Federal Practitioner

Primary care physicians are more likely to write a prescription for statins for their patients at risk for cardiovascular adverse events in the morning than in the afternoon, new research suggests.

RogerAshford/Thinkstock

In an observational cohort study, researchers from the nudge unit, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, found that patients who had the first appointments of the day were most likely to have statins prescribed for them, and that this likelihood decreased as the day went on.

The study was published online May 11, 2021, in JAMA Network Open.

“Physicians are faced with decision fatigue, where they are seeing 20 patients in a day and may not have the mental bandwidth or cognitive bandwidth to fully think through every decision for every patient and to make all the appropriate decisions all of the time,” lead author Allison J. Hare, medical student and clinical informatics fellow in the nudge unit, said in an interview.

The Penn Medicine nudge unit attempts to better align clinician decision-making with current standards in best practices for the provision of various therapies, Ms. Hare explained.

“As we see more and more best-practice guidelines come out, we also see that there is a gap in the intention to treat and actual provision of these therapies,” she said. “There are also increasing expectations for clinicians to provide all of these different evidence-backed therapies. It can be hard to keep up with all these guidelines, especially when you are expected to take care of more and more patients, more and more efficiently.”

Guideline-directed statin therapy has been demonstrated to reduce the risk for major adverse cardiovascular events, yet 50% of statin-eligible patients have not been prescribed one.

“In our prior work at the nudge unit, we observed that rates of preventive care, including flu vaccination and cancer screening, declined as the clinic day progressed. We wanted to see if this occurred with statin scripts,” Ms. Hare said.

The researchers obtained data from 28 Penn Medicine primary care practices that included 10,757 patients at risk for heart disease for the period from March 2019 to February 2020.

Their mean age was 66.0 years (standard deviation, 10.5 years), 5,072 (47.2%) were female, and 7,071 (65.7%) were White. Patient characteristics were similar between morning and afternoon appointments.

All patients had clinical atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, familial hypercholesterolemia, or LDL cholesterol of at least 190 mg/dL, conditions which qualified them for statins based on the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force guidelines.

The appointment times for each patient were broken down into hour blocks, ranging from the 8:00 a.m. hour to the 4:00 p.m. hour, which bookend open times in most practices.

Overall, statins were prescribed in 36% (n = 3,864) of visits.

The data showed a clear decline in statin prescribing as the day went on. For example, compared with patients who came in at 8:00 a.m. (the reference group), patients who came in at 9:00 a.m. were 12% less likely to get a prescription.

Patients coming in for noon appointments were 37% less likely to get a statin prescription, which made them the least likely to get a script. After the noon visits, there was a slight increase, but the likelihood of a statin prescription remained 27% less likely or worse for the rest of the day.

“In the context of the myriad tasks that clinicians are faced with doing for a single patient, and then also within the context of seeing 20 patients in 15-minute increments, it is easy to see how certain things fall through the cracks,” Ms. Hare said. “It’s impossible for any clinician to remember every single little thing for their patient every single time, so if we can augment the clinician’s ability to make those appropriate decisions with electronic tools, we can narrow that gap a little bit.”
 

Why the variability?

“The nudge unit uses prompts to ask the physician about prescribing statins. The question is, what is causing the variability in statin prescriptions?” Nieca Goldberg, MD, medical director of the New York University women’s heart program, said in an interview.

“Is it fatigue, lack of familiarity of guidelines, or is this due to the volume of patients and lack of time to discuss the therapy and make a shared decision with their patient? The answer to these questions was not part of the study,” said Dr. Goldberg, who is also an American Heart Association volunteer expert. “It would be interesting to know the thoughts of the physicians who were studied after they were informed of the results. Also, having a nudge to write the prescription will increase the prescriptions of statins, but will patients take the medication?”

The study was funded in part by a grant from the National Institute on Aging. Ms. Hare and Dr. Goldberg reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Primary care physicians are more likely to write a prescription for statins for their patients at risk for cardiovascular adverse events in the morning than in the afternoon, new research suggests.

RogerAshford/Thinkstock

In an observational cohort study, researchers from the nudge unit, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, found that patients who had the first appointments of the day were most likely to have statins prescribed for them, and that this likelihood decreased as the day went on.

The study was published online May 11, 2021, in JAMA Network Open.

“Physicians are faced with decision fatigue, where they are seeing 20 patients in a day and may not have the mental bandwidth or cognitive bandwidth to fully think through every decision for every patient and to make all the appropriate decisions all of the time,” lead author Allison J. Hare, medical student and clinical informatics fellow in the nudge unit, said in an interview.

The Penn Medicine nudge unit attempts to better align clinician decision-making with current standards in best practices for the provision of various therapies, Ms. Hare explained.

“As we see more and more best-practice guidelines come out, we also see that there is a gap in the intention to treat and actual provision of these therapies,” she said. “There are also increasing expectations for clinicians to provide all of these different evidence-backed therapies. It can be hard to keep up with all these guidelines, especially when you are expected to take care of more and more patients, more and more efficiently.”

Guideline-directed statin therapy has been demonstrated to reduce the risk for major adverse cardiovascular events, yet 50% of statin-eligible patients have not been prescribed one.

“In our prior work at the nudge unit, we observed that rates of preventive care, including flu vaccination and cancer screening, declined as the clinic day progressed. We wanted to see if this occurred with statin scripts,” Ms. Hare said.

The researchers obtained data from 28 Penn Medicine primary care practices that included 10,757 patients at risk for heart disease for the period from March 2019 to February 2020.

Their mean age was 66.0 years (standard deviation, 10.5 years), 5,072 (47.2%) were female, and 7,071 (65.7%) were White. Patient characteristics were similar between morning and afternoon appointments.

All patients had clinical atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, familial hypercholesterolemia, or LDL cholesterol of at least 190 mg/dL, conditions which qualified them for statins based on the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force guidelines.

The appointment times for each patient were broken down into hour blocks, ranging from the 8:00 a.m. hour to the 4:00 p.m. hour, which bookend open times in most practices.

Overall, statins were prescribed in 36% (n = 3,864) of visits.

The data showed a clear decline in statin prescribing as the day went on. For example, compared with patients who came in at 8:00 a.m. (the reference group), patients who came in at 9:00 a.m. were 12% less likely to get a prescription.

Patients coming in for noon appointments were 37% less likely to get a statin prescription, which made them the least likely to get a script. After the noon visits, there was a slight increase, but the likelihood of a statin prescription remained 27% less likely or worse for the rest of the day.

“In the context of the myriad tasks that clinicians are faced with doing for a single patient, and then also within the context of seeing 20 patients in 15-minute increments, it is easy to see how certain things fall through the cracks,” Ms. Hare said. “It’s impossible for any clinician to remember every single little thing for their patient every single time, so if we can augment the clinician’s ability to make those appropriate decisions with electronic tools, we can narrow that gap a little bit.”
 

Why the variability?

“The nudge unit uses prompts to ask the physician about prescribing statins. The question is, what is causing the variability in statin prescriptions?” Nieca Goldberg, MD, medical director of the New York University women’s heart program, said in an interview.

“Is it fatigue, lack of familiarity of guidelines, or is this due to the volume of patients and lack of time to discuss the therapy and make a shared decision with their patient? The answer to these questions was not part of the study,” said Dr. Goldberg, who is also an American Heart Association volunteer expert. “It would be interesting to know the thoughts of the physicians who were studied after they were informed of the results. Also, having a nudge to write the prescription will increase the prescriptions of statins, but will patients take the medication?”

The study was funded in part by a grant from the National Institute on Aging. Ms. Hare and Dr. Goldberg reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Primary care physicians are more likely to write a prescription for statins for their patients at risk for cardiovascular adverse events in the morning than in the afternoon, new research suggests.

RogerAshford/Thinkstock

In an observational cohort study, researchers from the nudge unit, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, found that patients who had the first appointments of the day were most likely to have statins prescribed for them, and that this likelihood decreased as the day went on.

The study was published online May 11, 2021, in JAMA Network Open.

“Physicians are faced with decision fatigue, where they are seeing 20 patients in a day and may not have the mental bandwidth or cognitive bandwidth to fully think through every decision for every patient and to make all the appropriate decisions all of the time,” lead author Allison J. Hare, medical student and clinical informatics fellow in the nudge unit, said in an interview.

The Penn Medicine nudge unit attempts to better align clinician decision-making with current standards in best practices for the provision of various therapies, Ms. Hare explained.

“As we see more and more best-practice guidelines come out, we also see that there is a gap in the intention to treat and actual provision of these therapies,” she said. “There are also increasing expectations for clinicians to provide all of these different evidence-backed therapies. It can be hard to keep up with all these guidelines, especially when you are expected to take care of more and more patients, more and more efficiently.”

Guideline-directed statin therapy has been demonstrated to reduce the risk for major adverse cardiovascular events, yet 50% of statin-eligible patients have not been prescribed one.

“In our prior work at the nudge unit, we observed that rates of preventive care, including flu vaccination and cancer screening, declined as the clinic day progressed. We wanted to see if this occurred with statin scripts,” Ms. Hare said.

The researchers obtained data from 28 Penn Medicine primary care practices that included 10,757 patients at risk for heart disease for the period from March 2019 to February 2020.

Their mean age was 66.0 years (standard deviation, 10.5 years), 5,072 (47.2%) were female, and 7,071 (65.7%) were White. Patient characteristics were similar between morning and afternoon appointments.

All patients had clinical atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, familial hypercholesterolemia, or LDL cholesterol of at least 190 mg/dL, conditions which qualified them for statins based on the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force guidelines.

The appointment times for each patient were broken down into hour blocks, ranging from the 8:00 a.m. hour to the 4:00 p.m. hour, which bookend open times in most practices.

Overall, statins were prescribed in 36% (n = 3,864) of visits.

The data showed a clear decline in statin prescribing as the day went on. For example, compared with patients who came in at 8:00 a.m. (the reference group), patients who came in at 9:00 a.m. were 12% less likely to get a prescription.

Patients coming in for noon appointments were 37% less likely to get a statin prescription, which made them the least likely to get a script. After the noon visits, there was a slight increase, but the likelihood of a statin prescription remained 27% less likely or worse for the rest of the day.

“In the context of the myriad tasks that clinicians are faced with doing for a single patient, and then also within the context of seeing 20 patients in 15-minute increments, it is easy to see how certain things fall through the cracks,” Ms. Hare said. “It’s impossible for any clinician to remember every single little thing for their patient every single time, so if we can augment the clinician’s ability to make those appropriate decisions with electronic tools, we can narrow that gap a little bit.”
 

Why the variability?

“The nudge unit uses prompts to ask the physician about prescribing statins. The question is, what is causing the variability in statin prescriptions?” Nieca Goldberg, MD, medical director of the New York University women’s heart program, said in an interview.

“Is it fatigue, lack of familiarity of guidelines, or is this due to the volume of patients and lack of time to discuss the therapy and make a shared decision with their patient? The answer to these questions was not part of the study,” said Dr. Goldberg, who is also an American Heart Association volunteer expert. “It would be interesting to know the thoughts of the physicians who were studied after they were informed of the results. Also, having a nudge to write the prescription will increase the prescriptions of statins, but will patients take the medication?”

The study was funded in part by a grant from the National Institute on Aging. Ms. Hare and Dr. Goldberg reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

About 2% of asymptomatic college students carried 90% of COVID-19 viral load levels on a Colorado campus last year, new research reveals. Furthermore, the viral loads in these students were as elevated as those seen in hospitalized patients.

“College campuses were one of the few places where people without any symptoms or suspicions of exposure were being screened for the virus. This allowed us to make some powerful comparisons between symptomatic vs healthy carriers of the virus,” senior study author Sara Sawyer, PhD, professor of virology at the University of Colorado, Boulder, said in an interview.

“It turns out, walking around a college campus can be as dangerous as walking through a COVID ward in the hospital, in that you will experience these viral ‘super carriers’ equally in both settings,” she said.

“This is an important study in advancing our understanding of how SARS-CoV-2 is distributed in the population,” Thomas Giordano, MD, MPH, professor and section chief of infectious diseases at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, said in an interview.

The study “adds to the evidence that viral load is not too tightly correlated with symptoms.” In fact, Dr. Giordano added, “this study suggests viral load is not at all correlated with symptoms.”

Viral load may not be correlated with transmissibility either, said Raphael Viscidi, MD, when asked to comment. “This is not a transmissibility study. They did not show that viral load is the factor related to transmission.”

“It’s true that 2% of the population they studied carried 90% of the virus, but it does not establish any biological importance to that 2%,” added Dr. Viscidi, professor of pediatrics and oncology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore,.

The 2% could just be the upper tail end of a normal bell-shaped distribution curve, Dr. Viscidi said, or there could be something biologically unique about that group. But the study does not make that distinction, he said.

The study was published online May 10, 2021, in PNAS, the official journal of the National Academy of Sciences.
 

A similar picture in hospitalized patients

Out of more than 72,500 saliva samples taken during COVID-19 screening at the University of Colorado Boulder between Aug. 27 and Dec. 11, 2020, 1,405 were positive for SARS-CoV-2.

The investigators also compared viral loads from students with those of hospitalized patients based on published data. They found the distribution of viral loads between these groups “indistinguishable.”

“Strikingly, these datasets demonstrate dramatic differences in viral levels between individuals, with a very small minority of the infected individuals harboring the vast majority of the infectious virions,” the researchers wrote. The comparison “really represents two extremes: One group is mostly hospitalized, while the other group represents a mostly young and healthy (but infected) college population.”

“It would be interesting to adjust public health recommendations based on a person’s viral load,” Dr. Giordano said. “One could speculate that a person with a very high viral load could be isolated longer or more thoroughly, while someone with a very low viral load could be minimally isolated.

“This is speculation, and more data are needed to test this concept,” he added. Also, quantitative viral load testing would need to be standardized before it could be used to guide such decision-making
 

Preceding the COVID-19 vaccine era

It should be noted that the research was conducted in fall 2020, before access to COVID-19 immunization.

“The study was performed prior to vaccine availability in a cohort of young people. It adds further data to support prior observations that the majority of infections are spread by a much smaller group of individuals,” David Hirschwerk, MD, said in an interview.

“Now that vaccines are available, I think it is very likely that a repeat study of this type would show diminished transmission from vaccinated people who were infected yet asymptomatic,” added Dr. Hirschwerk, an infectious disease specialist at Northwell Health in New Hyde Park, N.Y., who was not affiliated with the research.
 

Mechanism still a mystery

“This finding has been in the literature in piecemeal fashion since the beginning of the pandemic,” Dr. Sawyer said. “I just think we were the first to realize the bigger implications of these plots of viral load that we have all been seeing over and over again.”

How a minority of people walk around asymptomatic with a majority of virus remains unanswered. Are there special people who can harbor these extremely high viral loads? Or do many infected individuals experience a short period of time when they carry such elevated levels?

The highest observed viral load in the current study was more than 6 trillion virions per mL. “It is remarkable to consider that this individual was on campus and reported no symptoms at our testing site,” the researchers wrote.

In contrast, the lowest viral load detected was 8 virions per mL.

Although more research is needed, the investigators noted that “a strong implication is that these individuals who are viral ‘super carriers’ may also be ‘superspreaders.’ ”

Some of the study authors have financial ties to companies that offer commercial SARS-CoV-2 testing, including Darwin Biosciences, TUMI Genomics, Faze Medicines, and Arpeggio Biosciences.

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

About 2% of asymptomatic college students carried 90% of COVID-19 viral load levels on a Colorado campus last year, new research reveals. Furthermore, the viral loads in these students were as elevated as those seen in hospitalized patients.

“College campuses were one of the few places where people without any symptoms or suspicions of exposure were being screened for the virus. This allowed us to make some powerful comparisons between symptomatic vs healthy carriers of the virus,” senior study author Sara Sawyer, PhD, professor of virology at the University of Colorado, Boulder, said in an interview.

“It turns out, walking around a college campus can be as dangerous as walking through a COVID ward in the hospital, in that you will experience these viral ‘super carriers’ equally in both settings,” she said.

“This is an important study in advancing our understanding of how SARS-CoV-2 is distributed in the population,” Thomas Giordano, MD, MPH, professor and section chief of infectious diseases at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, said in an interview.

The study “adds to the evidence that viral load is not too tightly correlated with symptoms.” In fact, Dr. Giordano added, “this study suggests viral load is not at all correlated with symptoms.”

Viral load may not be correlated with transmissibility either, said Raphael Viscidi, MD, when asked to comment. “This is not a transmissibility study. They did not show that viral load is the factor related to transmission.”

“It’s true that 2% of the population they studied carried 90% of the virus, but it does not establish any biological importance to that 2%,” added Dr. Viscidi, professor of pediatrics and oncology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore,.

The 2% could just be the upper tail end of a normal bell-shaped distribution curve, Dr. Viscidi said, or there could be something biologically unique about that group. But the study does not make that distinction, he said.

The study was published online May 10, 2021, in PNAS, the official journal of the National Academy of Sciences.
 

A similar picture in hospitalized patients

Out of more than 72,500 saliva samples taken during COVID-19 screening at the University of Colorado Boulder between Aug. 27 and Dec. 11, 2020, 1,405 were positive for SARS-CoV-2.

The investigators also compared viral loads from students with those of hospitalized patients based on published data. They found the distribution of viral loads between these groups “indistinguishable.”

“Strikingly, these datasets demonstrate dramatic differences in viral levels between individuals, with a very small minority of the infected individuals harboring the vast majority of the infectious virions,” the researchers wrote. The comparison “really represents two extremes: One group is mostly hospitalized, while the other group represents a mostly young and healthy (but infected) college population.”

“It would be interesting to adjust public health recommendations based on a person’s viral load,” Dr. Giordano said. “One could speculate that a person with a very high viral load could be isolated longer or more thoroughly, while someone with a very low viral load could be minimally isolated.

“This is speculation, and more data are needed to test this concept,” he added. Also, quantitative viral load testing would need to be standardized before it could be used to guide such decision-making
 

Preceding the COVID-19 vaccine era

It should be noted that the research was conducted in fall 2020, before access to COVID-19 immunization.

“The study was performed prior to vaccine availability in a cohort of young people. It adds further data to support prior observations that the majority of infections are spread by a much smaller group of individuals,” David Hirschwerk, MD, said in an interview.

“Now that vaccines are available, I think it is very likely that a repeat study of this type would show diminished transmission from vaccinated people who were infected yet asymptomatic,” added Dr. Hirschwerk, an infectious disease specialist at Northwell Health in New Hyde Park, N.Y., who was not affiliated with the research.
 

Mechanism still a mystery

“This finding has been in the literature in piecemeal fashion since the beginning of the pandemic,” Dr. Sawyer said. “I just think we were the first to realize the bigger implications of these plots of viral load that we have all been seeing over and over again.”

How a minority of people walk around asymptomatic with a majority of virus remains unanswered. Are there special people who can harbor these extremely high viral loads? Or do many infected individuals experience a short period of time when they carry such elevated levels?

The highest observed viral load in the current study was more than 6 trillion virions per mL. “It is remarkable to consider that this individual was on campus and reported no symptoms at our testing site,” the researchers wrote.

In contrast, the lowest viral load detected was 8 virions per mL.

Although more research is needed, the investigators noted that “a strong implication is that these individuals who are viral ‘super carriers’ may also be ‘superspreaders.’ ”

Some of the study authors have financial ties to companies that offer commercial SARS-CoV-2 testing, including Darwin Biosciences, TUMI Genomics, Faze Medicines, and Arpeggio Biosciences.

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

About 2% of asymptomatic college students carried 90% of COVID-19 viral load levels on a Colorado campus last year, new research reveals. Furthermore, the viral loads in these students were as elevated as those seen in hospitalized patients.

“College campuses were one of the few places where people without any symptoms or suspicions of exposure were being screened for the virus. This allowed us to make some powerful comparisons between symptomatic vs healthy carriers of the virus,” senior study author Sara Sawyer, PhD, professor of virology at the University of Colorado, Boulder, said in an interview.

“It turns out, walking around a college campus can be as dangerous as walking through a COVID ward in the hospital, in that you will experience these viral ‘super carriers’ equally in both settings,” she said.

“This is an important study in advancing our understanding of how SARS-CoV-2 is distributed in the population,” Thomas Giordano, MD, MPH, professor and section chief of infectious diseases at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, said in an interview.

The study “adds to the evidence that viral load is not too tightly correlated with symptoms.” In fact, Dr. Giordano added, “this study suggests viral load is not at all correlated with symptoms.”

Viral load may not be correlated with transmissibility either, said Raphael Viscidi, MD, when asked to comment. “This is not a transmissibility study. They did not show that viral load is the factor related to transmission.”

“It’s true that 2% of the population they studied carried 90% of the virus, but it does not establish any biological importance to that 2%,” added Dr. Viscidi, professor of pediatrics and oncology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore,.

The 2% could just be the upper tail end of a normal bell-shaped distribution curve, Dr. Viscidi said, or there could be something biologically unique about that group. But the study does not make that distinction, he said.

The study was published online May 10, 2021, in PNAS, the official journal of the National Academy of Sciences.
 

A similar picture in hospitalized patients

Out of more than 72,500 saliva samples taken during COVID-19 screening at the University of Colorado Boulder between Aug. 27 and Dec. 11, 2020, 1,405 were positive for SARS-CoV-2.

The investigators also compared viral loads from students with those of hospitalized patients based on published data. They found the distribution of viral loads between these groups “indistinguishable.”

“Strikingly, these datasets demonstrate dramatic differences in viral levels between individuals, with a very small minority of the infected individuals harboring the vast majority of the infectious virions,” the researchers wrote. The comparison “really represents two extremes: One group is mostly hospitalized, while the other group represents a mostly young and healthy (but infected) college population.”

“It would be interesting to adjust public health recommendations based on a person’s viral load,” Dr. Giordano said. “One could speculate that a person with a very high viral load could be isolated longer or more thoroughly, while someone with a very low viral load could be minimally isolated.

“This is speculation, and more data are needed to test this concept,” he added. Also, quantitative viral load testing would need to be standardized before it could be used to guide such decision-making
 

Preceding the COVID-19 vaccine era

It should be noted that the research was conducted in fall 2020, before access to COVID-19 immunization.

“The study was performed prior to vaccine availability in a cohort of young people. It adds further data to support prior observations that the majority of infections are spread by a much smaller group of individuals,” David Hirschwerk, MD, said in an interview.

“Now that vaccines are available, I think it is very likely that a repeat study of this type would show diminished transmission from vaccinated people who were infected yet asymptomatic,” added Dr. Hirschwerk, an infectious disease specialist at Northwell Health in New Hyde Park, N.Y., who was not affiliated with the research.
 

Mechanism still a mystery

“This finding has been in the literature in piecemeal fashion since the beginning of the pandemic,” Dr. Sawyer said. “I just think we were the first to realize the bigger implications of these plots of viral load that we have all been seeing over and over again.”

How a minority of people walk around asymptomatic with a majority of virus remains unanswered. Are there special people who can harbor these extremely high viral loads? Or do many infected individuals experience a short period of time when they carry such elevated levels?

The highest observed viral load in the current study was more than 6 trillion virions per mL. “It is remarkable to consider that this individual was on campus and reported no symptoms at our testing site,” the researchers wrote.

In contrast, the lowest viral load detected was 8 virions per mL.

Although more research is needed, the investigators noted that “a strong implication is that these individuals who are viral ‘super carriers’ may also be ‘superspreaders.’ ”

Some of the study authors have financial ties to companies that offer commercial SARS-CoV-2 testing, including Darwin Biosciences, TUMI Genomics, Faze Medicines, and Arpeggio Biosciences.

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

India is in a crisis as the burden of COVID-19 has collapsed parts of the health care system. There are not enough beds, not enough oxygen, and not enough crematoria to handle the pandemic. India is also a major supplier of vaccines for itself and many other countries. That production capacity has also been affected by the local events, further worsening the response to the pandemic over the next few months.

This collapse is the specter that, in April 2020, placed a hospital ship next to Manhattan and rows of beds in its convention center. Fortunately, the lockdown in March 2020 sufficiently flattened the curve. The city avoided utilizing that disaster capacity, though many New Yorkers died out of sight in nursing homes. When the third and largest wave of cases in the United States peaked in January 2021, hospitals throughout California reached capacity but avoided bursting. In April 2021, localized outbreaks in Michigan, Arizona, and Ontario again tested the maximum capacity for providing modern medical treatments. Great Britain used a second lockdown in October 2020 and a third in January 2021 to control the pandemic, with Prime Minister Boris Johnson emphasizing that it was these social interventions, and not vaccines, which provided the mitigating effects. Other European Union nations adopted similar strategies. Prudent choices by government guided by science, combined with the cooperation of the public, have been and still are crucial to mollify the pandemic.

There is hope that soon vaccines will return daily life to a new normal. In the United States, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has loosened restrictions on social gathering. An increase in daily new cases of COVID-19 in April 2021 has turned into just a blip before continuing to recede. Perhaps that is the first sign of vaccination working at the level of public health. However, the May 2021 lockdown in highly vaccinated Seychelles is a warning that the danger remains. A single match can start a huge forest fire. The first 150 million cases of COVID-19 worldwide have, through natural rates of mutation, produced several variants that might partially evade current vaccines. The danger of newer variants persists with the next 150 million cases as the pandemic continues to rage in many nations which are just one airplane ride away. All human inhabitants of this blue-covered third rock from the sun are interconnected.

The benefits of scientific advancement have been extolled for centuries. This includes both individual discoveries as well as a mindset that favors rationalism over fatalism. On the whole, the benefits of scientific progress outweigh the negatives. Negative environmental impacts include pollution and climate change. Economic impacts include raising the mean economic standard of living but with greater inequity. Historically, governmental and social institutions have attempted to mitigate these negative consequences. Those efforts have attempted to provide guidance and a moral compass to direct the progress of scientific advancement, particularly in fields like gene therapy. Those efforts have called upon developed nations to share the bounties of progress with other nations.

Modern medicine has provided the fruit of these scientific advancements to a limited fraction of the world’s population during the 20th century. The improvements in life expectancy and infant mortality have come primarily from civil engineers getting running water into cities and sewage out. A smaller portion of the benefits are from public health measures that reduced tuberculosis, smallpox, polio, and measles. Agriculture became more reliable, productive, and nutritious. In the 21st century, medical care (control of hypertension, diabetes, and clotting) aimed at reducing heart disease and strokes have added another 2-3 years to the life expectancy in the United States, with much of that benefit erased by the epidemics of obesity and opioid abuse.

Modern medical technology has created treatments that cost $10,000 a month to add a few extra months of life to geriatric patients with terminal cancer. Meanwhile, in more mundane care, efforts like Choosing Wisely seek to save money wasted on low-value, useless, and even harmful tests and therapies. There is no single person or agency managing this chaotic process of inventing expensive new technologies while inadequately addressing the widespread shortages of mental health care, disparities in education, and other social determinants of health. The pandemic has highlighted these preexisting weaknesses in the social fabric.

The cries from India have been accompanied by voices of anger from India and other nations accusing the United States of hoarding vaccines and the raw materials needed to produce them. This has been called vaccine apartheid. The United States is not alone in its political decision to prioritize domestic interests over international ones; India’s recent government is similarly nationalistic. Scientists warn that no one is safe locally as long as the pandemic rages in other countries. The Biden administration, in a delayed response to the crisis in India, finally announced plans to share some unused vaccines (of a brand not yet Food and Drug Administration approved) as well as some vaccine raw materials whose export was forbidden by a regulation under the Defense Production Act. Reading below the headlines, the promised response won’t be implemented for weeks or months. We must do better.

The logistics of sharing the benefits of advanced science are complicated. The ethics are not. Who is my neighbor? If you didn’t learn the answer to that in Sunday school, there isn’t much more I can say.

Dr. Powell is a retired pediatric hospitalist and clinical ethics consultant living in St. Louis. He has no financial disclosures, Email him at [email protected]

India is in a crisis as the burden of COVID-19 has collapsed parts of the health care system. There are not enough beds, not enough oxygen, and not enough crematoria to handle the pandemic. India is also a major supplier of vaccines for itself and many other countries. That production capacity has also been affected by the local events, further worsening the response to the pandemic over the next few months.

This collapse is the specter that, in April 2020, placed a hospital ship next to Manhattan and rows of beds in its convention center. Fortunately, the lockdown in March 2020 sufficiently flattened the curve. The city avoided utilizing that disaster capacity, though many New Yorkers died out of sight in nursing homes. When the third and largest wave of cases in the United States peaked in January 2021, hospitals throughout California reached capacity but avoided bursting. In April 2021, localized outbreaks in Michigan, Arizona, and Ontario again tested the maximum capacity for providing modern medical treatments. Great Britain used a second lockdown in October 2020 and a third in January 2021 to control the pandemic, with Prime Minister Boris Johnson emphasizing that it was these social interventions, and not vaccines, which provided the mitigating effects. Other European Union nations adopted similar strategies. Prudent choices by government guided by science, combined with the cooperation of the public, have been and still are crucial to mollify the pandemic.

There is hope that soon vaccines will return daily life to a new normal. In the United States, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has loosened restrictions on social gathering. An increase in daily new cases of COVID-19 in April 2021 has turned into just a blip before continuing to recede. Perhaps that is the first sign of vaccination working at the level of public health. However, the May 2021 lockdown in highly vaccinated Seychelles is a warning that the danger remains. A single match can start a huge forest fire. The first 150 million cases of COVID-19 worldwide have, through natural rates of mutation, produced several variants that might partially evade current vaccines. The danger of newer variants persists with the next 150 million cases as the pandemic continues to rage in many nations which are just one airplane ride away. All human inhabitants of this blue-covered third rock from the sun are interconnected.

The benefits of scientific advancement have been extolled for centuries. This includes both individual discoveries as well as a mindset that favors rationalism over fatalism. On the whole, the benefits of scientific progress outweigh the negatives. Negative environmental impacts include pollution and climate change. Economic impacts include raising the mean economic standard of living but with greater inequity. Historically, governmental and social institutions have attempted to mitigate these negative consequences. Those efforts have attempted to provide guidance and a moral compass to direct the progress of scientific advancement, particularly in fields like gene therapy. Those efforts have called upon developed nations to share the bounties of progress with other nations.

Modern medicine has provided the fruit of these scientific advancements to a limited fraction of the world’s population during the 20th century. The improvements in life expectancy and infant mortality have come primarily from civil engineers getting running water into cities and sewage out. A smaller portion of the benefits are from public health measures that reduced tuberculosis, smallpox, polio, and measles. Agriculture became more reliable, productive, and nutritious. In the 21st century, medical care (control of hypertension, diabetes, and clotting) aimed at reducing heart disease and strokes have added another 2-3 years to the life expectancy in the United States, with much of that benefit erased by the epidemics of obesity and opioid abuse.

Modern medical technology has created treatments that cost $10,000 a month to add a few extra months of life to geriatric patients with terminal cancer. Meanwhile, in more mundane care, efforts like Choosing Wisely seek to save money wasted on low-value, useless, and even harmful tests and therapies. There is no single person or agency managing this chaotic process of inventing expensive new technologies while inadequately addressing the widespread shortages of mental health care, disparities in education, and other social determinants of health. The pandemic has highlighted these preexisting weaknesses in the social fabric.

The cries from India have been accompanied by voices of anger from India and other nations accusing the United States of hoarding vaccines and the raw materials needed to produce them. This has been called vaccine apartheid. The United States is not alone in its political decision to prioritize domestic interests over international ones; India’s recent government is similarly nationalistic. Scientists warn that no one is safe locally as long as the pandemic rages in other countries. The Biden administration, in a delayed response to the crisis in India, finally announced plans to share some unused vaccines (of a brand not yet Food and Drug Administration approved) as well as some vaccine raw materials whose export was forbidden by a regulation under the Defense Production Act. Reading below the headlines, the promised response won’t be implemented for weeks or months. We must do better.

The logistics of sharing the benefits of advanced science are complicated. The ethics are not. Who is my neighbor? If you didn’t learn the answer to that in Sunday school, there isn’t much more I can say.

Dr. Powell is a retired pediatric hospitalist and clinical ethics consultant living in St. Louis. He has no financial disclosures, Email him at [email protected]

India is in a crisis as the burden of COVID-19 has collapsed parts of the health care system. There are not enough beds, not enough oxygen, and not enough crematoria to handle the pandemic. India is also a major supplier of vaccines for itself and many other countries. That production capacity has also been affected by the local events, further worsening the response to the pandemic over the next few months.

This collapse is the specter that, in April 2020, placed a hospital ship next to Manhattan and rows of beds in its convention center. Fortunately, the lockdown in March 2020 sufficiently flattened the curve. The city avoided utilizing that disaster capacity, though many New Yorkers died out of sight in nursing homes. When the third and largest wave of cases in the United States peaked in January 2021, hospitals throughout California reached capacity but avoided bursting. In April 2021, localized outbreaks in Michigan, Arizona, and Ontario again tested the maximum capacity for providing modern medical treatments. Great Britain used a second lockdown in October 2020 and a third in January 2021 to control the pandemic, with Prime Minister Boris Johnson emphasizing that it was these social interventions, and not vaccines, which provided the mitigating effects. Other European Union nations adopted similar strategies. Prudent choices by government guided by science, combined with the cooperation of the public, have been and still are crucial to mollify the pandemic.

There is hope that soon vaccines will return daily life to a new normal. In the United States, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has loosened restrictions on social gathering. An increase in daily new cases of COVID-19 in April 2021 has turned into just a blip before continuing to recede. Perhaps that is the first sign of vaccination working at the level of public health. However, the May 2021 lockdown in highly vaccinated Seychelles is a warning that the danger remains. A single match can start a huge forest fire. The first 150 million cases of COVID-19 worldwide have, through natural rates of mutation, produced several variants that might partially evade current vaccines. The danger of newer variants persists with the next 150 million cases as the pandemic continues to rage in many nations which are just one airplane ride away. All human inhabitants of this blue-covered third rock from the sun are interconnected.

The benefits of scientific advancement have been extolled for centuries. This includes both individual discoveries as well as a mindset that favors rationalism over fatalism. On the whole, the benefits of scientific progress outweigh the negatives. Negative environmental impacts include pollution and climate change. Economic impacts include raising the mean economic standard of living but with greater inequity. Historically, governmental and social institutions have attempted to mitigate these negative consequences. Those efforts have attempted to provide guidance and a moral compass to direct the progress of scientific advancement, particularly in fields like gene therapy. Those efforts have called upon developed nations to share the bounties of progress with other nations.

Modern medicine has provided the fruit of these scientific advancements to a limited fraction of the world’s population during the 20th century. The improvements in life expectancy and infant mortality have come primarily from civil engineers getting running water into cities and sewage out. A smaller portion of the benefits are from public health measures that reduced tuberculosis, smallpox, polio, and measles. Agriculture became more reliable, productive, and nutritious. In the 21st century, medical care (control of hypertension, diabetes, and clotting) aimed at reducing heart disease and strokes have added another 2-3 years to the life expectancy in the United States, with much of that benefit erased by the epidemics of obesity and opioid abuse.

Modern medical technology has created treatments that cost $10,000 a month to add a few extra months of life to geriatric patients with terminal cancer. Meanwhile, in more mundane care, efforts like Choosing Wisely seek to save money wasted on low-value, useless, and even harmful tests and therapies. There is no single person or agency managing this chaotic process of inventing expensive new technologies while inadequately addressing the widespread shortages of mental health care, disparities in education, and other social determinants of health. The pandemic has highlighted these preexisting weaknesses in the social fabric.

The cries from India have been accompanied by voices of anger from India and other nations accusing the United States of hoarding vaccines and the raw materials needed to produce them. This has been called vaccine apartheid. The United States is not alone in its political decision to prioritize domestic interests over international ones; India’s recent government is similarly nationalistic. Scientists warn that no one is safe locally as long as the pandemic rages in other countries. The Biden administration, in a delayed response to the crisis in India, finally announced plans to share some unused vaccines (of a brand not yet Food and Drug Administration approved) as well as some vaccine raw materials whose export was forbidden by a regulation under the Defense Production Act. Reading below the headlines, the promised response won’t be implemented for weeks or months. We must do better.

The logistics of sharing the benefits of advanced science are complicated. The ethics are not. Who is my neighbor? If you didn’t learn the answer to that in Sunday school, there isn’t much more I can say.

Dr. Powell is a retired pediatric hospitalist and clinical ethics consultant living in St. Louis. He has no financial disclosures, Email him at [email protected]

People who are fully vaccinated against COVID-19 are no longer required to wear masks or physically distance, regardless of location or size of the gathering, the CDC announced on May 13.

“Anyone who is fully vaccinated can participate in indoor and outdoor activities, large or small, without wearing a mask or physically distancing,” CDC director Rochelle Walensky, MD, said at a press briefing. “We have all longed for this moment when we can get back to some sense of normalcy.

“This is an exciting and powerful moment,” she added, “It could only happen because of the work from so many who made sure we had the rapid administration of three safe and effective vaccines.”

Dr. Walensky cited three large studies on the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines against the original virus and its variants. One study from Israel found the vaccine to be 97% effective against symptomatic infection.

Those who are symptomatic should still wear masks, Dr. Walensky said, and those who are immunocompromised should talk to their doctors for further guidance. The CDC still advises travelers to wear masks while on airplanes or trains.

The COVID-19 death rates are now the lowest they have been since April 2020.

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

People who are fully vaccinated against COVID-19 are no longer required to wear masks or physically distance, regardless of location or size of the gathering, the CDC announced on May 13.

“Anyone who is fully vaccinated can participate in indoor and outdoor activities, large or small, without wearing a mask or physically distancing,” CDC director Rochelle Walensky, MD, said at a press briefing. “We have all longed for this moment when we can get back to some sense of normalcy.

“This is an exciting and powerful moment,” she added, “It could only happen because of the work from so many who made sure we had the rapid administration of three safe and effective vaccines.”

Dr. Walensky cited three large studies on the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines against the original virus and its variants. One study from Israel found the vaccine to be 97% effective against symptomatic infection.

Those who are symptomatic should still wear masks, Dr. Walensky said, and those who are immunocompromised should talk to their doctors for further guidance. The CDC still advises travelers to wear masks while on airplanes or trains.

The COVID-19 death rates are now the lowest they have been since April 2020.

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

People who are fully vaccinated against COVID-19 are no longer required to wear masks or physically distance, regardless of location or size of the gathering, the CDC announced on May 13.

“Anyone who is fully vaccinated can participate in indoor and outdoor activities, large or small, without wearing a mask or physically distancing,” CDC director Rochelle Walensky, MD, said at a press briefing. “We have all longed for this moment when we can get back to some sense of normalcy.

“This is an exciting and powerful moment,” she added, “It could only happen because of the work from so many who made sure we had the rapid administration of three safe and effective vaccines.”

Dr. Walensky cited three large studies on the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines against the original virus and its variants. One study from Israel found the vaccine to be 97% effective against symptomatic infection.

Those who are symptomatic should still wear masks, Dr. Walensky said, and those who are immunocompromised should talk to their doctors for further guidance. The CDC still advises travelers to wear masks while on airplanes or trains.

The COVID-19 death rates are now the lowest they have been since April 2020.

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

Vegetarians have more favorable levels of a number of biomarkers including cardiovascular-linked ones – total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and apolipoprotein A and B – than meat eaters, according to results of the largest study of its kind to date.

Results of the cross-sectional, observational study of 178,000 participants were presented as an electronic poster at this year’s online European Congress on Obesity by Jirapitcha Boonpor of the Institute of Cardiovascular & Medical Sciences, University of Glasgow (Scotland).

“We found that the health benefits of becoming a vegetarian were independent of adiposity and other sociodemographic and lifestyle-related confounding factors,” senior author Carlos Celis-Morales, PhD, also from the University of Glasgow, said in an interview.

Total cholesterol and LDL cholesterol concentrations for vegetarians were 21% and 16.4% lower than in meat eaters. But some biomarkers considered beneficial – including vitamin D concentrations – were lower in vegetarians, while some considered unhealthy – including triglycerides and cystatin-C levels – were higher.  

Vegetarian diets have recently become much more popular, but there is insufficient information about the health benefits. Prior reports of associations between biomarkers and a vegetarian diet were unclear, including evidence of any metabolic benefits, noted Dr. Celis-Morales.

Importantly, participants in the study had followed a vegetarian or meat-eater diet for at least 5 years before their biomarkers in blood and urine were assessed.

“If you modify your diet, then, 2 weeks later, you can see changes in some metabolic markers, but changes in markers of cardiovascular disease will take 5-10 years,” he explained.
 

No single biomarker can assess health

Asked to comment on the findings, John C. Mathers, PhD, noted that they clearly confirm the importance of not reading any biomarker result in isolation.

Health is complex and individual markers tell you just part of the story,” said Dr. Mathers of the Human Nutrition Research Centre, Newcastle (England) University.

He says a vegetarian diet can be nourishing but cautioned that “just because someone excludes meat from their diet does not mean necessarily that they will be eating a healthy diet.”

“Some of the biomarker differences seen in this work – such as the lower concentrations of total cholesterol and LDL cholesterol, GGT [gamma-glutamyl transferase], and ALT [alanine transaminase] – are indicators that the vegetarians were healthier than the meat eaters. However, other differences were less encouraging, including the lower concentrations of vitamin D and higher concentrations of triglycerides and cystatin-C.”

Also reflecting on the results, Jose Lara Gallegos, PhD, senior lecturer in human nutrition at Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne, England, said they support previous evidence from large studies such as the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC), which showed that a vegetarian diet is associated with a lower risk of heart disease.

“A vegetarian diet might also be associated with lower risk for liver diseases such as nonalcoholic fatty liver disease,” Dr. Gallegos said, but added that some levels of biomarkers considered to be “healthy” were lower in the vegetarians, and it is important to remember that strictly restricted diets might be associated with potential risks of nutritional inadequacies.

“Other, less restrictive dietary patterns, such as a Mediterranean diet, are also associated with ... health benefits,” he observed.
 

Large data sample from the UK Biobank study

“Specifically, we wanted to know if vegetarians were healthier because they are generally leaner and lead healthier lives, or whether their diet specifically was responsible for their improved metabolic and cardiovascular health,” Dr. Celis-Morales explained.

Data were included from 177,723 healthy participants from the UK Biobank study who were aged 37-73 years and had reported no major dietary changes over the last 5 years. In total, 4,111 participants were self-reported vegetarians who followed a diet without red meat, poultry, or fish, and 166,516 participants were meat eaters.

Nineteen biomarkers related to diabetes, hypertension, cardiovascular diseases, cancer, and liver and renal function were included, and the associations between vegetarian diet and biomarkers, compared with meat eaters, were examined.

To minimize confounding, the findings were adjusted for age, sex, deprivation, education, ethnicity, smoking, total sedentary time, type of physical activity, alcohol intake, body mass index, and waist circumference.

Compared with meat eaters, vegetarians had significantly lower concentrations of 14 biomarkers, including total cholesterol (21% lower); LDL (16% lower); lipoprotein A (1% lower), lipoprotein B (4% lower), and liver function markers (GGT: 354% lower, and ALT: 153% lower), IGF-1 (134% lower), urate (122% lower), total protein (29% lower), creatinine (607% lower), and C-reactive protein (10% lower).

However, the researchers found that, compared with meat eaters, vegetarians had significantly higher concentrations of some unhealthy biomarkers, including triglycerides (15% higher) and cystatin-C (4% higher), and lower levels of some beneficial biomarkers including high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol (5% lower), vitamin D (635% lower), and calcium (0.7% lower).

No associations were found for hemoglobin A1c, systolic blood pressure, and aminotransferase.

“Some biomarkers, for example urate, were very low in vegetarians, and this served to verify our results because we expected meat eaters to have higher levels of urate,” remarked Dr. Celis-Morales.
 

Diet commitment and cardiovascular outcomes

Many people, whether vegetarians or meat-eaters, follow short-term diets, for example, the Atkins or the 5:2 diet, and often lack continuity switching from one diet to the next, or back to regular eating.  

“They are healthy, but they do not commit for long enough to make a difference to metabolic markers or potentially long-term health. In contrast, vegetarians are usually fully committed but the reasons behind this commitment might be a concern for the environment or animal welfare, for example,” Dr. Celis-Morales pointed out.

However, he added that many vegetarians replace the meat in their diet with unhealthy alternatives. “They often eat too much pasta or potatoes, or other high-energy food with low nutritional value.”

Having identified metabolic markers specific to long-term vegetarian diets, Dr. Celis-Morales wanted to know what happens to vegetarians’ long-term cardiovascular health. He analyzed and published these outcomes in a separate study published in December 2020.

“Over 9 years of follow-up, we have found that vegetarians have a lower risk in terms of myocardial infarction in the long-term, as well as other cardiovascular disease,” he reported.

Asked whether there was an optimum age or time in life to become a vegetarian to improve health, Dr. Celis-Morales explained that the healthier you are, the less likely you will reap the health benefits of dietary changes – for example to being a vegetarian.

“It is more likely that those people who have unhealthy lifestyle risk factors, such as smoking, and high consumption of high-energy foods or processed meat are more likely to see positive health effects,” he said.  

Lifestyle changes to improve cardiovascular outcomes are usually more likely to be required at 40 or 50 years old than at younger ages. He also noted that metabolic markers tend to show clear improvement at around 3 months after adopting a particular diet but improvements in disease outcomes take a lot longer to become evident.

Dr. Celis-Morales and his team are currently conducting a further analysis to understand if the vegetarian diet is also associated with a lower risk of cancer, depression, and dementia, compared with meat-eaters.

Dr. Celis-Morales, Dr. Mathers, and Dr. Gallegos have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Vegetarians have more favorable levels of a number of biomarkers including cardiovascular-linked ones – total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and apolipoprotein A and B – than meat eaters, according to results of the largest study of its kind to date.

Results of the cross-sectional, observational study of 178,000 participants were presented as an electronic poster at this year’s online European Congress on Obesity by Jirapitcha Boonpor of the Institute of Cardiovascular & Medical Sciences, University of Glasgow (Scotland).

“We found that the health benefits of becoming a vegetarian were independent of adiposity and other sociodemographic and lifestyle-related confounding factors,” senior author Carlos Celis-Morales, PhD, also from the University of Glasgow, said in an interview.

Total cholesterol and LDL cholesterol concentrations for vegetarians were 21% and 16.4% lower than in meat eaters. But some biomarkers considered beneficial – including vitamin D concentrations – were lower in vegetarians, while some considered unhealthy – including triglycerides and cystatin-C levels – were higher.  

Vegetarian diets have recently become much more popular, but there is insufficient information about the health benefits. Prior reports of associations between biomarkers and a vegetarian diet were unclear, including evidence of any metabolic benefits, noted Dr. Celis-Morales.

Importantly, participants in the study had followed a vegetarian or meat-eater diet for at least 5 years before their biomarkers in blood and urine were assessed.

“If you modify your diet, then, 2 weeks later, you can see changes in some metabolic markers, but changes in markers of cardiovascular disease will take 5-10 years,” he explained.
 

No single biomarker can assess health

Asked to comment on the findings, John C. Mathers, PhD, noted that they clearly confirm the importance of not reading any biomarker result in isolation.

Health is complex and individual markers tell you just part of the story,” said Dr. Mathers of the Human Nutrition Research Centre, Newcastle (England) University.

He says a vegetarian diet can be nourishing but cautioned that “just because someone excludes meat from their diet does not mean necessarily that they will be eating a healthy diet.”

“Some of the biomarker differences seen in this work – such as the lower concentrations of total cholesterol and LDL cholesterol, GGT [gamma-glutamyl transferase], and ALT [alanine transaminase] – are indicators that the vegetarians were healthier than the meat eaters. However, other differences were less encouraging, including the lower concentrations of vitamin D and higher concentrations of triglycerides and cystatin-C.”

Also reflecting on the results, Jose Lara Gallegos, PhD, senior lecturer in human nutrition at Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne, England, said they support previous evidence from large studies such as the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC), which showed that a vegetarian diet is associated with a lower risk of heart disease.

“A vegetarian diet might also be associated with lower risk for liver diseases such as nonalcoholic fatty liver disease,” Dr. Gallegos said, but added that some levels of biomarkers considered to be “healthy” were lower in the vegetarians, and it is important to remember that strictly restricted diets might be associated with potential risks of nutritional inadequacies.

“Other, less restrictive dietary patterns, such as a Mediterranean diet, are also associated with ... health benefits,” he observed.
 

Large data sample from the UK Biobank study

“Specifically, we wanted to know if vegetarians were healthier because they are generally leaner and lead healthier lives, or whether their diet specifically was responsible for their improved metabolic and cardiovascular health,” Dr. Celis-Morales explained.

Data were included from 177,723 healthy participants from the UK Biobank study who were aged 37-73 years and had reported no major dietary changes over the last 5 years. In total, 4,111 participants were self-reported vegetarians who followed a diet without red meat, poultry, or fish, and 166,516 participants were meat eaters.

Nineteen biomarkers related to diabetes, hypertension, cardiovascular diseases, cancer, and liver and renal function were included, and the associations between vegetarian diet and biomarkers, compared with meat eaters, were examined.

To minimize confounding, the findings were adjusted for age, sex, deprivation, education, ethnicity, smoking, total sedentary time, type of physical activity, alcohol intake, body mass index, and waist circumference.

Compared with meat eaters, vegetarians had significantly lower concentrations of 14 biomarkers, including total cholesterol (21% lower); LDL (16% lower); lipoprotein A (1% lower), lipoprotein B (4% lower), and liver function markers (GGT: 354% lower, and ALT: 153% lower), IGF-1 (134% lower), urate (122% lower), total protein (29% lower), creatinine (607% lower), and C-reactive protein (10% lower).

However, the researchers found that, compared with meat eaters, vegetarians had significantly higher concentrations of some unhealthy biomarkers, including triglycerides (15% higher) and cystatin-C (4% higher), and lower levels of some beneficial biomarkers including high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol (5% lower), vitamin D (635% lower), and calcium (0.7% lower).

No associations were found for hemoglobin A1c, systolic blood pressure, and aminotransferase.

“Some biomarkers, for example urate, were very low in vegetarians, and this served to verify our results because we expected meat eaters to have higher levels of urate,” remarked Dr. Celis-Morales.
 

Diet commitment and cardiovascular outcomes

Many people, whether vegetarians or meat-eaters, follow short-term diets, for example, the Atkins or the 5:2 diet, and often lack continuity switching from one diet to the next, or back to regular eating.  

“They are healthy, but they do not commit for long enough to make a difference to metabolic markers or potentially long-term health. In contrast, vegetarians are usually fully committed but the reasons behind this commitment might be a concern for the environment or animal welfare, for example,” Dr. Celis-Morales pointed out.

However, he added that many vegetarians replace the meat in their diet with unhealthy alternatives. “They often eat too much pasta or potatoes, or other high-energy food with low nutritional value.”

Having identified metabolic markers specific to long-term vegetarian diets, Dr. Celis-Morales wanted to know what happens to vegetarians’ long-term cardiovascular health. He analyzed and published these outcomes in a separate study published in December 2020.

“Over 9 years of follow-up, we have found that vegetarians have a lower risk in terms of myocardial infarction in the long-term, as well as other cardiovascular disease,” he reported.

Asked whether there was an optimum age or time in life to become a vegetarian to improve health, Dr. Celis-Morales explained that the healthier you are, the less likely you will reap the health benefits of dietary changes – for example to being a vegetarian.

“It is more likely that those people who have unhealthy lifestyle risk factors, such as smoking, and high consumption of high-energy foods or processed meat are more likely to see positive health effects,” he said.  

Lifestyle changes to improve cardiovascular outcomes are usually more likely to be required at 40 or 50 years old than at younger ages. He also noted that metabolic markers tend to show clear improvement at around 3 months after adopting a particular diet but improvements in disease outcomes take a lot longer to become evident.

Dr. Celis-Morales and his team are currently conducting a further analysis to understand if the vegetarian diet is also associated with a lower risk of cancer, depression, and dementia, compared with meat-eaters.

Dr. Celis-Morales, Dr. Mathers, and Dr. Gallegos have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Vegetarians have more favorable levels of a number of biomarkers including cardiovascular-linked ones – total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and apolipoprotein A and B – than meat eaters, according to results of the largest study of its kind to date.

Results of the cross-sectional, observational study of 178,000 participants were presented as an electronic poster at this year’s online European Congress on Obesity by Jirapitcha Boonpor of the Institute of Cardiovascular & Medical Sciences, University of Glasgow (Scotland).

“We found that the health benefits of becoming a vegetarian were independent of adiposity and other sociodemographic and lifestyle-related confounding factors,” senior author Carlos Celis-Morales, PhD, also from the University of Glasgow, said in an interview.

Total cholesterol and LDL cholesterol concentrations for vegetarians were 21% and 16.4% lower than in meat eaters. But some biomarkers considered beneficial – including vitamin D concentrations – were lower in vegetarians, while some considered unhealthy – including triglycerides and cystatin-C levels – were higher.  

Vegetarian diets have recently become much more popular, but there is insufficient information about the health benefits. Prior reports of associations between biomarkers and a vegetarian diet were unclear, including evidence of any metabolic benefits, noted Dr. Celis-Morales.

Importantly, participants in the study had followed a vegetarian or meat-eater diet for at least 5 years before their biomarkers in blood and urine were assessed.

“If you modify your diet, then, 2 weeks later, you can see changes in some metabolic markers, but changes in markers of cardiovascular disease will take 5-10 years,” he explained.
 

No single biomarker can assess health

Asked to comment on the findings, John C. Mathers, PhD, noted that they clearly confirm the importance of not reading any biomarker result in isolation.

Health is complex and individual markers tell you just part of the story,” said Dr. Mathers of the Human Nutrition Research Centre, Newcastle (England) University.

He says a vegetarian diet can be nourishing but cautioned that “just because someone excludes meat from their diet does not mean necessarily that they will be eating a healthy diet.”

“Some of the biomarker differences seen in this work – such as the lower concentrations of total cholesterol and LDL cholesterol, GGT [gamma-glutamyl transferase], and ALT [alanine transaminase] – are indicators that the vegetarians were healthier than the meat eaters. However, other differences were less encouraging, including the lower concentrations of vitamin D and higher concentrations of triglycerides and cystatin-C.”

Also reflecting on the results, Jose Lara Gallegos, PhD, senior lecturer in human nutrition at Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne, England, said they support previous evidence from large studies such as the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC), which showed that a vegetarian diet is associated with a lower risk of heart disease.

“A vegetarian diet might also be associated with lower risk for liver diseases such as nonalcoholic fatty liver disease,” Dr. Gallegos said, but added that some levels of biomarkers considered to be “healthy” were lower in the vegetarians, and it is important to remember that strictly restricted diets might be associated with potential risks of nutritional inadequacies.

“Other, less restrictive dietary patterns, such as a Mediterranean diet, are also associated with ... health benefits,” he observed.
 

Large data sample from the UK Biobank study

“Specifically, we wanted to know if vegetarians were healthier because they are generally leaner and lead healthier lives, or whether their diet specifically was responsible for their improved metabolic and cardiovascular health,” Dr. Celis-Morales explained.

Data were included from 177,723 healthy participants from the UK Biobank study who were aged 37-73 years and had reported no major dietary changes over the last 5 years. In total, 4,111 participants were self-reported vegetarians who followed a diet without red meat, poultry, or fish, and 166,516 participants were meat eaters.

Nineteen biomarkers related to diabetes, hypertension, cardiovascular diseases, cancer, and liver and renal function were included, and the associations between vegetarian diet and biomarkers, compared with meat eaters, were examined.

To minimize confounding, the findings were adjusted for age, sex, deprivation, education, ethnicity, smoking, total sedentary time, type of physical activity, alcohol intake, body mass index, and waist circumference.

Compared with meat eaters, vegetarians had significantly lower concentrations of 14 biomarkers, including total cholesterol (21% lower); LDL (16% lower); lipoprotein A (1% lower), lipoprotein B (4% lower), and liver function markers (GGT: 354% lower, and ALT: 153% lower), IGF-1 (134% lower), urate (122% lower), total protein (29% lower), creatinine (607% lower), and C-reactive protein (10% lower).

However, the researchers found that, compared with meat eaters, vegetarians had significantly higher concentrations of some unhealthy biomarkers, including triglycerides (15% higher) and cystatin-C (4% higher), and lower levels of some beneficial biomarkers including high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol (5% lower), vitamin D (635% lower), and calcium (0.7% lower).

No associations were found for hemoglobin A1c, systolic blood pressure, and aminotransferase.

“Some biomarkers, for example urate, were very low in vegetarians, and this served to verify our results because we expected meat eaters to have higher levels of urate,” remarked Dr. Celis-Morales.
 

Diet commitment and cardiovascular outcomes

Many people, whether vegetarians or meat-eaters, follow short-term diets, for example, the Atkins or the 5:2 diet, and often lack continuity switching from one diet to the next, or back to regular eating.  

“They are healthy, but they do not commit for long enough to make a difference to metabolic markers or potentially long-term health. In contrast, vegetarians are usually fully committed but the reasons behind this commitment might be a concern for the environment or animal welfare, for example,” Dr. Celis-Morales pointed out.

However, he added that many vegetarians replace the meat in their diet with unhealthy alternatives. “They often eat too much pasta or potatoes, or other high-energy food with low nutritional value.”

Having identified metabolic markers specific to long-term vegetarian diets, Dr. Celis-Morales wanted to know what happens to vegetarians’ long-term cardiovascular health. He analyzed and published these outcomes in a separate study published in December 2020.

“Over 9 years of follow-up, we have found that vegetarians have a lower risk in terms of myocardial infarction in the long-term, as well as other cardiovascular disease,” he reported.

Asked whether there was an optimum age or time in life to become a vegetarian to improve health, Dr. Celis-Morales explained that the healthier you are, the less likely you will reap the health benefits of dietary changes – for example to being a vegetarian.

“It is more likely that those people who have unhealthy lifestyle risk factors, such as smoking, and high consumption of high-energy foods or processed meat are more likely to see positive health effects,” he said.  

Lifestyle changes to improve cardiovascular outcomes are usually more likely to be required at 40 or 50 years old than at younger ages. He also noted that metabolic markers tend to show clear improvement at around 3 months after adopting a particular diet but improvements in disease outcomes take a lot longer to become evident.

Dr. Celis-Morales and his team are currently conducting a further analysis to understand if the vegetarian diet is also associated with a lower risk of cancer, depression, and dementia, compared with meat-eaters.

Dr. Celis-Morales, Dr. Mathers, and Dr. Gallegos have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The American Medical Association has released a 3-year strategic plan to counter longstanding health inequities that hurt marginalized communities and to improve the AMA’s own performance in this regard.

The 82-page report, which was created by the association’s Center for Health Equity, argues for both internal changes at the AMA and changes in how the association addresses race-based inequities in general.

The report was released just 2 months after this news organization reported that a podcast hosted by AMA’s top journal was lambasted as racist and out of touch. In the podcast – entitled “Stuctural Racism for Doctors – What Is It?” – one JAMA editor argued that structural racism doesn’t exist. He eventually resigned and the journal’s top editor was placed on administration leave.

The new AMA report’s strategic framework “is driven by the immense need for equity-centered solutions to confront harms produced by systemic racism and other forms of oppression for Black, Latinx, Indigenous, Asian, and other people of color, as well as people who identify as LGBTQ+ and people with disabilities,” the AMA said in a news release. “Its urgency is underscored by ongoing circumstances including inequities exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, ongoing police brutality, and hate crimes targeting Asian, Black, and Brown communities.”

The plan includes five main approaches to addressing inequities in health care and the AMA:

• Implement antiracist equity strategies through AMA practices, programming, policies, and culture.
• Build alliances with marginalized doctors and other stakeholders to elevate the experiences and ideas of historically marginalized and minority health care leaders.
• Strengthen, empower, and equip doctors with the knowledge and tools to dismantle structural and social health inequities.
• Ensure equitable opportunities in innovation.
• Foster truth, racial healing, reconciliation, and transformation for AMA’s past by accounting for how policies and processes excluded, discriminated, and harmed communities.

As the report acknowledges, the AMA has a long history of exclusion of and discrimination against Black physicians, for which the association publicly apologized in 2008. Within the past year, the AMA has reaffirmed its commitment to addressing this legacy and to be proactive on health equity.

Among other things, the association has described racism as a public health crisis, stated that race has nothing to do with biology, said police brutality is a product of structural racism, and called on the federal government to collect and release COVID-19 race/ethnicity data. It also removed the name of AMA founder Nathan Davis, MD, from an annual award and display because of his contribution to explicit racist practices.
 

Equity-centered solutions

The AMA launched its Center for Health Equity in 2019 with a mandate “to embed health equity across the organization.” Aletha Maybank, MD, was named the AMA’s chief health equity officer to lead the center.

In the report that Dr. Maybank helped write, the AMA discusses the consequences of individual and systemic injustice toward minorities. Among these consequences, the report said, is “segregated and inequitable health care systems.”

The “equity-centered solutions” listed in the report include:

• End segregated health care.
• Establish national health care equity and racial justice standards.
• End the use of race-based clinical decision models.
• Eliminate all forms of discrimination, exclusion and oppression in medical and physician education, training, hiring, and promotion.
• Prevent exclusion of and ensure equal representation of Black, Indigenous and Latinx people in medical school admissions as well as medical school and hospital leadership ranks.
• Ensure equity in innovation, including design, development, implementation along with support for equitable innovation opportunities and entrepreneurship.
• Solidify connections and coordination between health care and public health.
• Acknowledge and repair past harms committed by institutions.
•  

Changing medical education

In an exclusive interview, Gerald E. Harmon, MD, president-elect of the AMA, singled out medical education as an area that is ripe for change. “One of the most threatened phenotypes on the planet is the Black male physician,” he said. “Their numbers among medical school applicants continue to drop. We have increasing numbers of women in medical schools – over 50% of trainees are women – and more Black women are entering medical school, but Black men in medical school are an endangered species.

“We’re trying to get the physician workforce to look like the patient workforce.”

Dr. Harmon cited the “pipeline program” at the Morehouse School of Medicine in Atlanta and the AMA’s “doctors back to school” program as examples of efforts to attract minority high school students to health care careers. Much more needs to be done, he added. “We have to put equity and representation into our medical workforce so we can provide better high quality, more reliable care for underrepresented patients.”
 

Putting the AMA’s house in order

In its report, the AMA also makes recommendations about how it can improve equity within its own organization. Over the next 3 years, among other things, the association plans to improve the diversity of leadership at the AMA and its journal, JAMA; train all staff on equity requirements; and develop a plan to recruit more racial and ethnic minorities, LGBTQ+ people, and disabled people.

Dr. Maybank, the AMA’s chief health equity officer, said in an interview that she wouldn’t describe these efforts as affirmative action. “This is beyond affirmative action. It’s about intentional activity and action to ensure equity and justice within the AMA.”

The AMA has to thoroughly examine its own processes and determine “how inequity shows up on a day-to-day basis,” she said. “Whether it’s through hiring, innovation, publishing or communications, everybody needs to know how inequity shows up and how their own mental models can exacerbate inequities. People need tools to challenge themselves and ask themselves critical questions about racism in their processes and what they can do to mitigate those.”

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

The American Medical Association has released a 3-year strategic plan to counter longstanding health inequities that hurt marginalized communities and to improve the AMA’s own performance in this regard.

The 82-page report, which was created by the association’s Center for Health Equity, argues for both internal changes at the AMA and changes in how the association addresses race-based inequities in general.

The report was released just 2 months after this news organization reported that a podcast hosted by AMA’s top journal was lambasted as racist and out of touch. In the podcast – entitled “Stuctural Racism for Doctors – What Is It?” – one JAMA editor argued that structural racism doesn’t exist. He eventually resigned and the journal’s top editor was placed on administration leave.

The new AMA report’s strategic framework “is driven by the immense need for equity-centered solutions to confront harms produced by systemic racism and other forms of oppression for Black, Latinx, Indigenous, Asian, and other people of color, as well as people who identify as LGBTQ+ and people with disabilities,” the AMA said in a news release. “Its urgency is underscored by ongoing circumstances including inequities exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, ongoing police brutality, and hate crimes targeting Asian, Black, and Brown communities.”

The plan includes five main approaches to addressing inequities in health care and the AMA:

• Implement antiracist equity strategies through AMA practices, programming, policies, and culture.
• Build alliances with marginalized doctors and other stakeholders to elevate the experiences and ideas of historically marginalized and minority health care leaders.
• Strengthen, empower, and equip doctors with the knowledge and tools to dismantle structural and social health inequities.
• Ensure equitable opportunities in innovation.
• Foster truth, racial healing, reconciliation, and transformation for AMA’s past by accounting for how policies and processes excluded, discriminated, and harmed communities.

As the report acknowledges, the AMA has a long history of exclusion of and discrimination against Black physicians, for which the association publicly apologized in 2008. Within the past year, the AMA has reaffirmed its commitment to addressing this legacy and to be proactive on health equity.

Among other things, the association has described racism as a public health crisis, stated that race has nothing to do with biology, said police brutality is a product of structural racism, and called on the federal government to collect and release COVID-19 race/ethnicity data. It also removed the name of AMA founder Nathan Davis, MD, from an annual award and display because of his contribution to explicit racist practices.
 

Equity-centered solutions

The AMA launched its Center for Health Equity in 2019 with a mandate “to embed health equity across the organization.” Aletha Maybank, MD, was named the AMA’s chief health equity officer to lead the center.

In the report that Dr. Maybank helped write, the AMA discusses the consequences of individual and systemic injustice toward minorities. Among these consequences, the report said, is “segregated and inequitable health care systems.”

The “equity-centered solutions” listed in the report include:

• End segregated health care.
• Establish national health care equity and racial justice standards.
• End the use of race-based clinical decision models.
• Eliminate all forms of discrimination, exclusion and oppression in medical and physician education, training, hiring, and promotion.
• Prevent exclusion of and ensure equal representation of Black, Indigenous and Latinx people in medical school admissions as well as medical school and hospital leadership ranks.
• Ensure equity in innovation, including design, development, implementation along with support for equitable innovation opportunities and entrepreneurship.
• Solidify connections and coordination between health care and public health.
• Acknowledge and repair past harms committed by institutions.
•  

Changing medical education

In an exclusive interview, Gerald E. Harmon, MD, president-elect of the AMA, singled out medical education as an area that is ripe for change. “One of the most threatened phenotypes on the planet is the Black male physician,” he said. “Their numbers among medical school applicants continue to drop. We have increasing numbers of women in medical schools – over 50% of trainees are women – and more Black women are entering medical school, but Black men in medical school are an endangered species.

“We’re trying to get the physician workforce to look like the patient workforce.”

Dr. Harmon cited the “pipeline program” at the Morehouse School of Medicine in Atlanta and the AMA’s “doctors back to school” program as examples of efforts to attract minority high school students to health care careers. Much more needs to be done, he added. “We have to put equity and representation into our medical workforce so we can provide better high quality, more reliable care for underrepresented patients.”
 

Putting the AMA’s house in order

In its report, the AMA also makes recommendations about how it can improve equity within its own organization. Over the next 3 years, among other things, the association plans to improve the diversity of leadership at the AMA and its journal, JAMA; train all staff on equity requirements; and develop a plan to recruit more racial and ethnic minorities, LGBTQ+ people, and disabled people.

Dr. Maybank, the AMA’s chief health equity officer, said in an interview that she wouldn’t describe these efforts as affirmative action. “This is beyond affirmative action. It’s about intentional activity and action to ensure equity and justice within the AMA.”

The AMA has to thoroughly examine its own processes and determine “how inequity shows up on a day-to-day basis,” she said. “Whether it’s through hiring, innovation, publishing or communications, everybody needs to know how inequity shows up and how their own mental models can exacerbate inequities. People need tools to challenge themselves and ask themselves critical questions about racism in their processes and what they can do to mitigate those.”

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

The American Medical Association has released a 3-year strategic plan to counter longstanding health inequities that hurt marginalized communities and to improve the AMA’s own performance in this regard.

The 82-page report, which was created by the association’s Center for Health Equity, argues for both internal changes at the AMA and changes in how the association addresses race-based inequities in general.

The report was released just 2 months after this news organization reported that a podcast hosted by AMA’s top journal was lambasted as racist and out of touch. In the podcast – entitled “Stuctural Racism for Doctors – What Is It?” – one JAMA editor argued that structural racism doesn’t exist. He eventually resigned and the journal’s top editor was placed on administration leave.

The new AMA report’s strategic framework “is driven by the immense need for equity-centered solutions to confront harms produced by systemic racism and other forms of oppression for Black, Latinx, Indigenous, Asian, and other people of color, as well as people who identify as LGBTQ+ and people with disabilities,” the AMA said in a news release. “Its urgency is underscored by ongoing circumstances including inequities exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, ongoing police brutality, and hate crimes targeting Asian, Black, and Brown communities.”

The plan includes five main approaches to addressing inequities in health care and the AMA:

• Implement antiracist equity strategies through AMA practices, programming, policies, and culture.
• Build alliances with marginalized doctors and other stakeholders to elevate the experiences and ideas of historically marginalized and minority health care leaders.
• Strengthen, empower, and equip doctors with the knowledge and tools to dismantle structural and social health inequities.
• Ensure equitable opportunities in innovation.
• Foster truth, racial healing, reconciliation, and transformation for AMA’s past by accounting for how policies and processes excluded, discriminated, and harmed communities.

As the report acknowledges, the AMA has a long history of exclusion of and discrimination against Black physicians, for which the association publicly apologized in 2008. Within the past year, the AMA has reaffirmed its commitment to addressing this legacy and to be proactive on health equity.

Among other things, the association has described racism as a public health crisis, stated that race has nothing to do with biology, said police brutality is a product of structural racism, and called on the federal government to collect and release COVID-19 race/ethnicity data. It also removed the name of AMA founder Nathan Davis, MD, from an annual award and display because of his contribution to explicit racist practices.
 

Equity-centered solutions

The AMA launched its Center for Health Equity in 2019 with a mandate “to embed health equity across the organization.” Aletha Maybank, MD, was named the AMA’s chief health equity officer to lead the center.

In the report that Dr. Maybank helped write, the AMA discusses the consequences of individual and systemic injustice toward minorities. Among these consequences, the report said, is “segregated and inequitable health care systems.”

The “equity-centered solutions” listed in the report include:

• End segregated health care.
• Establish national health care equity and racial justice standards.
• End the use of race-based clinical decision models.
• Eliminate all forms of discrimination, exclusion and oppression in medical and physician education, training, hiring, and promotion.
• Prevent exclusion of and ensure equal representation of Black, Indigenous and Latinx people in medical school admissions as well as medical school and hospital leadership ranks.
• Ensure equity in innovation, including design, development, implementation along with support for equitable innovation opportunities and entrepreneurship.
• Solidify connections and coordination between health care and public health.
• Acknowledge and repair past harms committed by institutions.
•  

Changing medical education

In an exclusive interview, Gerald E. Harmon, MD, president-elect of the AMA, singled out medical education as an area that is ripe for change. “One of the most threatened phenotypes on the planet is the Black male physician,” he said. “Their numbers among medical school applicants continue to drop. We have increasing numbers of women in medical schools – over 50% of trainees are women – and more Black women are entering medical school, but Black men in medical school are an endangered species.

“We’re trying to get the physician workforce to look like the patient workforce.”

Dr. Harmon cited the “pipeline program” at the Morehouse School of Medicine in Atlanta and the AMA’s “doctors back to school” program as examples of efforts to attract minority high school students to health care careers. Much more needs to be done, he added. “We have to put equity and representation into our medical workforce so we can provide better high quality, more reliable care for underrepresented patients.”
 

Putting the AMA’s house in order

In its report, the AMA also makes recommendations about how it can improve equity within its own organization. Over the next 3 years, among other things, the association plans to improve the diversity of leadership at the AMA and its journal, JAMA; train all staff on equity requirements; and develop a plan to recruit more racial and ethnic minorities, LGBTQ+ people, and disabled people.

Dr. Maybank, the AMA’s chief health equity officer, said in an interview that she wouldn’t describe these efforts as affirmative action. “This is beyond affirmative action. It’s about intentional activity and action to ensure equity and justice within the AMA.”

The AMA has to thoroughly examine its own processes and determine “how inequity shows up on a day-to-day basis,” she said. “Whether it’s through hiring, innovation, publishing or communications, everybody needs to know how inequity shows up and how their own mental models can exacerbate inequities. People need tools to challenge themselves and ask themselves critical questions about racism in their processes and what they can do to mitigate those.”

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

Dual HER2 blockade with pertuzumab (Perjeta) and trastuzumab (Herceptin) on top of anthracycline-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy for early-stage breast cancer was associated with a low rate of clinically relevant cardiac events in the final follow-up of the BERENICE study.

After more than 5 years, 1.0%-1.5% of patients who had locally advanced, inflammatory, or early-stage breast cancer developed heart failure, and around 12%-13% showed any significant changes in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF).

Importantly, “there were no new safety concerns that arose during long-term follow-up,” study investigator Chau Dang, MD, said in presenting the findings at the European Society for Medical Oncology: Breast Cancer virtual meeting.

Dr. Dang, a medical oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Centre in New York, reported that the most common cause of death was disease progression.

BERENICE was designed as a cardiac safety study and so not powered to look at long-term efficacy, which Dr. Dang was clear in reporting. Nevertheless event-free survival (EFS), invasive disease-free survival (IDFS), and overall survival (OS) rates at 5 years were all high, at least a respective 89.2%, 91%, and 93.8%, she said. “The medians have not been reached,” she observed.

“These data support the use of dual HER2 blockade with pertuzumab-trastuzumab–based regimens, including in combination with dose-dense, anthracycline-based chemotherapy, across the neoadjuvant and adjuvant treatment settings for the complete treatment of patients with HER2-positive early-stage breast cancer,” Dr. Dang said.

Evandro de Azambuja, MD, PhD, the invited discussant for the trial agreed that the regimens tested appeared “safe from a cardiac standpoint.” However, “you cannot forget that today we are using much less anthracyclines in our patient population.”

Patients in trials are also very different from those treated in clinical practice, often being younger and much fitter, he said. Therefore, it may be important to look at the baseline cardiac medications and comorbidities, Dr. de Azambuja, a medical oncologist at the Institut Jules Bordet in Brussels, Belgium, suggested.

That said, the BERENICE findings sit well with other trials that have been conducted, Dr. de Azambuja pointed out.

“If we look at other trials that have also tested dual HER2 blockade with anthracycline or nonanthracycline regimens, all of them reassure that dual blockade is not more cardiotoxic than single blockade,” he said. This includes trials such as TRYPHAENA, APHINITY, KRISTINE, NeoSphere and PEONY.

The 3-year IDFS rate of 91% in BERENICE also compares well to that seen in APHINITY (94%), Dr. de Azambuja said.
 

BERENICE study design

BERENICE was a multicenter, open-label, nonrandomized and noncomparative phase 2 trial that recruited 400 patients across 75 centers in 12 countries.

Eligibility criteria were that participants had to have been centrally confirmed HER2-positive locally advanced, inflammatory or early breast cancer, with the latter defined as tumors bigger than 2 cm or greater than 5 mm in size, and be node-positive. Patients also had to have a starting LVEF of 55% or higher.

Patients were allocated to one of two neoadjuvant chemotherapy regimens depending on the choice of their physician. One group received a regimen of dose-dense doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (ddAC) given every 2 weeks for four cycles and then paclitaxel every week for 12 cycles. The other group received 5-fluorouracil, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide (FEC) every 3 weeks for four cycles and then docetaxel every 3 weeks for four cycles.

Pertuzumab and trastuzumab were started at the same time as the taxanes in both groups and given every 3 weeks for four cycles. Patients then underwent surgery and continued pertuzumab/trastuzumab treatment alone for a further 13 cycles.

The co-primary endpoints were the incidence of New York Heart Association class III or IV heart failure and incidence of symptomatic and asymptomatic LVEF decline of 10% or more.

The primary analysis of the trial was published in 2018 and, at that time, it was reported that three patients in the ddAC cohort and none in the FEC cohort experienced heart failure. LVEF decline was observed in a respective 6.5% and 2% of patients.
 

Discussion points

Dr. de Azambuja noted that the contribution of the chemotherapy to the efficacy cannot be assessed because of the nonrandomized trial design. That should not matter, pointed out Sybille Loibl, MD, PhD, during discussion.

“I think it compares nicely to other trials that looked at dose-dense chemotherapy,” said Dr. Loibl, who is an associate professor at the University of Frankfurt in Germany. “It seems that, in the light of what we consider today probably one of the best anti-HER2 treatments, the chemotherapy is less relevant, and that’s why a dose-dense regimen doesn’t add so much on a standard anthracycline taxane-containing regimen.”

Dr. de Azambuja also commented on the assessment of cardiotoxicity and the use of reduced LVEF as a measure: LVEF decline is a late effect of cardiotoxicity, he observed, and he suggested a different approach in future trials.

“If you use Global Longitudinal Strain, this could be an optimal parameter to detect early subclinical LVEF dysfunction and you should consider it for the next trials looking for cardiac safety. Also, cardiac biomarkers. This was not implemented in this trial, and I strongly recommend this should be for the next trial.”

The BERENICE trial was funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche. Dr. Dang disclosed receiving consultancy fees from F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Genentech, Daiichi Sankyo, Lilly, and Puma Biotechnology. Dr. de Azambuja was not involved in the study but disclosed receiving honoraria, travel grants, research grants from Roche and Genentech as well as from other companies. Dr. Loibl was one of the cochairs of the session and, among disclosures regarding many other companies, has been an invited speaker for Roche and received reimbursement via her institution for a writing engagement.

Dual HER2 blockade with pertuzumab (Perjeta) and trastuzumab (Herceptin) on top of anthracycline-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy for early-stage breast cancer was associated with a low rate of clinically relevant cardiac events in the final follow-up of the BERENICE study.

After more than 5 years, 1.0%-1.5% of patients who had locally advanced, inflammatory, or early-stage breast cancer developed heart failure, and around 12%-13% showed any significant changes in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF).

Importantly, “there were no new safety concerns that arose during long-term follow-up,” study investigator Chau Dang, MD, said in presenting the findings at the European Society for Medical Oncology: Breast Cancer virtual meeting.

Dr. Dang, a medical oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Centre in New York, reported that the most common cause of death was disease progression.

BERENICE was designed as a cardiac safety study and so not powered to look at long-term efficacy, which Dr. Dang was clear in reporting. Nevertheless event-free survival (EFS), invasive disease-free survival (IDFS), and overall survival (OS) rates at 5 years were all high, at least a respective 89.2%, 91%, and 93.8%, she said. “The medians have not been reached,” she observed.

“These data support the use of dual HER2 blockade with pertuzumab-trastuzumab–based regimens, including in combination with dose-dense, anthracycline-based chemotherapy, across the neoadjuvant and adjuvant treatment settings for the complete treatment of patients with HER2-positive early-stage breast cancer,” Dr. Dang said.

Evandro de Azambuja, MD, PhD, the invited discussant for the trial agreed that the regimens tested appeared “safe from a cardiac standpoint.” However, “you cannot forget that today we are using much less anthracyclines in our patient population.”

Patients in trials are also very different from those treated in clinical practice, often being younger and much fitter, he said. Therefore, it may be important to look at the baseline cardiac medications and comorbidities, Dr. de Azambuja, a medical oncologist at the Institut Jules Bordet in Brussels, Belgium, suggested.

That said, the BERENICE findings sit well with other trials that have been conducted, Dr. de Azambuja pointed out.

“If we look at other trials that have also tested dual HER2 blockade with anthracycline or nonanthracycline regimens, all of them reassure that dual blockade is not more cardiotoxic than single blockade,” he said. This includes trials such as TRYPHAENA, APHINITY, KRISTINE, NeoSphere and PEONY.

The 3-year IDFS rate of 91% in BERENICE also compares well to that seen in APHINITY (94%), Dr. de Azambuja said.
 

BERENICE study design

BERENICE was a multicenter, open-label, nonrandomized and noncomparative phase 2 trial that recruited 400 patients across 75 centers in 12 countries.

Eligibility criteria were that participants had to have been centrally confirmed HER2-positive locally advanced, inflammatory or early breast cancer, with the latter defined as tumors bigger than 2 cm or greater than 5 mm in size, and be node-positive. Patients also had to have a starting LVEF of 55% or higher.

Patients were allocated to one of two neoadjuvant chemotherapy regimens depending on the choice of their physician. One group received a regimen of dose-dense doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (ddAC) given every 2 weeks for four cycles and then paclitaxel every week for 12 cycles. The other group received 5-fluorouracil, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide (FEC) every 3 weeks for four cycles and then docetaxel every 3 weeks for four cycles.

Pertuzumab and trastuzumab were started at the same time as the taxanes in both groups and given every 3 weeks for four cycles. Patients then underwent surgery and continued pertuzumab/trastuzumab treatment alone for a further 13 cycles.

The co-primary endpoints were the incidence of New York Heart Association class III or IV heart failure and incidence of symptomatic and asymptomatic LVEF decline of 10% or more.

The primary analysis of the trial was published in 2018 and, at that time, it was reported that three patients in the ddAC cohort and none in the FEC cohort experienced heart failure. LVEF decline was observed in a respective 6.5% and 2% of patients.
 

Discussion points

Dr. de Azambuja noted that the contribution of the chemotherapy to the efficacy cannot be assessed because of the nonrandomized trial design. That should not matter, pointed out Sybille Loibl, MD, PhD, during discussion.

“I think it compares nicely to other trials that looked at dose-dense chemotherapy,” said Dr. Loibl, who is an associate professor at the University of Frankfurt in Germany. “It seems that, in the light of what we consider today probably one of the best anti-HER2 treatments, the chemotherapy is less relevant, and that’s why a dose-dense regimen doesn’t add so much on a standard anthracycline taxane-containing regimen.”

Dr. de Azambuja also commented on the assessment of cardiotoxicity and the use of reduced LVEF as a measure: LVEF decline is a late effect of cardiotoxicity, he observed, and he suggested a different approach in future trials.

“If you use Global Longitudinal Strain, this could be an optimal parameter to detect early subclinical LVEF dysfunction and you should consider it for the next trials looking for cardiac safety. Also, cardiac biomarkers. This was not implemented in this trial, and I strongly recommend this should be for the next trial.”

The BERENICE trial was funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche. Dr. Dang disclosed receiving consultancy fees from F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Genentech, Daiichi Sankyo, Lilly, and Puma Biotechnology. Dr. de Azambuja was not involved in the study but disclosed receiving honoraria, travel grants, research grants from Roche and Genentech as well as from other companies. Dr. Loibl was one of the cochairs of the session and, among disclosures regarding many other companies, has been an invited speaker for Roche and received reimbursement via her institution for a writing engagement.

Dual HER2 blockade with pertuzumab (Perjeta) and trastuzumab (Herceptin) on top of anthracycline-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy for early-stage breast cancer was associated with a low rate of clinically relevant cardiac events in the final follow-up of the BERENICE study.

After more than 5 years, 1.0%-1.5% of patients who had locally advanced, inflammatory, or early-stage breast cancer developed heart failure, and around 12%-13% showed any significant changes in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF).

Importantly, “there were no new safety concerns that arose during long-term follow-up,” study investigator Chau Dang, MD, said in presenting the findings at the European Society for Medical Oncology: Breast Cancer virtual meeting.

Dr. Dang, a medical oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Centre in New York, reported that the most common cause of death was disease progression.

BERENICE was designed as a cardiac safety study and so not powered to look at long-term efficacy, which Dr. Dang was clear in reporting. Nevertheless event-free survival (EFS), invasive disease-free survival (IDFS), and overall survival (OS) rates at 5 years were all high, at least a respective 89.2%, 91%, and 93.8%, she said. “The medians have not been reached,” she observed.

“These data support the use of dual HER2 blockade with pertuzumab-trastuzumab–based regimens, including in combination with dose-dense, anthracycline-based chemotherapy, across the neoadjuvant and adjuvant treatment settings for the complete treatment of patients with HER2-positive early-stage breast cancer,” Dr. Dang said.

Evandro de Azambuja, MD, PhD, the invited discussant for the trial agreed that the regimens tested appeared “safe from a cardiac standpoint.” However, “you cannot forget that today we are using much less anthracyclines in our patient population.”

Patients in trials are also very different from those treated in clinical practice, often being younger and much fitter, he said. Therefore, it may be important to look at the baseline cardiac medications and comorbidities, Dr. de Azambuja, a medical oncologist at the Institut Jules Bordet in Brussels, Belgium, suggested.

That said, the BERENICE findings sit well with other trials that have been conducted, Dr. de Azambuja pointed out.

“If we look at other trials that have also tested dual HER2 blockade with anthracycline or nonanthracycline regimens, all of them reassure that dual blockade is not more cardiotoxic than single blockade,” he said. This includes trials such as TRYPHAENA, APHINITY, KRISTINE, NeoSphere and PEONY.

The 3-year IDFS rate of 91% in BERENICE also compares well to that seen in APHINITY (94%), Dr. de Azambuja said.
 

BERENICE study design

BERENICE was a multicenter, open-label, nonrandomized and noncomparative phase 2 trial that recruited 400 patients across 75 centers in 12 countries.

Eligibility criteria were that participants had to have been centrally confirmed HER2-positive locally advanced, inflammatory or early breast cancer, with the latter defined as tumors bigger than 2 cm or greater than 5 mm in size, and be node-positive. Patients also had to have a starting LVEF of 55% or higher.

Patients were allocated to one of two neoadjuvant chemotherapy regimens depending on the choice of their physician. One group received a regimen of dose-dense doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (ddAC) given every 2 weeks for four cycles and then paclitaxel every week for 12 cycles. The other group received 5-fluorouracil, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide (FEC) every 3 weeks for four cycles and then docetaxel every 3 weeks for four cycles.

Pertuzumab and trastuzumab were started at the same time as the taxanes in both groups and given every 3 weeks for four cycles. Patients then underwent surgery and continued pertuzumab/trastuzumab treatment alone for a further 13 cycles.

The co-primary endpoints were the incidence of New York Heart Association class III or IV heart failure and incidence of symptomatic and asymptomatic LVEF decline of 10% or more.

The primary analysis of the trial was published in 2018 and, at that time, it was reported that three patients in the ddAC cohort and none in the FEC cohort experienced heart failure. LVEF decline was observed in a respective 6.5% and 2% of patients.
 

Discussion points

Dr. de Azambuja noted that the contribution of the chemotherapy to the efficacy cannot be assessed because of the nonrandomized trial design. That should not matter, pointed out Sybille Loibl, MD, PhD, during discussion.

“I think it compares nicely to other trials that looked at dose-dense chemotherapy,” said Dr. Loibl, who is an associate professor at the University of Frankfurt in Germany. “It seems that, in the light of what we consider today probably one of the best anti-HER2 treatments, the chemotherapy is less relevant, and that’s why a dose-dense regimen doesn’t add so much on a standard anthracycline taxane-containing regimen.”

Dr. de Azambuja also commented on the assessment of cardiotoxicity and the use of reduced LVEF as a measure: LVEF decline is a late effect of cardiotoxicity, he observed, and he suggested a different approach in future trials.

“If you use Global Longitudinal Strain, this could be an optimal parameter to detect early subclinical LVEF dysfunction and you should consider it for the next trials looking for cardiac safety. Also, cardiac biomarkers. This was not implemented in this trial, and I strongly recommend this should be for the next trial.”

The BERENICE trial was funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche. Dr. Dang disclosed receiving consultancy fees from F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Genentech, Daiichi Sankyo, Lilly, and Puma Biotechnology. Dr. de Azambuja was not involved in the study but disclosed receiving honoraria, travel grants, research grants from Roche and Genentech as well as from other companies. Dr. Loibl was one of the cochairs of the session and, among disclosures regarding many other companies, has been an invited speaker for Roche and received reimbursement via her institution for a writing engagement.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s director Rochelle Walensky, MD, signed off on an advisory panel’s recommendation May 12 endorsing the use of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine in adolescents aged 12-15 years.

Earlier in the day the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted 14-0 in favor of the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine in younger teens.

“CDC now recommends that this vaccine be used among this population, and providers may begin vaccinating them right away,” Dr. Walensky said in an official statement.

The Food and Drug Administration on May 10 issued an emergency use authorization (EUA) for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine for the prevention of COVID-19 in individuals 12-15 years old. The FDA first cleared the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine through an EUA in December 2020 for those ages 16 and older. Pfizer this month also initiated steps with the FDA toward a full approval of its vaccine.

Dr. Walenksy urged parents to seriously consider vaccinating their children.

“Understandably, some parents want more information before their children receive a vaccine,” she said. “I encourage parents with questions to talk to your child’s healthcare provider or your family doctor to learn more about the vaccine.”
 

Vaccine “safe and effective”

Separately, the American Academy of Pediatrics issued a statement May 12 in support of vaccinating all children ages 12 and older who are eligible for the federally authorized COVID-19 vaccine.

“As a pediatrician and a parent, I have looked forward to getting my own children and patients vaccinated, and I am thrilled that those ages 12 and older can now be protected,” said AAP President Lee Savio Beers, MD, in a statement. “The data continue to show that this vaccine is safe and effective. I urge all parents to call their pediatrician to learn more about how to get their children and teens vaccinated.”

The expanded clearance for the Pfizer vaccine is seen as a critical step for allowing teens to resume activities on which they missed out during the pandemic.

“We’ve seen the harm done to children’s mental and emotional health as they’ve missed out on so many experiences during the pandemic,” Dr. Beers said. “Vaccinating children will protect them and allow them to fully engage in all of the activities – school, sports, socializing with friends and family – that are so important to their health and development.”

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s director Rochelle Walensky, MD, signed off on an advisory panel’s recommendation May 12 endorsing the use of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine in adolescents aged 12-15 years.

Earlier in the day the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted 14-0 in favor of the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine in younger teens.

“CDC now recommends that this vaccine be used among this population, and providers may begin vaccinating them right away,” Dr. Walensky said in an official statement.

The Food and Drug Administration on May 10 issued an emergency use authorization (EUA) for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine for the prevention of COVID-19 in individuals 12-15 years old. The FDA first cleared the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine through an EUA in December 2020 for those ages 16 and older. Pfizer this month also initiated steps with the FDA toward a full approval of its vaccine.

Dr. Walenksy urged parents to seriously consider vaccinating their children.

“Understandably, some parents want more information before their children receive a vaccine,” she said. “I encourage parents with questions to talk to your child’s healthcare provider or your family doctor to learn more about the vaccine.”
 

Vaccine “safe and effective”

Separately, the American Academy of Pediatrics issued a statement May 12 in support of vaccinating all children ages 12 and older who are eligible for the federally authorized COVID-19 vaccine.

“As a pediatrician and a parent, I have looked forward to getting my own children and patients vaccinated, and I am thrilled that those ages 12 and older can now be protected,” said AAP President Lee Savio Beers, MD, in a statement. “The data continue to show that this vaccine is safe and effective. I urge all parents to call their pediatrician to learn more about how to get their children and teens vaccinated.”

The expanded clearance for the Pfizer vaccine is seen as a critical step for allowing teens to resume activities on which they missed out during the pandemic.

“We’ve seen the harm done to children’s mental and emotional health as they’ve missed out on so many experiences during the pandemic,” Dr. Beers said. “Vaccinating children will protect them and allow them to fully engage in all of the activities – school, sports, socializing with friends and family – that are so important to their health and development.”

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s director Rochelle Walensky, MD, signed off on an advisory panel’s recommendation May 12 endorsing the use of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine in adolescents aged 12-15 years.

Earlier in the day the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted 14-0 in favor of the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine in younger teens.

“CDC now recommends that this vaccine be used among this population, and providers may begin vaccinating them right away,” Dr. Walensky said in an official statement.

The Food and Drug Administration on May 10 issued an emergency use authorization (EUA) for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine for the prevention of COVID-19 in individuals 12-15 years old. The FDA first cleared the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine through an EUA in December 2020 for those ages 16 and older. Pfizer this month also initiated steps with the FDA toward a full approval of its vaccine.

Dr. Walenksy urged parents to seriously consider vaccinating their children.

“Understandably, some parents want more information before their children receive a vaccine,” she said. “I encourage parents with questions to talk to your child’s healthcare provider or your family doctor to learn more about the vaccine.”
 

Vaccine “safe and effective”

Separately, the American Academy of Pediatrics issued a statement May 12 in support of vaccinating all children ages 12 and older who are eligible for the federally authorized COVID-19 vaccine.

“As a pediatrician and a parent, I have looked forward to getting my own children and patients vaccinated, and I am thrilled that those ages 12 and older can now be protected,” said AAP President Lee Savio Beers, MD, in a statement. “The data continue to show that this vaccine is safe and effective. I urge all parents to call their pediatrician to learn more about how to get their children and teens vaccinated.”

The expanded clearance for the Pfizer vaccine is seen as a critical step for allowing teens to resume activities on which they missed out during the pandemic.

“We’ve seen the harm done to children’s mental and emotional health as they’ve missed out on so many experiences during the pandemic,” Dr. Beers said. “Vaccinating children will protect them and allow them to fully engage in all of the activities – school, sports, socializing with friends and family – that are so important to their health and development.”

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