaccination, with 81% efficacy against hospitalizations in the United States.

Two weeks ago, the company reported that a booster dose at 2 months or 6 months further lifted immunity, with a booster at 2 months providing 94% protection against moderate and severe COVID-19. The company said the 6-month booster raised antibodies by 12 times but didn’t release additional data at that time.

In September, the FDA authorized booster shots of the Pfizer vaccine for ages 65 and older, those who live in long-term care facilities, and those with higher risks for contracting COVID-19. The Biden administration is supporting a booster campaign to address potential waning vaccine immunity and remaining surges of the more contagious Delta variant, the AP reported.

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