Hematology News

Sickle cell disease (SCD) was associated with a greater than fourfold excess risk for COVID-19–related hospitalization and a greater than twofold risk for COVID-19–related death, according to a big-data analysis from the United Kingdom.

SCD was associated with an adjusted hazard ratio (HR) of 4.11 (95% confidence interval, 2.98-5.66) for admission to hospital and an HR of 2.55 (95% CI, 1.36-4.75) for death, report Ashley K. Clift, MBBS, a clinical research fellow at the University of Oxford, and colleagues. The results were published online July 20 in Annals of Internal Medicine.

Even those who carry just one copy of the sickle cell gene – the carrier status for sickle cell disease – appeared to be at heightened risk for these outcomes (HR for hospitalization, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.12-1.70; HR for death, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.13-2.00).

“Given the well-known ethnic patterning of sickle cell disorders, the predisposition they pose to other infections, and early evidence from smaller registries, we thought this would be an important analysis to run at the population level,” Dr. Clift said in an interview.

“Our data suggest that people living with sickle cell disorders are a group at higher risk from this infection, and this is important from a public health perspective in terms of vaccination strategies and advice on nonpharmacological interventions,” he said.

“The best course of action for managing risk in this group is vaccination,” said Enrico M. Novelli, MD, director of the adult sickle cell program at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center. Dr. Novelli, who is also section chief of benign hematology in the university’s School of Medicine, was not involved in the study. “To date, there are no specific studies of the effect of COVID-19 vaccination in patients with SCD, but there is no reason to believe it would be less effective or more risky in this patient population,” he said.

In addition, common-sense measures, such as masking and physical distancing, particularly at large, indoor gatherings, should be encouraged, Dr. Novelli added. Keeping SCD under good control with available treatments is also important. “Any patient with SCD who contracts COVID-19 should undergo close, outpatient monitoring with pulse oxygen measurements. If sick, they should be hospitalized in a center familiar with the care of SCD patients.”

The U.K. results are in line with and expand on earlier evidence from specialist centers and registries, but the association with sickle cell trait has been unclear and is notable in these findings, Dr. Clift said.

“The finding of the association with sickle cell trait is somewhat unexpected,” pediatric hematologist/oncologist Rabi Hanna, MD, director of pediatric bone marrow transplantation at Cleveland Clinic Children’s, told this news organization. “But I would question the accuracy of the numbers, since not all people with the trait realize they have it. In other respects, the study confirms earlier hypotheses and data from single-center studies.” Dr. Hanna did not participate in the U.K. study.
 

Study details

The SCD cohort consisted of 5,059 persons with SCD and 25,682 carriers, those with just one copy of the trait. Data were drawn from the United Kingdom’s large primary-care QResearch database. Follow-up for hospitalizations was conducted from Jan. 24, 2020 to Sept. 30, 2020; follow-up for deaths was conducted from Jan. 24, 2020 to Jan. 18, 2021. Among adults with SCD, there were 40 hospitalizations and 10 deaths. Among those with sickle cell trait, there were 98 hospitalizations and 50 deaths. No children died, and only a few (<5) required hospitalization.

Previous registry research showed similarly elevated risks for severe disease and fatality among patients with SCD who were infected with SARS-CoV-2.

Because SCD affects 8 to 12 million people globally – 100,000 in the United States – the authors say their results are important for policymakers and for prioritizing vaccination. They also note that trait carriers may be underdiagnosed.

“While SCD is part of newborn screening, there may be undiagnosed older people with the trait in the general population, but it’s difficult to quantify how much this is undiagnosed,” Dr. Clift said. “But now we have these results, it’s not that surprising that sickle cell trait is also associated with increased risk, albeit to a lower extent. This could suggest an almost dose-like effect of the sickle mutations on COVID hospitalization risk.”

Neonatal screening for the most common form of SCD is currently mandatory in the United States, but the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has no clear data on how many people are aware they are carriers, Dr. Hanna said. “The states didn’t all begin screening at the same time – some started in the 1990s, others started in the 2000s – so many young adults may be unaware they have the trait,” he said.

Dr. Clift said the multiorgan complications of SCD, such as cardiac and immune problems, may be contributing to the heightened risk in individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2. “For example, we know that people with sickle cell disease are more susceptible to other viral infections. There is also some pathophysiological overlap between SCD disease and severe COVID, such as clotting dysfunction, so that may be worth further exploration,” he said.

The overlapping clotting problems associated with both COVID-19 and SCD could increase the risk for severe venous thromboembolism. In addition, experts noted that patients with SCD often have pre-COVID endothelial damage and baseline inflammation and are very sensitive to hypoxia; as well, a sizable proportion have lung disease.

The message to patients and physicians counseling patients is twofold, said Dr. Hanna: “SCD patients are at higher risk of COVID complications, and these are preventable with vaccination.”

The study was supported by the UK Medical Research Council. Dr. Clift is supported by Cancer Research UK. Coauthor Dr. Hippisley-Cox has received fees from ClinRisk and nonfinancial support from QResearch outside of the submitted work. Dr. Hanna has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Novelli is a consultant for Novartis.

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

Sickle cell disease (SCD) was associated with a greater than fourfold excess risk for COVID-19–related hospitalization and a greater than twofold risk for COVID-19–related death, according to a big-data analysis from the United Kingdom.

SCD was associated with an adjusted hazard ratio (HR) of 4.11 (95% confidence interval, 2.98-5.66) for admission to hospital and an HR of 2.55 (95% CI, 1.36-4.75) for death, report Ashley K. Clift, MBBS, a clinical research fellow at the University of Oxford, and colleagues. The results were published online July 20 in Annals of Internal Medicine.

Even those who carry just one copy of the sickle cell gene – the carrier status for sickle cell disease – appeared to be at heightened risk for these outcomes (HR for hospitalization, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.12-1.70; HR for death, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.13-2.00).

“Given the well-known ethnic patterning of sickle cell disorders, the predisposition they pose to other infections, and early evidence from smaller registries, we thought this would be an important analysis to run at the population level,” Dr. Clift said in an interview.

“Our data suggest that people living with sickle cell disorders are a group at higher risk from this infection, and this is important from a public health perspective in terms of vaccination strategies and advice on nonpharmacological interventions,” he said.

“The best course of action for managing risk in this group is vaccination,” said Enrico M. Novelli, MD, director of the adult sickle cell program at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center. Dr. Novelli, who is also section chief of benign hematology in the university’s School of Medicine, was not involved in the study. “To date, there are no specific studies of the effect of COVID-19 vaccination in patients with SCD, but there is no reason to believe it would be less effective or more risky in this patient population,” he said.

In addition, common-sense measures, such as masking and physical distancing, particularly at large, indoor gatherings, should be encouraged, Dr. Novelli added. Keeping SCD under good control with available treatments is also important. “Any patient with SCD who contracts COVID-19 should undergo close, outpatient monitoring with pulse oxygen measurements. If sick, they should be hospitalized in a center familiar with the care of SCD patients.”

The U.K. results are in line with and expand on earlier evidence from specialist centers and registries, but the association with sickle cell trait has been unclear and is notable in these findings, Dr. Clift said.

“The finding of the association with sickle cell trait is somewhat unexpected,” pediatric hematologist/oncologist Rabi Hanna, MD, director of pediatric bone marrow transplantation at Cleveland Clinic Children’s, told this news organization. “But I would question the accuracy of the numbers, since not all people with the trait realize they have it. In other respects, the study confirms earlier hypotheses and data from single-center studies.” Dr. Hanna did not participate in the U.K. study.
 

Study details

The SCD cohort consisted of 5,059 persons with SCD and 25,682 carriers, those with just one copy of the trait. Data were drawn from the United Kingdom’s large primary-care QResearch database. Follow-up for hospitalizations was conducted from Jan. 24, 2020 to Sept. 30, 2020; follow-up for deaths was conducted from Jan. 24, 2020 to Jan. 18, 2021. Among adults with SCD, there were 40 hospitalizations and 10 deaths. Among those with sickle cell trait, there were 98 hospitalizations and 50 deaths. No children died, and only a few (<5) required hospitalization.

Previous registry research showed similarly elevated risks for severe disease and fatality among patients with SCD who were infected with SARS-CoV-2.

Because SCD affects 8 to 12 million people globally – 100,000 in the United States – the authors say their results are important for policymakers and for prioritizing vaccination. They also note that trait carriers may be underdiagnosed.

“While SCD is part of newborn screening, there may be undiagnosed older people with the trait in the general population, but it’s difficult to quantify how much this is undiagnosed,” Dr. Clift said. “But now we have these results, it’s not that surprising that sickle cell trait is also associated with increased risk, albeit to a lower extent. This could suggest an almost dose-like effect of the sickle mutations on COVID hospitalization risk.”

Neonatal screening for the most common form of SCD is currently mandatory in the United States, but the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has no clear data on how many people are aware they are carriers, Dr. Hanna said. “The states didn’t all begin screening at the same time – some started in the 1990s, others started in the 2000s – so many young adults may be unaware they have the trait,” he said.

Dr. Clift said the multiorgan complications of SCD, such as cardiac and immune problems, may be contributing to the heightened risk in individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2. “For example, we know that people with sickle cell disease are more susceptible to other viral infections. There is also some pathophysiological overlap between SCD disease and severe COVID, such as clotting dysfunction, so that may be worth further exploration,” he said.

The overlapping clotting problems associated with both COVID-19 and SCD could increase the risk for severe venous thromboembolism. In addition, experts noted that patients with SCD often have pre-COVID endothelial damage and baseline inflammation and are very sensitive to hypoxia; as well, a sizable proportion have lung disease.

The message to patients and physicians counseling patients is twofold, said Dr. Hanna: “SCD patients are at higher risk of COVID complications, and these are preventable with vaccination.”

The study was supported by the UK Medical Research Council. Dr. Clift is supported by Cancer Research UK. Coauthor Dr. Hippisley-Cox has received fees from ClinRisk and nonfinancial support from QResearch outside of the submitted work. Dr. Hanna has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Novelli is a consultant for Novartis.

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

Sickle cell disease (SCD) was associated with a greater than fourfold excess risk for COVID-19–related hospitalization and a greater than twofold risk for COVID-19–related death, according to a big-data analysis from the United Kingdom.

SCD was associated with an adjusted hazard ratio (HR) of 4.11 (95% confidence interval, 2.98-5.66) for admission to hospital and an HR of 2.55 (95% CI, 1.36-4.75) for death, report Ashley K. Clift, MBBS, a clinical research fellow at the University of Oxford, and colleagues. The results were published online July 20 in Annals of Internal Medicine.

Even those who carry just one copy of the sickle cell gene – the carrier status for sickle cell disease – appeared to be at heightened risk for these outcomes (HR for hospitalization, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.12-1.70; HR for death, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.13-2.00).

“Given the well-known ethnic patterning of sickle cell disorders, the predisposition they pose to other infections, and early evidence from smaller registries, we thought this would be an important analysis to run at the population level,” Dr. Clift said in an interview.

“Our data suggest that people living with sickle cell disorders are a group at higher risk from this infection, and this is important from a public health perspective in terms of vaccination strategies and advice on nonpharmacological interventions,” he said.

“The best course of action for managing risk in this group is vaccination,” said Enrico M. Novelli, MD, director of the adult sickle cell program at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center. Dr. Novelli, who is also section chief of benign hematology in the university’s School of Medicine, was not involved in the study. “To date, there are no specific studies of the effect of COVID-19 vaccination in patients with SCD, but there is no reason to believe it would be less effective or more risky in this patient population,” he said.

In addition, common-sense measures, such as masking and physical distancing, particularly at large, indoor gatherings, should be encouraged, Dr. Novelli added. Keeping SCD under good control with available treatments is also important. “Any patient with SCD who contracts COVID-19 should undergo close, outpatient monitoring with pulse oxygen measurements. If sick, they should be hospitalized in a center familiar with the care of SCD patients.”

The U.K. results are in line with and expand on earlier evidence from specialist centers and registries, but the association with sickle cell trait has been unclear and is notable in these findings, Dr. Clift said.

“The finding of the association with sickle cell trait is somewhat unexpected,” pediatric hematologist/oncologist Rabi Hanna, MD, director of pediatric bone marrow transplantation at Cleveland Clinic Children’s, told this news organization. “But I would question the accuracy of the numbers, since not all people with the trait realize they have it. In other respects, the study confirms earlier hypotheses and data from single-center studies.” Dr. Hanna did not participate in the U.K. study.
 

Study details

The SCD cohort consisted of 5,059 persons with SCD and 25,682 carriers, those with just one copy of the trait. Data were drawn from the United Kingdom’s large primary-care QResearch database. Follow-up for hospitalizations was conducted from Jan. 24, 2020 to Sept. 30, 2020; follow-up for deaths was conducted from Jan. 24, 2020 to Jan. 18, 2021. Among adults with SCD, there were 40 hospitalizations and 10 deaths. Among those with sickle cell trait, there were 98 hospitalizations and 50 deaths. No children died, and only a few (<5) required hospitalization.

Previous registry research showed similarly elevated risks for severe disease and fatality among patients with SCD who were infected with SARS-CoV-2.

Because SCD affects 8 to 12 million people globally – 100,000 in the United States – the authors say their results are important for policymakers and for prioritizing vaccination. They also note that trait carriers may be underdiagnosed.

“While SCD is part of newborn screening, there may be undiagnosed older people with the trait in the general population, but it’s difficult to quantify how much this is undiagnosed,” Dr. Clift said. “But now we have these results, it’s not that surprising that sickle cell trait is also associated with increased risk, albeit to a lower extent. This could suggest an almost dose-like effect of the sickle mutations on COVID hospitalization risk.”

Neonatal screening for the most common form of SCD is currently mandatory in the United States, but the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has no clear data on how many people are aware they are carriers, Dr. Hanna said. “The states didn’t all begin screening at the same time – some started in the 1990s, others started in the 2000s – so many young adults may be unaware they have the trait,” he said.

Dr. Clift said the multiorgan complications of SCD, such as cardiac and immune problems, may be contributing to the heightened risk in individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2. “For example, we know that people with sickle cell disease are more susceptible to other viral infections. There is also some pathophysiological overlap between SCD disease and severe COVID, such as clotting dysfunction, so that may be worth further exploration,” he said.

The overlapping clotting problems associated with both COVID-19 and SCD could increase the risk for severe venous thromboembolism. In addition, experts noted that patients with SCD often have pre-COVID endothelial damage and baseline inflammation and are very sensitive to hypoxia; as well, a sizable proportion have lung disease.

The message to patients and physicians counseling patients is twofold, said Dr. Hanna: “SCD patients are at higher risk of COVID complications, and these are preventable with vaccination.”

The study was supported by the UK Medical Research Council. Dr. Clift is supported by Cancer Research UK. Coauthor Dr. Hippisley-Cox has received fees from ClinRisk and nonfinancial support from QResearch outside of the submitted work. Dr. Hanna has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Novelli is a consultant for Novartis.

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

Five risk factors might help pinpoint patients at risk of developing device-related thrombus (DRT), itself an important risk factor for cerebrovascular events, in patients with implants for left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO), new research suggests.

The identified independent predictors of DRT in the largest dedicated multicenter LAAO-DRT registry to date were presence of a hypercoagulability disorder, pericardial effusion, renal insufficiency, an implantation depth greater than 10 mm from the pulmonary ridge, and presence of nonparoxysmal atrial fibrillation (AFib).

“Unfortunately, most of them are not modifiable, like hypercoaguable disorders or nonparoxysmal atrial fibrillation. But we can avoid deep implants because that’s been associated with creating a little bit of a crater or valley where the clot can form,” senior author Mohamad Alkhouli, MD, said in an interview.

But most important, and “really why we wanted to do this,” he said, is that “we want to give the patient a realistic prediction of adverse events for this procedure.”

LAAO has taken off in recent years for preventing thrombus formation and stroke in patients with AFib. Predicting DRT is a priority for the LAAO field, the authors note, especially given its expansion to younger, lower-risk patients and the increasing procedural volumes.

“This is a problem, DRT, that’s been discussed a lot because this is a preventative procedure,” observed Dr. Alkhouli, professor of medicine at Mayo Medical School, Rochester, Minn.

“The actual stroke risk every year – even if you don’t take any blood thinner and you have a CHADsVASc score of 9, the highest – is 11%. So if the chance of having thrombus is close, then that’s not a good tradeoff.”

Previous studies have also identified implantation depth and nonparoxysmal AFib as risk factors for DRT. But most of them have been small, he noted, with one of the largest reporting 65 DRTs in four prospective trials.

To cast a wider net, the investigators, led by Trevor Simard, MD, also from the Mayo Clinic, invited more than 50 international sites to contribute data to the registry. Of these, 37 centers reported on 237 DRTs and 474 device-matched control subjects from the same site.

Three-fourths of patients received a first-generation Watchman or a FLEX device (Boston Scientific).

Medical regimens were similar between the DRT and control cohorts at discharge after LAA closure. Most patients were managed with single (36.3%) or dual antiplatelet therapy (26.2%) at the time of DRT diagnosis.

As reported July 19 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, the timing of DRT development varied widely, with 24.9% appearing in the first 45 days, 38.8% between days 45 and 180, 16.0% between days 180 to 365, and 20.3% beyond 1 year. At last known follow-up, one-quarter of patients had DRT.

The odds ratios for DRT associated with the five identified risk factors were:

• 17.50 (95% confidence interval, 3.39-90.45) for hypercoagulability disorder
• 13.45 (95% CI, 1.46-123.52) for pericardial effusion
• 4.02 (95% CI, 1.22-13.25) for renal insufficiency
• 2.41 (95% CI, 1.57-3.69) for implantation depth >10 mm
• 1.90 (95% CI, 1.22-2.97) for nonparoxysmal AFib

The risk for a composite of death, ischemic stroke, and systemic embolization was twofold higher in the DRT cohort than in the control cohort (29.5% vs. 14.4%; hazard ratio, 2.37; 95% CI, 1.58-3.56) and driven by a higher rate of ischemic stroke (16.9% vs. 3.6%; HR, 3.49; 95% CI, 1.35-9.00).

The incidence of bleeding and intracerebral hemorrhage, however, was similar in the DRT and control cohorts.

One of the surprises of the study was that medications prescribed in the short term after LAA closure were not associated with DRT, Dr. Alkhouli said. A previous meta-analysis of 66 studies by the investigators also found that antithrombotic regimen did not explain the heterogeneity of DRT formation.

“I think we’ll have to take that with a grain of salt, because there’s so many variations in the practice, and this is observational data. But that, in my mind, brings up a mechanistic issue,” he said.

It’s often recommended “that we should put patients on blood thinners for 3 months or 6 weeks, or whatever it is, to decrease the chance of thrombus, assuming the patients will have a normal endothelialization of the device,” Dr. Alkhouli said.

“Well, we know that’s not the reality,” he continued. “We know many patients don’t endothelialize, and, even if some patients do, there may be some endothelial damage. So I think the whole mechanism of prescribing a little bit of a blood thinner to avoid that risk may be missing the point. It’s a bit more complex than that, evidenced also by the fact that three-fourths of all the DRTs happened after 45 days, when patients are typically not taking a blood thinner.”

Based on the five independent risk factors, the investigators created a clinical DRT risk score that assigned 1 point for renal insufficiency, implantation depth greater than 10 mm from the pulmonary ridge, and nonparoxysmal AFib; and 4 points for iatrogenic pericardial effusion and for hypercoagulability disorder. Low risk was categorized as 1 point and high risk as 2 or more points.

The presence of one major risk factor or two minor risk factors, for example, led to a 2.1-fold increased risk for DRT, compared with those with no DRT risk factors.

The risk score will require validation in a prospective cohort but is “a step forward in addressing DRT” and triaging patients, Dr. Alkhouli said. The findings highlight the need to avoid deep device implantation and the importance of shared decision-making with patients, especially with those at high risk.

“And third, which is most important, I think, in my mind, is that it tells us not to put a blind eye to this topic and just say with improved devices it will go away,” he said. “That’s a bit unrealistic.”

In an accompanying editorial, Oussama Wazni, MD, Walid Saliba, MD, and Ayman A. Hussein, MD, all from the Cleveland Clinic, write that “the study sheds light on this yet unresolved issue, and the observations may help with risk stratification and optimization of procedural techniques.”

Whereas many of the nonmodifiable risk factors are helpful in shared decision-making decisions, they continue, “knowledge of these risk factors may not preclude implantation in patients who are otherwise at risk of both stroke off anticoagulation and bleeding on anticoagulation.”

Dr. Wazni and colleagues acknowledge that the small number of events in the study limits statistical power for definitive conclusions and say that further studies are needed to clarify the natural history of DRTs and their management, resolution, and impact on cardiovascular events.

Practitioners should also continue to cautiously assess for LAAO clinical indications for implant, according to the editorialists, who point out that the regulatory approval language in the United States was “flexible and nonspecific.”

“As the field grows wider, enhancing LAAO safety with optimal design, implantation, and periprocedural management is critically important, yet the main focus should remain on optimal patient selection for the purpose of achieving safe and successful outcomes,” the editorialists conclude.

Dr. Alkhouli has served as a consultant for Boston Scientific. Coauthor disclosures are listed in the paper. Dr. Wazni and Dr. Hussein have received research grant support from Boston Scientific. Dr. Wazni and Dr. Saliba have been consultants for Boston Scientific.

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

Five risk factors might help pinpoint patients at risk of developing device-related thrombus (DRT), itself an important risk factor for cerebrovascular events, in patients with implants for left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO), new research suggests.

The identified independent predictors of DRT in the largest dedicated multicenter LAAO-DRT registry to date were presence of a hypercoagulability disorder, pericardial effusion, renal insufficiency, an implantation depth greater than 10 mm from the pulmonary ridge, and presence of nonparoxysmal atrial fibrillation (AFib).

“Unfortunately, most of them are not modifiable, like hypercoaguable disorders or nonparoxysmal atrial fibrillation. But we can avoid deep implants because that’s been associated with creating a little bit of a crater or valley where the clot can form,” senior author Mohamad Alkhouli, MD, said in an interview.

But most important, and “really why we wanted to do this,” he said, is that “we want to give the patient a realistic prediction of adverse events for this procedure.”

LAAO has taken off in recent years for preventing thrombus formation and stroke in patients with AFib. Predicting DRT is a priority for the LAAO field, the authors note, especially given its expansion to younger, lower-risk patients and the increasing procedural volumes.

“This is a problem, DRT, that’s been discussed a lot because this is a preventative procedure,” observed Dr. Alkhouli, professor of medicine at Mayo Medical School, Rochester, Minn.

“The actual stroke risk every year – even if you don’t take any blood thinner and you have a CHADsVASc score of 9, the highest – is 11%. So if the chance of having thrombus is close, then that’s not a good tradeoff.”

Previous studies have also identified implantation depth and nonparoxysmal AFib as risk factors for DRT. But most of them have been small, he noted, with one of the largest reporting 65 DRTs in four prospective trials.

To cast a wider net, the investigators, led by Trevor Simard, MD, also from the Mayo Clinic, invited more than 50 international sites to contribute data to the registry. Of these, 37 centers reported on 237 DRTs and 474 device-matched control subjects from the same site.

Three-fourths of patients received a first-generation Watchman or a FLEX device (Boston Scientific).

Medical regimens were similar between the DRT and control cohorts at discharge after LAA closure. Most patients were managed with single (36.3%) or dual antiplatelet therapy (26.2%) at the time of DRT diagnosis.

As reported July 19 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, the timing of DRT development varied widely, with 24.9% appearing in the first 45 days, 38.8% between days 45 and 180, 16.0% between days 180 to 365, and 20.3% beyond 1 year. At last known follow-up, one-quarter of patients had DRT.

The odds ratios for DRT associated with the five identified risk factors were:

• 17.50 (95% confidence interval, 3.39-90.45) for hypercoagulability disorder
• 13.45 (95% CI, 1.46-123.52) for pericardial effusion
• 4.02 (95% CI, 1.22-13.25) for renal insufficiency
• 2.41 (95% CI, 1.57-3.69) for implantation depth >10 mm
• 1.90 (95% CI, 1.22-2.97) for nonparoxysmal AFib

The risk for a composite of death, ischemic stroke, and systemic embolization was twofold higher in the DRT cohort than in the control cohort (29.5% vs. 14.4%; hazard ratio, 2.37; 95% CI, 1.58-3.56) and driven by a higher rate of ischemic stroke (16.9% vs. 3.6%; HR, 3.49; 95% CI, 1.35-9.00).

The incidence of bleeding and intracerebral hemorrhage, however, was similar in the DRT and control cohorts.

One of the surprises of the study was that medications prescribed in the short term after LAA closure were not associated with DRT, Dr. Alkhouli said. A previous meta-analysis of 66 studies by the investigators also found that antithrombotic regimen did not explain the heterogeneity of DRT formation.

“I think we’ll have to take that with a grain of salt, because there’s so many variations in the practice, and this is observational data. But that, in my mind, brings up a mechanistic issue,” he said.

It’s often recommended “that we should put patients on blood thinners for 3 months or 6 weeks, or whatever it is, to decrease the chance of thrombus, assuming the patients will have a normal endothelialization of the device,” Dr. Alkhouli said.

“Well, we know that’s not the reality,” he continued. “We know many patients don’t endothelialize, and, even if some patients do, there may be some endothelial damage. So I think the whole mechanism of prescribing a little bit of a blood thinner to avoid that risk may be missing the point. It’s a bit more complex than that, evidenced also by the fact that three-fourths of all the DRTs happened after 45 days, when patients are typically not taking a blood thinner.”

Based on the five independent risk factors, the investigators created a clinical DRT risk score that assigned 1 point for renal insufficiency, implantation depth greater than 10 mm from the pulmonary ridge, and nonparoxysmal AFib; and 4 points for iatrogenic pericardial effusion and for hypercoagulability disorder. Low risk was categorized as 1 point and high risk as 2 or more points.

The presence of one major risk factor or two minor risk factors, for example, led to a 2.1-fold increased risk for DRT, compared with those with no DRT risk factors.

The risk score will require validation in a prospective cohort but is “a step forward in addressing DRT” and triaging patients, Dr. Alkhouli said. The findings highlight the need to avoid deep device implantation and the importance of shared decision-making with patients, especially with those at high risk.

“And third, which is most important, I think, in my mind, is that it tells us not to put a blind eye to this topic and just say with improved devices it will go away,” he said. “That’s a bit unrealistic.”

In an accompanying editorial, Oussama Wazni, MD, Walid Saliba, MD, and Ayman A. Hussein, MD, all from the Cleveland Clinic, write that “the study sheds light on this yet unresolved issue, and the observations may help with risk stratification and optimization of procedural techniques.”

Whereas many of the nonmodifiable risk factors are helpful in shared decision-making decisions, they continue, “knowledge of these risk factors may not preclude implantation in patients who are otherwise at risk of both stroke off anticoagulation and bleeding on anticoagulation.”

Dr. Wazni and colleagues acknowledge that the small number of events in the study limits statistical power for definitive conclusions and say that further studies are needed to clarify the natural history of DRTs and their management, resolution, and impact on cardiovascular events.

Practitioners should also continue to cautiously assess for LAAO clinical indications for implant, according to the editorialists, who point out that the regulatory approval language in the United States was “flexible and nonspecific.”

“As the field grows wider, enhancing LAAO safety with optimal design, implantation, and periprocedural management is critically important, yet the main focus should remain on optimal patient selection for the purpose of achieving safe and successful outcomes,” the editorialists conclude.

Dr. Alkhouli has served as a consultant for Boston Scientific. Coauthor disclosures are listed in the paper. Dr. Wazni and Dr. Hussein have received research grant support from Boston Scientific. Dr. Wazni and Dr. Saliba have been consultants for Boston Scientific.

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

Five risk factors might help pinpoint patients at risk of developing device-related thrombus (DRT), itself an important risk factor for cerebrovascular events, in patients with implants for left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO), new research suggests.

The identified independent predictors of DRT in the largest dedicated multicenter LAAO-DRT registry to date were presence of a hypercoagulability disorder, pericardial effusion, renal insufficiency, an implantation depth greater than 10 mm from the pulmonary ridge, and presence of nonparoxysmal atrial fibrillation (AFib).

“Unfortunately, most of them are not modifiable, like hypercoaguable disorders or nonparoxysmal atrial fibrillation. But we can avoid deep implants because that’s been associated with creating a little bit of a crater or valley where the clot can form,” senior author Mohamad Alkhouli, MD, said in an interview.

But most important, and “really why we wanted to do this,” he said, is that “we want to give the patient a realistic prediction of adverse events for this procedure.”

LAAO has taken off in recent years for preventing thrombus formation and stroke in patients with AFib. Predicting DRT is a priority for the LAAO field, the authors note, especially given its expansion to younger, lower-risk patients and the increasing procedural volumes.

“This is a problem, DRT, that’s been discussed a lot because this is a preventative procedure,” observed Dr. Alkhouli, professor of medicine at Mayo Medical School, Rochester, Minn.

“The actual stroke risk every year – even if you don’t take any blood thinner and you have a CHADsVASc score of 9, the highest – is 11%. So if the chance of having thrombus is close, then that’s not a good tradeoff.”

Previous studies have also identified implantation depth and nonparoxysmal AFib as risk factors for DRT. But most of them have been small, he noted, with one of the largest reporting 65 DRTs in four prospective trials.

To cast a wider net, the investigators, led by Trevor Simard, MD, also from the Mayo Clinic, invited more than 50 international sites to contribute data to the registry. Of these, 37 centers reported on 237 DRTs and 474 device-matched control subjects from the same site.

Three-fourths of patients received a first-generation Watchman or a FLEX device (Boston Scientific).

Medical regimens were similar between the DRT and control cohorts at discharge after LAA closure. Most patients were managed with single (36.3%) or dual antiplatelet therapy (26.2%) at the time of DRT diagnosis.

As reported July 19 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, the timing of DRT development varied widely, with 24.9% appearing in the first 45 days, 38.8% between days 45 and 180, 16.0% between days 180 to 365, and 20.3% beyond 1 year. At last known follow-up, one-quarter of patients had DRT.

The odds ratios for DRT associated with the five identified risk factors were:

• 17.50 (95% confidence interval, 3.39-90.45) for hypercoagulability disorder
• 13.45 (95% CI, 1.46-123.52) for pericardial effusion
• 4.02 (95% CI, 1.22-13.25) for renal insufficiency
• 2.41 (95% CI, 1.57-3.69) for implantation depth >10 mm
• 1.90 (95% CI, 1.22-2.97) for nonparoxysmal AFib

The risk for a composite of death, ischemic stroke, and systemic embolization was twofold higher in the DRT cohort than in the control cohort (29.5% vs. 14.4%; hazard ratio, 2.37; 95% CI, 1.58-3.56) and driven by a higher rate of ischemic stroke (16.9% vs. 3.6%; HR, 3.49; 95% CI, 1.35-9.00).

The incidence of bleeding and intracerebral hemorrhage, however, was similar in the DRT and control cohorts.

One of the surprises of the study was that medications prescribed in the short term after LAA closure were not associated with DRT, Dr. Alkhouli said. A previous meta-analysis of 66 studies by the investigators also found that antithrombotic regimen did not explain the heterogeneity of DRT formation.

“I think we’ll have to take that with a grain of salt, because there’s so many variations in the practice, and this is observational data. But that, in my mind, brings up a mechanistic issue,” he said.

It’s often recommended “that we should put patients on blood thinners for 3 months or 6 weeks, or whatever it is, to decrease the chance of thrombus, assuming the patients will have a normal endothelialization of the device,” Dr. Alkhouli said.

“Well, we know that’s not the reality,” he continued. “We know many patients don’t endothelialize, and, even if some patients do, there may be some endothelial damage. So I think the whole mechanism of prescribing a little bit of a blood thinner to avoid that risk may be missing the point. It’s a bit more complex than that, evidenced also by the fact that three-fourths of all the DRTs happened after 45 days, when patients are typically not taking a blood thinner.”

Based on the five independent risk factors, the investigators created a clinical DRT risk score that assigned 1 point for renal insufficiency, implantation depth greater than 10 mm from the pulmonary ridge, and nonparoxysmal AFib; and 4 points for iatrogenic pericardial effusion and for hypercoagulability disorder. Low risk was categorized as 1 point and high risk as 2 or more points.

The presence of one major risk factor or two minor risk factors, for example, led to a 2.1-fold increased risk for DRT, compared with those with no DRT risk factors.

The risk score will require validation in a prospective cohort but is “a step forward in addressing DRT” and triaging patients, Dr. Alkhouli said. The findings highlight the need to avoid deep device implantation and the importance of shared decision-making with patients, especially with those at high risk.

“And third, which is most important, I think, in my mind, is that it tells us not to put a blind eye to this topic and just say with improved devices it will go away,” he said. “That’s a bit unrealistic.”

In an accompanying editorial, Oussama Wazni, MD, Walid Saliba, MD, and Ayman A. Hussein, MD, all from the Cleveland Clinic, write that “the study sheds light on this yet unresolved issue, and the observations may help with risk stratification and optimization of procedural techniques.”

Whereas many of the nonmodifiable risk factors are helpful in shared decision-making decisions, they continue, “knowledge of these risk factors may not preclude implantation in patients who are otherwise at risk of both stroke off anticoagulation and bleeding on anticoagulation.”

Dr. Wazni and colleagues acknowledge that the small number of events in the study limits statistical power for definitive conclusions and say that further studies are needed to clarify the natural history of DRTs and their management, resolution, and impact on cardiovascular events.

Practitioners should also continue to cautiously assess for LAAO clinical indications for implant, according to the editorialists, who point out that the regulatory approval language in the United States was “flexible and nonspecific.”

“As the field grows wider, enhancing LAAO safety with optimal design, implantation, and periprocedural management is critically important, yet the main focus should remain on optimal patient selection for the purpose of achieving safe and successful outcomes,” the editorialists conclude.

Dr. Alkhouli has served as a consultant for Boston Scientific. Coauthor disclosures are listed in the paper. Dr. Wazni and Dr. Hussein have received research grant support from Boston Scientific. Dr. Wazni and Dr. Saliba have been consultants for Boston Scientific.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved a new version of asparaginase for use in children and adults who have developed hypersensitivity to asparaginase derived from Escherichia coli.

The new product is Jazz Pharmaceutical’s Rylaze (asparaginase erwinia chrysanthemi [recombinant]-rywn), and it is approved for use in the treatment of acute lymphoblastic leukemia and lymphoblastic lymphoma.

Asparaginase, an enzyme that helps kill blood cancer cells, is a key component of chemotherapy for both conditions.

The problem is that about 20% of patients become allergic to the standard option, asparaginase derived from Escherichia coli.

The only alternative until now has been Erwinaze (also distributed by Jazz Pharmaceuticals), which, like Rylaze, is derived from Erwinia chrysanthemi, a plant pathogen related to Escherichia coli.

However, Erwinaze has been bedeviled by manufacturing problems and has been in short supply since 2016.

The situation has been “extremely disconcerting to patients, families and providers,” and the hope is that Rylaze will “provide a consistently sourced alternative,” Gregory Reaman, MD, the FDA’s associate director of pediatric oncology, said in a press release.

Rylaze will hit the U.S. market in mid-July. Jazz has been a distributor of Erwinaze as well, but it released its last batch in May, according to a spokesperson.

The key difference between the two products is that the asparaginase in Erwinaze is derived directly from Erwinia chrysanthemi, whereas the asparaginase in Rylaze is a recombinant product produced by different bacteria that have been genetically altered with Erwinia chrysanthemi DNA.

The approval for Rylaze was based on a study involving 102 patients (median age, 10 years) who developed hypersensitivity to Escherichia coli–derived enzyme or “silent inactivation” from neutralizing antibodies. In the study, almost 94% of patients achieved asparaginase target activity levels at the approved dosage of 25 mg/m² IM every 48 hours. The study is ongoing, and investigators are currently evaluating intravenous dosing.

The most common side effects are hypersensitivity reactions, blood clots, hemorrhage, and pancreatic and liver toxicity. There is also a risk for fetal harm, so labeling advises women to use effective nonhormonal contraception during treatment and for 3 months afterward.
 

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved a new version of asparaginase for use in children and adults who have developed hypersensitivity to asparaginase derived from Escherichia coli.

The new product is Jazz Pharmaceutical’s Rylaze (asparaginase erwinia chrysanthemi [recombinant]-rywn), and it is approved for use in the treatment of acute lymphoblastic leukemia and lymphoblastic lymphoma.

Asparaginase, an enzyme that helps kill blood cancer cells, is a key component of chemotherapy for both conditions.

The problem is that about 20% of patients become allergic to the standard option, asparaginase derived from Escherichia coli.

The only alternative until now has been Erwinaze (also distributed by Jazz Pharmaceuticals), which, like Rylaze, is derived from Erwinia chrysanthemi, a plant pathogen related to Escherichia coli.

However, Erwinaze has been bedeviled by manufacturing problems and has been in short supply since 2016.

The situation has been “extremely disconcerting to patients, families and providers,” and the hope is that Rylaze will “provide a consistently sourced alternative,” Gregory Reaman, MD, the FDA’s associate director of pediatric oncology, said in a press release.

Rylaze will hit the U.S. market in mid-July. Jazz has been a distributor of Erwinaze as well, but it released its last batch in May, according to a spokesperson.

The key difference between the two products is that the asparaginase in Erwinaze is derived directly from Erwinia chrysanthemi, whereas the asparaginase in Rylaze is a recombinant product produced by different bacteria that have been genetically altered with Erwinia chrysanthemi DNA.

The approval for Rylaze was based on a study involving 102 patients (median age, 10 years) who developed hypersensitivity to Escherichia coli–derived enzyme or “silent inactivation” from neutralizing antibodies. In the study, almost 94% of patients achieved asparaginase target activity levels at the approved dosage of 25 mg/m² IM every 48 hours. The study is ongoing, and investigators are currently evaluating intravenous dosing.

The most common side effects are hypersensitivity reactions, blood clots, hemorrhage, and pancreatic and liver toxicity. There is also a risk for fetal harm, so labeling advises women to use effective nonhormonal contraception during treatment and for 3 months afterward.
 

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved a new version of asparaginase for use in children and adults who have developed hypersensitivity to asparaginase derived from Escherichia coli.

The new product is Jazz Pharmaceutical’s Rylaze (asparaginase erwinia chrysanthemi [recombinant]-rywn), and it is approved for use in the treatment of acute lymphoblastic leukemia and lymphoblastic lymphoma.

Asparaginase, an enzyme that helps kill blood cancer cells, is a key component of chemotherapy for both conditions.

The problem is that about 20% of patients become allergic to the standard option, asparaginase derived from Escherichia coli.

The only alternative until now has been Erwinaze (also distributed by Jazz Pharmaceuticals), which, like Rylaze, is derived from Erwinia chrysanthemi, a plant pathogen related to Escherichia coli.

However, Erwinaze has been bedeviled by manufacturing problems and has been in short supply since 2016.

The situation has been “extremely disconcerting to patients, families and providers,” and the hope is that Rylaze will “provide a consistently sourced alternative,” Gregory Reaman, MD, the FDA’s associate director of pediatric oncology, said in a press release.

Rylaze will hit the U.S. market in mid-July. Jazz has been a distributor of Erwinaze as well, but it released its last batch in May, according to a spokesperson.

The key difference between the two products is that the asparaginase in Erwinaze is derived directly from Erwinia chrysanthemi, whereas the asparaginase in Rylaze is a recombinant product produced by different bacteria that have been genetically altered with Erwinia chrysanthemi DNA.

The approval for Rylaze was based on a study involving 102 patients (median age, 10 years) who developed hypersensitivity to Escherichia coli–derived enzyme or “silent inactivation” from neutralizing antibodies. In the study, almost 94% of patients achieved asparaginase target activity levels at the approved dosage of 25 mg/m² IM every 48 hours. The study is ongoing, and investigators are currently evaluating intravenous dosing.

The most common side effects are hypersensitivity reactions, blood clots, hemorrhage, and pancreatic and liver toxicity. There is also a risk for fetal harm, so labeling advises women to use effective nonhormonal contraception during treatment and for 3 months afterward.
 

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

Following a transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are preferable to vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) in patients who are candidates for oral anticoagulants, according to data drawn from a large multicenter French TAVR registry.

When oral anticoagulation is appropriate following TAVR, such as in patients with atrial fibrillation, “DOACs are associated with improved survival and lower incidence of bleeding, compared to VKA,” reported a team of investigators led by Martine Gilard, MD, PhD, director of interventional cardiology, Brest (France) University Hospital Center.

The comparison, using propensity score matching, is not definitive, but it might be the best data currently available to support DOACs over VKA until a randomized trial is completed, according to Dr. Gilard, senior author of the newly published study.

Asked in an interview if DOACs should now be used preferentially after TAVR when patients are indicated for oral anticoagulation, Dr. Gilard replied, “My answer is yes.”

Of more than 24,000 TAVR patients in the French TAVI and FRANCE2 multicenter registries, which are linked to the French single-payer claims database (SNDS), 8,962 (36.4%) received an oral anticoagulant following their procedure. Of these, 2,180 (24.3%) received a DOAC and the remaining received VKA.

By linking data from the registries to the SNDS, outcomes were tracked. Propensity matching was employed to control for differences in baseline characteristics, including age, body mass index, functional class, diabetes, comorbidities, and past medical history.

On the primary endpoint of mortality at the end of 3 years, the rates were 35.6% and 31.2% for VKA and DOACs, respectively. This translated in a 37% greater hazard ratio for death among those treated with VKA (P < .005).

The rate of major bleeding, a secondary endpoint, was also higher (12.3% vs. 8.4%) and significantly different (HR, 1.65; P < .005) for VKA versus DOACs. The rates of ischemic stroke, acute coronary syndrome, and hemorrhagic stroke were all numerically higher in patients treated with VKA than DOACs, although none of these differences reached statistical significance.
 

Residual confounding cannot be discounted

“The large number of events allowed for taking into account a higher number of potential confounders with appropriate statistical power,” according to the authors. However, they acknowledged that residual confounding cannot be eliminated by propensity matching and conceded that prospective data are needed for a definitive comparison.

In an accompanying editorial, Daniele Giacoppo, MD, a cardiologist at Alto Vicentino Hospital, Santorso, Italy, enlarged on this point . In addition to the inherent limitations of retrospective data, he also noted that data from other studies addressing the same question have been inconsistent.

Of these studies, he pointed to the ATLANTIS trial, presented 2 months ago at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology. This study failed to show an advantage for the DOAC apixaban over VKA in TAVR patients for the primary composite outcome of time to death, myocardial infarction, systemic emboli, valve thrombosis, or major bleeding. Although this study was not limited to patients with an indication for oral anticoagulants, Dr. Giacoppo pointed out that there was no advantage, even among the subgroup of patients who did have an indication.
 

Data are supportive in absence of trial results

In general, Dr. Giacoppo agreed that the French registry are generally supportive of DOACs over VKA in TAVR patients with an indication for oral anticoagulation, but he cautioned that blanket statements are difficult. He anticipates better information from a randomized trial called ENVISAGE-TAVI AF, which is comparing edoxaban with VKA following TAVR in atrial fibrillation patients who have an indication for oral anticoagulation, but he indicated that some individualization of choice will be needed among those high or low relative risks of thrombotic events or bleeding.

“The concerns related to DOACs after TAVR are most confined to patients without an indication for oral anticoagulation,” Dr. Giacoppo said in an interview. In patients with an indication, “oral anticoagulation alone without antithrombotic therapy significantly reduced the risk of bleeding” in several studies, he added, citing in particular the POPular TAVI trial.

Issues about when to employ – or not employ – both oral anticoagulation and antithrombotic therapy based on such factors as bleeding risk remain unresolved, but “in aggregate, waiting for additional high-quality data, the use of a DOAC in patients with an indication for oral anticoagulation who underwent TAVR seems to be safe,” Dr. Giacoppo said. He thinks that the “higher predictability of DOACS compared to vitamin K antagonists might translate into lower bleeding rates over time in a real-world, unselected population.”
 

Benefit-to-risk ratio requires attention

A similar concern about balancing risks and benefits of oral anticoagulation in TAVR patients with an indication for oral anticoagulation was emphasized by Ron Waksman, MD, associate director, division of cardiology, MedStar Washington (D.C.) Hospital Center.

“The TAVR population is elderly in general and so are at high risk for bleeding with any additional anticoagulation,” Dr. Waksman said. He cited data that bring into question the utility of using a DOAC in TAVR patients without an additional indication for anticoagulation, but he believes DOACs do make sense in those who were on and had an indication for a DOAC even before TAVR.

Patients who had atrial fibrillation or another indication “should continue to take the DOAC after TAVR. This population can be assumed to have less bleeding risk as they are vetted as safe for DOACs before their TAVR procedure,” he said.

Although mortality was the primary endpoint of the French registry evaluation, it is the bleeding risk that is a dominant concern, according to Romain Didier, MD, PhD, the first author of this study who performed this work in collaboration with Dr. Gilard.

“We really believe that VKA use in real life after TAVR, even with INR monitoring, is associated with a higher risk of bleeding as compared to DOACs,” he said. It is for this reason that “we currently use DOACs as a first choice in patients who require anticoagulant after TAVR.”

Dr. Gilard, Dr. Didier, and Dr. Giacoppo reported no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Waksman reported financial relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boston Scientific, Cardioset, Cardiovascular Systems, Chiesi, MedAlliance, Medtronic, and Pi-Cardia.

Following a transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are preferable to vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) in patients who are candidates for oral anticoagulants, according to data drawn from a large multicenter French TAVR registry.

When oral anticoagulation is appropriate following TAVR, such as in patients with atrial fibrillation, “DOACs are associated with improved survival and lower incidence of bleeding, compared to VKA,” reported a team of investigators led by Martine Gilard, MD, PhD, director of interventional cardiology, Brest (France) University Hospital Center.

The comparison, using propensity score matching, is not definitive, but it might be the best data currently available to support DOACs over VKA until a randomized trial is completed, according to Dr. Gilard, senior author of the newly published study.

Asked in an interview if DOACs should now be used preferentially after TAVR when patients are indicated for oral anticoagulation, Dr. Gilard replied, “My answer is yes.”

Of more than 24,000 TAVR patients in the French TAVI and FRANCE2 multicenter registries, which are linked to the French single-payer claims database (SNDS), 8,962 (36.4%) received an oral anticoagulant following their procedure. Of these, 2,180 (24.3%) received a DOAC and the remaining received VKA.

By linking data from the registries to the SNDS, outcomes were tracked. Propensity matching was employed to control for differences in baseline characteristics, including age, body mass index, functional class, diabetes, comorbidities, and past medical history.

On the primary endpoint of mortality at the end of 3 years, the rates were 35.6% and 31.2% for VKA and DOACs, respectively. This translated in a 37% greater hazard ratio for death among those treated with VKA (P < .005).

The rate of major bleeding, a secondary endpoint, was also higher (12.3% vs. 8.4%) and significantly different (HR, 1.65; P < .005) for VKA versus DOACs. The rates of ischemic stroke, acute coronary syndrome, and hemorrhagic stroke were all numerically higher in patients treated with VKA than DOACs, although none of these differences reached statistical significance.
 

Residual confounding cannot be discounted

“The large number of events allowed for taking into account a higher number of potential confounders with appropriate statistical power,” according to the authors. However, they acknowledged that residual confounding cannot be eliminated by propensity matching and conceded that prospective data are needed for a definitive comparison.

In an accompanying editorial, Daniele Giacoppo, MD, a cardiologist at Alto Vicentino Hospital, Santorso, Italy, enlarged on this point . In addition to the inherent limitations of retrospective data, he also noted that data from other studies addressing the same question have been inconsistent.

Of these studies, he pointed to the ATLANTIS trial, presented 2 months ago at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology. This study failed to show an advantage for the DOAC apixaban over VKA in TAVR patients for the primary composite outcome of time to death, myocardial infarction, systemic emboli, valve thrombosis, or major bleeding. Although this study was not limited to patients with an indication for oral anticoagulants, Dr. Giacoppo pointed out that there was no advantage, even among the subgroup of patients who did have an indication.
 

Data are supportive in absence of trial results

In general, Dr. Giacoppo agreed that the French registry are generally supportive of DOACs over VKA in TAVR patients with an indication for oral anticoagulation, but he cautioned that blanket statements are difficult. He anticipates better information from a randomized trial called ENVISAGE-TAVI AF, which is comparing edoxaban with VKA following TAVR in atrial fibrillation patients who have an indication for oral anticoagulation, but he indicated that some individualization of choice will be needed among those high or low relative risks of thrombotic events or bleeding.

“The concerns related to DOACs after TAVR are most confined to patients without an indication for oral anticoagulation,” Dr. Giacoppo said in an interview. In patients with an indication, “oral anticoagulation alone without antithrombotic therapy significantly reduced the risk of bleeding” in several studies, he added, citing in particular the POPular TAVI trial.

Issues about when to employ – or not employ – both oral anticoagulation and antithrombotic therapy based on such factors as bleeding risk remain unresolved, but “in aggregate, waiting for additional high-quality data, the use of a DOAC in patients with an indication for oral anticoagulation who underwent TAVR seems to be safe,” Dr. Giacoppo said. He thinks that the “higher predictability of DOACS compared to vitamin K antagonists might translate into lower bleeding rates over time in a real-world, unselected population.”
 

Benefit-to-risk ratio requires attention

A similar concern about balancing risks and benefits of oral anticoagulation in TAVR patients with an indication for oral anticoagulation was emphasized by Ron Waksman, MD, associate director, division of cardiology, MedStar Washington (D.C.) Hospital Center.

“The TAVR population is elderly in general and so are at high risk for bleeding with any additional anticoagulation,” Dr. Waksman said. He cited data that bring into question the utility of using a DOAC in TAVR patients without an additional indication for anticoagulation, but he believes DOACs do make sense in those who were on and had an indication for a DOAC even before TAVR.

Patients who had atrial fibrillation or another indication “should continue to take the DOAC after TAVR. This population can be assumed to have less bleeding risk as they are vetted as safe for DOACs before their TAVR procedure,” he said.

Although mortality was the primary endpoint of the French registry evaluation, it is the bleeding risk that is a dominant concern, according to Romain Didier, MD, PhD, the first author of this study who performed this work in collaboration with Dr. Gilard.

“We really believe that VKA use in real life after TAVR, even with INR monitoring, is associated with a higher risk of bleeding as compared to DOACs,” he said. It is for this reason that “we currently use DOACs as a first choice in patients who require anticoagulant after TAVR.”

Dr. Gilard, Dr. Didier, and Dr. Giacoppo reported no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Waksman reported financial relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boston Scientific, Cardioset, Cardiovascular Systems, Chiesi, MedAlliance, Medtronic, and Pi-Cardia.

Following a transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are preferable to vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) in patients who are candidates for oral anticoagulants, according to data drawn from a large multicenter French TAVR registry.

When oral anticoagulation is appropriate following TAVR, such as in patients with atrial fibrillation, “DOACs are associated with improved survival and lower incidence of bleeding, compared to VKA,” reported a team of investigators led by Martine Gilard, MD, PhD, director of interventional cardiology, Brest (France) University Hospital Center.

The comparison, using propensity score matching, is not definitive, but it might be the best data currently available to support DOACs over VKA until a randomized trial is completed, according to Dr. Gilard, senior author of the newly published study.

Asked in an interview if DOACs should now be used preferentially after TAVR when patients are indicated for oral anticoagulation, Dr. Gilard replied, “My answer is yes.”

Of more than 24,000 TAVR patients in the French TAVI and FRANCE2 multicenter registries, which are linked to the French single-payer claims database (SNDS), 8,962 (36.4%) received an oral anticoagulant following their procedure. Of these, 2,180 (24.3%) received a DOAC and the remaining received VKA.

By linking data from the registries to the SNDS, outcomes were tracked. Propensity matching was employed to control for differences in baseline characteristics, including age, body mass index, functional class, diabetes, comorbidities, and past medical history.

On the primary endpoint of mortality at the end of 3 years, the rates were 35.6% and 31.2% for VKA and DOACs, respectively. This translated in a 37% greater hazard ratio for death among those treated with VKA (P < .005).

The rate of major bleeding, a secondary endpoint, was also higher (12.3% vs. 8.4%) and significantly different (HR, 1.65; P < .005) for VKA versus DOACs. The rates of ischemic stroke, acute coronary syndrome, and hemorrhagic stroke were all numerically higher in patients treated with VKA than DOACs, although none of these differences reached statistical significance.
 

Residual confounding cannot be discounted

“The large number of events allowed for taking into account a higher number of potential confounders with appropriate statistical power,” according to the authors. However, they acknowledged that residual confounding cannot be eliminated by propensity matching and conceded that prospective data are needed for a definitive comparison.

In an accompanying editorial, Daniele Giacoppo, MD, a cardiologist at Alto Vicentino Hospital, Santorso, Italy, enlarged on this point . In addition to the inherent limitations of retrospective data, he also noted that data from other studies addressing the same question have been inconsistent.

Of these studies, he pointed to the ATLANTIS trial, presented 2 months ago at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology. This study failed to show an advantage for the DOAC apixaban over VKA in TAVR patients for the primary composite outcome of time to death, myocardial infarction, systemic emboli, valve thrombosis, or major bleeding. Although this study was not limited to patients with an indication for oral anticoagulants, Dr. Giacoppo pointed out that there was no advantage, even among the subgroup of patients who did have an indication.
 

Data are supportive in absence of trial results

In general, Dr. Giacoppo agreed that the French registry are generally supportive of DOACs over VKA in TAVR patients with an indication for oral anticoagulation, but he cautioned that blanket statements are difficult. He anticipates better information from a randomized trial called ENVISAGE-TAVI AF, which is comparing edoxaban with VKA following TAVR in atrial fibrillation patients who have an indication for oral anticoagulation, but he indicated that some individualization of choice will be needed among those high or low relative risks of thrombotic events or bleeding.

“The concerns related to DOACs after TAVR are most confined to patients without an indication for oral anticoagulation,” Dr. Giacoppo said in an interview. In patients with an indication, “oral anticoagulation alone without antithrombotic therapy significantly reduced the risk of bleeding” in several studies, he added, citing in particular the POPular TAVI trial.

Issues about when to employ – or not employ – both oral anticoagulation and antithrombotic therapy based on such factors as bleeding risk remain unresolved, but “in aggregate, waiting for additional high-quality data, the use of a DOAC in patients with an indication for oral anticoagulation who underwent TAVR seems to be safe,” Dr. Giacoppo said. He thinks that the “higher predictability of DOACS compared to vitamin K antagonists might translate into lower bleeding rates over time in a real-world, unselected population.”
 

Benefit-to-risk ratio requires attention

A similar concern about balancing risks and benefits of oral anticoagulation in TAVR patients with an indication for oral anticoagulation was emphasized by Ron Waksman, MD, associate director, division of cardiology, MedStar Washington (D.C.) Hospital Center.

“The TAVR population is elderly in general and so are at high risk for bleeding with any additional anticoagulation,” Dr. Waksman said. He cited data that bring into question the utility of using a DOAC in TAVR patients without an additional indication for anticoagulation, but he believes DOACs do make sense in those who were on and had an indication for a DOAC even before TAVR.

Patients who had atrial fibrillation or another indication “should continue to take the DOAC after TAVR. This population can be assumed to have less bleeding risk as they are vetted as safe for DOACs before their TAVR procedure,” he said.

Although mortality was the primary endpoint of the French registry evaluation, it is the bleeding risk that is a dominant concern, according to Romain Didier, MD, PhD, the first author of this study who performed this work in collaboration with Dr. Gilard.

“We really believe that VKA use in real life after TAVR, even with INR monitoring, is associated with a higher risk of bleeding as compared to DOACs,” he said. It is for this reason that “we currently use DOACs as a first choice in patients who require anticoagulant after TAVR.”

Dr. Gilard, Dr. Didier, and Dr. Giacoppo reported no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Waksman reported financial relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boston Scientific, Cardioset, Cardiovascular Systems, Chiesi, MedAlliance, Medtronic, and Pi-Cardia.

Should a hospital or medical practice fulfill a patient’s request to be treated or cared for only by vaccinated health care providers?The answer is yes, in a perfect world. Patients should feel assured that their health care providers – clinicians and caregivers – are not exposing them to infectious diseases.But issues are being raised – subquestions that need to be answered to understand the current situation and assist health care employers in their decision-making:

• Must health care employers ensure that their employees are vaccinated?
• Can health care employers require that their employees be vaccinated?
• Do employees have any rights to refuse vaccination or to refuse to supply their employer with their vaccination status?
• Can a health care employer terminate an employee who refuses vaccination?
• Does a patient have a legal right to a vaccinated health care provider?

At present, federal policy says that employers may, but are not required to, insist that employees be vaccinated. The currently prevailing state case law says that hospitals and other employers can require staff to be vaccinated and can terminate employees who refuse vaccination. In June, a Texas court dismissed a case in which 117 employees sued a hospital for requiring that employees be vaccinated. More cases are pending in other states, and there may be differing decisions in other states and on appeal.

State laws enacted years ago also weigh in on employer obligations. In at least one state, Oregon, employers of health care providers may not require vaccination, even though other employers may. Other states have laws about what an employer may or may not require of an employee regarding vaccination, and some have introduced laws which are pending.

So, in most states, health care employers may, not must, require that employees be vaccinated. In most states, hospitals and medical practices may terminate employees who refuse vaccination. However, employers should research the laws of their own states before requiring vaccinations and before terminating employees who are not vaccinated.

The issue of employer mandates is complicated further by the practicality that, in some areas of the country, health care providers are in scarce supply. Employers don’t want to lose the providers they have.

And there are additional questions about how certain federal laws affect the situation. Federal law that may apply includes:

• U.S. Food and Drug Administration regulation on approval of vaccines
• The Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA)
• The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, which protects sensitive patient health information from being disclosed without the patient’s consent
• Civil rights laws
• Patients’ rights

FDA. Some health care providers who refuse vaccination argue that employers have no legal right to require a vaccine that is not fully approved by the FDA. COVID-19 vaccinations have emergency use authorization – something less than full approval. Courts have not yet ruled on this issue.

ADA. Some attorneys believe that honoring a patient’s request to be attended only by a vaccinated health care provider can implicate the ADA. However, the ADA doesn’t protect healthy individuals who don’t want to be vaccinated. The ADA protects the person who, because of their disability, shouldn’t get the vaccination. If an employer mandates vaccination, the employer must, under the ADA, consider requests for exemptions from disabled individuals. However, even when an employee has a disability that may qualify the employee for an exemption to the vaccination requirement, an employer may argue that giving an exemption would be a direct threat to the safety of others; in that case, the ADA may require that the disabled employee and hospital work something out. A compromise might be that the unvaccinated disabled individual would not provide direct patient care or would wear a mask and maintain physical distance.

HIPAA. Some argue that federal privacy law enters into the discussion, maintaining that health care employers can’t disclose employees’ vaccination status under HIPAA. That is not true. Employers are not “covered entities” under HIPAA. It is health care providers who are precluded under HIPAA from disclosing a patient’s personal information. So, if an employer were to ask an employee’s health care provider about the employee’s vaccination status, the health care provider could disclose that status only if the employee consented to the disclosure. An employer may ask an employee for the employee’s proof of vaccination card. However, employers must not ask for unnecessary details that might reveal disability information protected by the ADA.

Civil rights law. Civil rights laws may protect certain individuals from employment consequences of refusing vaccination. Specifically, individuals with sincerely held religious convictions against vaccinations are protected from retaliation by employers for refusing vaccination, under the Constitutional right of freedom of religion. The individual without sincerely held religious convictions against vaccinations and without a relevant disability doesn’t have legal remedies under civil rights laws.

Civil rights laws may apply if employers don’t apply their vaccination requirements to all employees equally. That is, employers can’t require vaccinations of some employees but not others.

Patients’ rights. Legal protections for patients who want a vaccinated health care provider are nowhere to be seen, at this time. It is unlikely that a single patient will be able to convince a hospital or medical practice to require that its staff be vaccinated. However, if a patient becomes infected with COVID-19 and can prove that the illness is causally related to interacting with an unvaccinated health care worker, the patient may have a case against the employer. The legal theory would be malpractice or negligence under informed consent law: That is, the patient did not consent to be treated by an unvaccinated person.
 

Employer options

So, what can health care employers do? They have three options:

• Require vaccination of all employees, independent contractors, and other providers who have privileges to see patients. Then, as long as the employer enforces the vaccination mandate, the employer can tell patients that all providers are vaccinated.
• Not require that employees and others with access to patients be vaccinated, and if a patient requests to be seen only by vaccinated providers, provide that patient with a vaccinated provider. It is especially important that health care employers take care with patients who are unvaccinated and who have been advised not to be vaccinated because of a medical condition. Both the patient and the health care employer would be protected best by avoiding having two unvaccinated individuals interact. Masks and physical distancing may decrease the risk.
• Not require that employees be vaccinated and refuse to guarantee that providers are vaccinated. To avoid risk for future lawsuits, employers should inform patients that there is no assurance that providers are vaccinated. That leaves it to each patient to ask individual providers about the provider’s vaccination status. If a patient doesn’t like a provider’s answer, then the patient has the right to leave. It’s not clear that the patient has a legal right to stay and demand a vaccinated provider.

Option three is problematic for a number of reasons. Patients aren’t always in a position to query each provider who enters the room about vaccination status. Patients may be sedated or too ill to exert that effort. And it puts supervisors in the position of having to mediate situations where a patient wants to leave against medical advice but the option of staying may also be dangerous.

Health care employers should discuss the options with their legal counsel before deciding which option to adopt.

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

Should a hospital or medical practice fulfill a patient’s request to be treated or cared for only by vaccinated health care providers?The answer is yes, in a perfect world. Patients should feel assured that their health care providers – clinicians and caregivers – are not exposing them to infectious diseases.But issues are being raised – subquestions that need to be answered to understand the current situation and assist health care employers in their decision-making:

• Must health care employers ensure that their employees are vaccinated?
• Can health care employers require that their employees be vaccinated?
• Do employees have any rights to refuse vaccination or to refuse to supply their employer with their vaccination status?
• Can a health care employer terminate an employee who refuses vaccination?
• Does a patient have a legal right to a vaccinated health care provider?

At present, federal policy says that employers may, but are not required to, insist that employees be vaccinated. The currently prevailing state case law says that hospitals and other employers can require staff to be vaccinated and can terminate employees who refuse vaccination. In June, a Texas court dismissed a case in which 117 employees sued a hospital for requiring that employees be vaccinated. More cases are pending in other states, and there may be differing decisions in other states and on appeal.

State laws enacted years ago also weigh in on employer obligations. In at least one state, Oregon, employers of health care providers may not require vaccination, even though other employers may. Other states have laws about what an employer may or may not require of an employee regarding vaccination, and some have introduced laws which are pending.

So, in most states, health care employers may, not must, require that employees be vaccinated. In most states, hospitals and medical practices may terminate employees who refuse vaccination. However, employers should research the laws of their own states before requiring vaccinations and before terminating employees who are not vaccinated.

The issue of employer mandates is complicated further by the practicality that, in some areas of the country, health care providers are in scarce supply. Employers don’t want to lose the providers they have.

And there are additional questions about how certain federal laws affect the situation. Federal law that may apply includes:

• U.S. Food and Drug Administration regulation on approval of vaccines
• The Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA)
• The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, which protects sensitive patient health information from being disclosed without the patient’s consent
• Civil rights laws
• Patients’ rights

FDA. Some health care providers who refuse vaccination argue that employers have no legal right to require a vaccine that is not fully approved by the FDA. COVID-19 vaccinations have emergency use authorization – something less than full approval. Courts have not yet ruled on this issue.

ADA. Some attorneys believe that honoring a patient’s request to be attended only by a vaccinated health care provider can implicate the ADA. However, the ADA doesn’t protect healthy individuals who don’t want to be vaccinated. The ADA protects the person who, because of their disability, shouldn’t get the vaccination. If an employer mandates vaccination, the employer must, under the ADA, consider requests for exemptions from disabled individuals. However, even when an employee has a disability that may qualify the employee for an exemption to the vaccination requirement, an employer may argue that giving an exemption would be a direct threat to the safety of others; in that case, the ADA may require that the disabled employee and hospital work something out. A compromise might be that the unvaccinated disabled individual would not provide direct patient care or would wear a mask and maintain physical distance.

HIPAA. Some argue that federal privacy law enters into the discussion, maintaining that health care employers can’t disclose employees’ vaccination status under HIPAA. That is not true. Employers are not “covered entities” under HIPAA. It is health care providers who are precluded under HIPAA from disclosing a patient’s personal information. So, if an employer were to ask an employee’s health care provider about the employee’s vaccination status, the health care provider could disclose that status only if the employee consented to the disclosure. An employer may ask an employee for the employee’s proof of vaccination card. However, employers must not ask for unnecessary details that might reveal disability information protected by the ADA.

Civil rights law. Civil rights laws may protect certain individuals from employment consequences of refusing vaccination. Specifically, individuals with sincerely held religious convictions against vaccinations are protected from retaliation by employers for refusing vaccination, under the Constitutional right of freedom of religion. The individual without sincerely held religious convictions against vaccinations and without a relevant disability doesn’t have legal remedies under civil rights laws.

Civil rights laws may apply if employers don’t apply their vaccination requirements to all employees equally. That is, employers can’t require vaccinations of some employees but not others.

Patients’ rights. Legal protections for patients who want a vaccinated health care provider are nowhere to be seen, at this time. It is unlikely that a single patient will be able to convince a hospital or medical practice to require that its staff be vaccinated. However, if a patient becomes infected with COVID-19 and can prove that the illness is causally related to interacting with an unvaccinated health care worker, the patient may have a case against the employer. The legal theory would be malpractice or negligence under informed consent law: That is, the patient did not consent to be treated by an unvaccinated person.
 

Employer options

So, what can health care employers do? They have three options:

• Require vaccination of all employees, independent contractors, and other providers who have privileges to see patients. Then, as long as the employer enforces the vaccination mandate, the employer can tell patients that all providers are vaccinated.
• Not require that employees and others with access to patients be vaccinated, and if a patient requests to be seen only by vaccinated providers, provide that patient with a vaccinated provider. It is especially important that health care employers take care with patients who are unvaccinated and who have been advised not to be vaccinated because of a medical condition. Both the patient and the health care employer would be protected best by avoiding having two unvaccinated individuals interact. Masks and physical distancing may decrease the risk.
• Not require that employees be vaccinated and refuse to guarantee that providers are vaccinated. To avoid risk for future lawsuits, employers should inform patients that there is no assurance that providers are vaccinated. That leaves it to each patient to ask individual providers about the provider’s vaccination status. If a patient doesn’t like a provider’s answer, then the patient has the right to leave. It’s not clear that the patient has a legal right to stay and demand a vaccinated provider.

Option three is problematic for a number of reasons. Patients aren’t always in a position to query each provider who enters the room about vaccination status. Patients may be sedated or too ill to exert that effort. And it puts supervisors in the position of having to mediate situations where a patient wants to leave against medical advice but the option of staying may also be dangerous.

Health care employers should discuss the options with their legal counsel before deciding which option to adopt.

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

Should a hospital or medical practice fulfill a patient’s request to be treated or cared for only by vaccinated health care providers?The answer is yes, in a perfect world. Patients should feel assured that their health care providers – clinicians and caregivers – are not exposing them to infectious diseases.But issues are being raised – subquestions that need to be answered to understand the current situation and assist health care employers in their decision-making:

• Must health care employers ensure that their employees are vaccinated?
• Can health care employers require that their employees be vaccinated?
• Do employees have any rights to refuse vaccination or to refuse to supply their employer with their vaccination status?
• Can a health care employer terminate an employee who refuses vaccination?
• Does a patient have a legal right to a vaccinated health care provider?

At present, federal policy says that employers may, but are not required to, insist that employees be vaccinated. The currently prevailing state case law says that hospitals and other employers can require staff to be vaccinated and can terminate employees who refuse vaccination. In June, a Texas court dismissed a case in which 117 employees sued a hospital for requiring that employees be vaccinated. More cases are pending in other states, and there may be differing decisions in other states and on appeal.

State laws enacted years ago also weigh in on employer obligations. In at least one state, Oregon, employers of health care providers may not require vaccination, even though other employers may. Other states have laws about what an employer may or may not require of an employee regarding vaccination, and some have introduced laws which are pending.

So, in most states, health care employers may, not must, require that employees be vaccinated. In most states, hospitals and medical practices may terminate employees who refuse vaccination. However, employers should research the laws of their own states before requiring vaccinations and before terminating employees who are not vaccinated.

The issue of employer mandates is complicated further by the practicality that, in some areas of the country, health care providers are in scarce supply. Employers don’t want to lose the providers they have.

And there are additional questions about how certain federal laws affect the situation. Federal law that may apply includes:

• U.S. Food and Drug Administration regulation on approval of vaccines
• The Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA)
• The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, which protects sensitive patient health information from being disclosed without the patient’s consent
• Civil rights laws
• Patients’ rights

FDA. Some health care providers who refuse vaccination argue that employers have no legal right to require a vaccine that is not fully approved by the FDA. COVID-19 vaccinations have emergency use authorization – something less than full approval. Courts have not yet ruled on this issue.

ADA. Some attorneys believe that honoring a patient’s request to be attended only by a vaccinated health care provider can implicate the ADA. However, the ADA doesn’t protect healthy individuals who don’t want to be vaccinated. The ADA protects the person who, because of their disability, shouldn’t get the vaccination. If an employer mandates vaccination, the employer must, under the ADA, consider requests for exemptions from disabled individuals. However, even when an employee has a disability that may qualify the employee for an exemption to the vaccination requirement, an employer may argue that giving an exemption would be a direct threat to the safety of others; in that case, the ADA may require that the disabled employee and hospital work something out. A compromise might be that the unvaccinated disabled individual would not provide direct patient care or would wear a mask and maintain physical distance.

HIPAA. Some argue that federal privacy law enters into the discussion, maintaining that health care employers can’t disclose employees’ vaccination status under HIPAA. That is not true. Employers are not “covered entities” under HIPAA. It is health care providers who are precluded under HIPAA from disclosing a patient’s personal information. So, if an employer were to ask an employee’s health care provider about the employee’s vaccination status, the health care provider could disclose that status only if the employee consented to the disclosure. An employer may ask an employee for the employee’s proof of vaccination card. However, employers must not ask for unnecessary details that might reveal disability information protected by the ADA.

Civil rights law. Civil rights laws may protect certain individuals from employment consequences of refusing vaccination. Specifically, individuals with sincerely held religious convictions against vaccinations are protected from retaliation by employers for refusing vaccination, under the Constitutional right of freedom of religion. The individual without sincerely held religious convictions against vaccinations and without a relevant disability doesn’t have legal remedies under civil rights laws.

Civil rights laws may apply if employers don’t apply their vaccination requirements to all employees equally. That is, employers can’t require vaccinations of some employees but not others.

Patients’ rights. Legal protections for patients who want a vaccinated health care provider are nowhere to be seen, at this time. It is unlikely that a single patient will be able to convince a hospital or medical practice to require that its staff be vaccinated. However, if a patient becomes infected with COVID-19 and can prove that the illness is causally related to interacting with an unvaccinated health care worker, the patient may have a case against the employer. The legal theory would be malpractice or negligence under informed consent law: That is, the patient did not consent to be treated by an unvaccinated person.
 

Employer options

So, what can health care employers do? They have three options:

• Require vaccination of all employees, independent contractors, and other providers who have privileges to see patients. Then, as long as the employer enforces the vaccination mandate, the employer can tell patients that all providers are vaccinated.
• Not require that employees and others with access to patients be vaccinated, and if a patient requests to be seen only by vaccinated providers, provide that patient with a vaccinated provider. It is especially important that health care employers take care with patients who are unvaccinated and who have been advised not to be vaccinated because of a medical condition. Both the patient and the health care employer would be protected best by avoiding having two unvaccinated individuals interact. Masks and physical distancing may decrease the risk.
• Not require that employees be vaccinated and refuse to guarantee that providers are vaccinated. To avoid risk for future lawsuits, employers should inform patients that there is no assurance that providers are vaccinated. That leaves it to each patient to ask individual providers about the provider’s vaccination status. If a patient doesn’t like a provider’s answer, then the patient has the right to leave. It’s not clear that the patient has a legal right to stay and demand a vaccinated provider.

Option three is problematic for a number of reasons. Patients aren’t always in a position to query each provider who enters the room about vaccination status. Patients may be sedated or too ill to exert that effort. And it puts supervisors in the position of having to mediate situations where a patient wants to leave against medical advice but the option of staying may also be dangerous.

Health care employers should discuss the options with their legal counsel before deciding which option to adopt.

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

Newer targeted drugs for chronic lymphocytic leukemia also appear to have a beneficial impact on underlying autoimmune cytopenias (AICs), results of a large retrospective study suggest.

Many autoimmune cytopenias improved or resolved during treatment with ibrutinib, idelalisib, or venetoclax, according to authors of the study, which appears in the journal Blood.

Treatment-emergent autoimmune cytopenias were seen in a “negligible portion” of patients overall, according to the report. The prevalence was about 1% each for patients treated with ibrutinib or idelalisib, though seen more frequently (at 7%) among patients who received venetoclax.

Nevertheless, treatment-emergent autoimmune cytopenias were “easily manageable” without interventions such as steroids and rituximab, and without need to interrupt the targeted treatment for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), according to the authors, led by Candida Vitale, MD, PhD, of the department of molecular biotechnology and health sciences at the University of Torino in Italy.

“Ibrutinib, idelalisib, and venetoclax have a beneficial impact on CLL-related preexisting AICs, achieving in most patients, in parallel with the consolidated antitumor efficacy, an effective control of the autoimmune phenomena,” Dr. Vitale and coauthors wrote in their report.
 

Study results

The retrospective study included 815 patients, of whom 572 were treated with ibrutinib, 143 with idelalisib plus rituximab, and 100 with venetoclax. Nine percent of ibrutinib-treated patients and 12% of venetoclax-treated patients also received an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody, rituximab or obinutuzumab.

One hundred and four patients (13%) had preexisting autoimmune cytopenias, though the majority were resolved or controlled at the time targeted therapy was started.

Of patients with autoimmune cytopenias that were unresolved at the beginning of targeted therapy, 80% improved or resolved after starting targeted treatment, authors reported.

Most patients who developed autoimmune cytopenias on treatment had high-risk features such as unmutated IGHV, del(17)p, or TP53 mutation, according to the report.

Those treatment-emergent autoimmune cytopenias were seen in 1% of the ibrutinib group, 0.9% of the idelalisib group, and 7% of the venetoclax group. Out of 12 total treatment-emergent autoimmune cytopenias, all but 2 were resolved or controlled with dose reductions or temporary suspensions and use of steroids or rituximab, the report shows.

The higher incidence of autoimmune cytopenias in the venetoclax group held steady even when considering just the patients who had relapsed/refractory disease or had at least two prior lines of therapy, suggesting a “more meaningful” incidence, compared to what was observed for ibrutinib and idelalisib, the investigators said.

“However, the risk of autoimmune cytopenia episodes should not limit the use of venetoclax, considering the strong efficacy of this drug in treating patients with CLL, including those with high-risk features, and the possibility of effectively managing autoimmune complications, mostly without treatment interruption,” they concluded in their report.
 

Implications for patients with CLL

Findings of this study indicate that targeted therapies are effective for managing both CLL and autoimmune cytopenias, according to Carol Moreno, MD, PhD, of Hospital Sant Pau in Barcelona.

Moreover, the targeted therapies do not appear to change the overall prevalence of autoimmune cytopenias, compared to untreated patients, Dr. Moreno said in a commentary on the findings also published in Blood.

“These results are consistent with the concept that targeted therapies are not associated with a higher risk of autoimmune cytopenias, and that, if present, can be managed with immunosuppressive agents,” she wrote.
 

Autoimmune cytopenias and CLL

Autoimmune cytopenias are a relatively common complication of CLL, occurring in 5%-9% of CLL patients, Dr. Vitale and coauthors said in their report. The most common presentations include autoimmune hemolytic anemia (AIHA) and immune thrombocytopenia (ITP).

Evidence from earlier studies suggests that treatment for CLL may trigger autoimmune cytopenias. Results of retrospective studies in the 1990s linked single-agent fludarabine to increased risk of AIHA, Dr. Moreno said in the commentary.

However, subsequent studies showed that fludarabine plus cyclophosphamide (FC) and fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab (FCR) were associated with low proportions of AIHA.

“Taken together, these results convincingly suggest that rather than treatment, it is the lack of response to it that conveys a higher risk of AIC,” Dr. Moreno wrote.
 

Management considerations

There are currently no clinical practice guidelines that advise on how to manage patients who develop AICs during targeted treatment for CLL, Dr. Vitale and colleagues said in their report.

However, this new study data may help inform management of patients with CLL and an autoimmune cytopenia, Dr. Moreno said in the commentary.

If the patient doesn’t immediately require CLL treatment, patients can be managed according to existing guidelines for AIHA and ITP, she said. “Nonresponding patients should be given CLL therapy,” she added.

For CLL patients who do require therapy and have a preexisting or treatment-emergent AIC, a “CLL-oriented” treatment approach could be considered, according to Dr. Moreno.

“A reasonable approach consists of a short course (2 to 4 weeks) of corticosteroids followed by effective CLL therapy (i.e., FCR, bendamustine plus rituximab or ibrutinib), depending on the clinical situation,” she added.

Dr. Vitale reported receiving consultancy fees from Janssen outside the submitted work. Dr. Moreno declared no competing financial interests related to her commentary.

Newer targeted drugs for chronic lymphocytic leukemia also appear to have a beneficial impact on underlying autoimmune cytopenias (AICs), results of a large retrospective study suggest.

Many autoimmune cytopenias improved or resolved during treatment with ibrutinib, idelalisib, or venetoclax, according to authors of the study, which appears in the journal Blood.

Treatment-emergent autoimmune cytopenias were seen in a “negligible portion” of patients overall, according to the report. The prevalence was about 1% each for patients treated with ibrutinib or idelalisib, though seen more frequently (at 7%) among patients who received venetoclax.

Nevertheless, treatment-emergent autoimmune cytopenias were “easily manageable” without interventions such as steroids and rituximab, and without need to interrupt the targeted treatment for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), according to the authors, led by Candida Vitale, MD, PhD, of the department of molecular biotechnology and health sciences at the University of Torino in Italy.

“Ibrutinib, idelalisib, and venetoclax have a beneficial impact on CLL-related preexisting AICs, achieving in most patients, in parallel with the consolidated antitumor efficacy, an effective control of the autoimmune phenomena,” Dr. Vitale and coauthors wrote in their report.
 

Study results

The retrospective study included 815 patients, of whom 572 were treated with ibrutinib, 143 with idelalisib plus rituximab, and 100 with venetoclax. Nine percent of ibrutinib-treated patients and 12% of venetoclax-treated patients also received an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody, rituximab or obinutuzumab.

One hundred and four patients (13%) had preexisting autoimmune cytopenias, though the majority were resolved or controlled at the time targeted therapy was started.

Of patients with autoimmune cytopenias that were unresolved at the beginning of targeted therapy, 80% improved or resolved after starting targeted treatment, authors reported.

Most patients who developed autoimmune cytopenias on treatment had high-risk features such as unmutated IGHV, del(17)p, or TP53 mutation, according to the report.

Those treatment-emergent autoimmune cytopenias were seen in 1% of the ibrutinib group, 0.9% of the idelalisib group, and 7% of the venetoclax group. Out of 12 total treatment-emergent autoimmune cytopenias, all but 2 were resolved or controlled with dose reductions or temporary suspensions and use of steroids or rituximab, the report shows.

The higher incidence of autoimmune cytopenias in the venetoclax group held steady even when considering just the patients who had relapsed/refractory disease or had at least two prior lines of therapy, suggesting a “more meaningful” incidence, compared to what was observed for ibrutinib and idelalisib, the investigators said.

“However, the risk of autoimmune cytopenia episodes should not limit the use of venetoclax, considering the strong efficacy of this drug in treating patients with CLL, including those with high-risk features, and the possibility of effectively managing autoimmune complications, mostly without treatment interruption,” they concluded in their report.
 

Implications for patients with CLL

Findings of this study indicate that targeted therapies are effective for managing both CLL and autoimmune cytopenias, according to Carol Moreno, MD, PhD, of Hospital Sant Pau in Barcelona.

Moreover, the targeted therapies do not appear to change the overall prevalence of autoimmune cytopenias, compared to untreated patients, Dr. Moreno said in a commentary on the findings also published in Blood.

“These results are consistent with the concept that targeted therapies are not associated with a higher risk of autoimmune cytopenias, and that, if present, can be managed with immunosuppressive agents,” she wrote.
 

Autoimmune cytopenias and CLL

Autoimmune cytopenias are a relatively common complication of CLL, occurring in 5%-9% of CLL patients, Dr. Vitale and coauthors said in their report. The most common presentations include autoimmune hemolytic anemia (AIHA) and immune thrombocytopenia (ITP).

Evidence from earlier studies suggests that treatment for CLL may trigger autoimmune cytopenias. Results of retrospective studies in the 1990s linked single-agent fludarabine to increased risk of AIHA, Dr. Moreno said in the commentary.

However, subsequent studies showed that fludarabine plus cyclophosphamide (FC) and fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab (FCR) were associated with low proportions of AIHA.

“Taken together, these results convincingly suggest that rather than treatment, it is the lack of response to it that conveys a higher risk of AIC,” Dr. Moreno wrote.
 

Management considerations

There are currently no clinical practice guidelines that advise on how to manage patients who develop AICs during targeted treatment for CLL, Dr. Vitale and colleagues said in their report.

However, this new study data may help inform management of patients with CLL and an autoimmune cytopenia, Dr. Moreno said in the commentary.

If the patient doesn’t immediately require CLL treatment, patients can be managed according to existing guidelines for AIHA and ITP, she said. “Nonresponding patients should be given CLL therapy,” she added.

For CLL patients who do require therapy and have a preexisting or treatment-emergent AIC, a “CLL-oriented” treatment approach could be considered, according to Dr. Moreno.

“A reasonable approach consists of a short course (2 to 4 weeks) of corticosteroids followed by effective CLL therapy (i.e., FCR, bendamustine plus rituximab or ibrutinib), depending on the clinical situation,” she added.

Dr. Vitale reported receiving consultancy fees from Janssen outside the submitted work. Dr. Moreno declared no competing financial interests related to her commentary.

Newer targeted drugs for chronic lymphocytic leukemia also appear to have a beneficial impact on underlying autoimmune cytopenias (AICs), results of a large retrospective study suggest.

Many autoimmune cytopenias improved or resolved during treatment with ibrutinib, idelalisib, or venetoclax, according to authors of the study, which appears in the journal Blood.

Treatment-emergent autoimmune cytopenias were seen in a “negligible portion” of patients overall, according to the report. The prevalence was about 1% each for patients treated with ibrutinib or idelalisib, though seen more frequently (at 7%) among patients who received venetoclax.

Nevertheless, treatment-emergent autoimmune cytopenias were “easily manageable” without interventions such as steroids and rituximab, and without need to interrupt the targeted treatment for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), according to the authors, led by Candida Vitale, MD, PhD, of the department of molecular biotechnology and health sciences at the University of Torino in Italy.

“Ibrutinib, idelalisib, and venetoclax have a beneficial impact on CLL-related preexisting AICs, achieving in most patients, in parallel with the consolidated antitumor efficacy, an effective control of the autoimmune phenomena,” Dr. Vitale and coauthors wrote in their report.
 

Study results

The retrospective study included 815 patients, of whom 572 were treated with ibrutinib, 143 with idelalisib plus rituximab, and 100 with venetoclax. Nine percent of ibrutinib-treated patients and 12% of venetoclax-treated patients also received an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody, rituximab or obinutuzumab.

One hundred and four patients (13%) had preexisting autoimmune cytopenias, though the majority were resolved or controlled at the time targeted therapy was started.

Of patients with autoimmune cytopenias that were unresolved at the beginning of targeted therapy, 80% improved or resolved after starting targeted treatment, authors reported.

Most patients who developed autoimmune cytopenias on treatment had high-risk features such as unmutated IGHV, del(17)p, or TP53 mutation, according to the report.

Those treatment-emergent autoimmune cytopenias were seen in 1% of the ibrutinib group, 0.9% of the idelalisib group, and 7% of the venetoclax group. Out of 12 total treatment-emergent autoimmune cytopenias, all but 2 were resolved or controlled with dose reductions or temporary suspensions and use of steroids or rituximab, the report shows.

The higher incidence of autoimmune cytopenias in the venetoclax group held steady even when considering just the patients who had relapsed/refractory disease or had at least two prior lines of therapy, suggesting a “more meaningful” incidence, compared to what was observed for ibrutinib and idelalisib, the investigators said.

“However, the risk of autoimmune cytopenia episodes should not limit the use of venetoclax, considering the strong efficacy of this drug in treating patients with CLL, including those with high-risk features, and the possibility of effectively managing autoimmune complications, mostly without treatment interruption,” they concluded in their report.
 

Implications for patients with CLL

Findings of this study indicate that targeted therapies are effective for managing both CLL and autoimmune cytopenias, according to Carol Moreno, MD, PhD, of Hospital Sant Pau in Barcelona.

Moreover, the targeted therapies do not appear to change the overall prevalence of autoimmune cytopenias, compared to untreated patients, Dr. Moreno said in a commentary on the findings also published in Blood.

“These results are consistent with the concept that targeted therapies are not associated with a higher risk of autoimmune cytopenias, and that, if present, can be managed with immunosuppressive agents,” she wrote.
 

Autoimmune cytopenias and CLL

Autoimmune cytopenias are a relatively common complication of CLL, occurring in 5%-9% of CLL patients, Dr. Vitale and coauthors said in their report. The most common presentations include autoimmune hemolytic anemia (AIHA) and immune thrombocytopenia (ITP).

Evidence from earlier studies suggests that treatment for CLL may trigger autoimmune cytopenias. Results of retrospective studies in the 1990s linked single-agent fludarabine to increased risk of AIHA, Dr. Moreno said in the commentary.

However, subsequent studies showed that fludarabine plus cyclophosphamide (FC) and fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab (FCR) were associated with low proportions of AIHA.

“Taken together, these results convincingly suggest that rather than treatment, it is the lack of response to it that conveys a higher risk of AIC,” Dr. Moreno wrote.
 

Management considerations

There are currently no clinical practice guidelines that advise on how to manage patients who develop AICs during targeted treatment for CLL, Dr. Vitale and colleagues said in their report.

However, this new study data may help inform management of patients with CLL and an autoimmune cytopenia, Dr. Moreno said in the commentary.

If the patient doesn’t immediately require CLL treatment, patients can be managed according to existing guidelines for AIHA and ITP, she said. “Nonresponding patients should be given CLL therapy,” she added.

For CLL patients who do require therapy and have a preexisting or treatment-emergent AIC, a “CLL-oriented” treatment approach could be considered, according to Dr. Moreno.

“A reasonable approach consists of a short course (2 to 4 weeks) of corticosteroids followed by effective CLL therapy (i.e., FCR, bendamustine plus rituximab or ibrutinib), depending on the clinical situation,” she added.

Dr. Vitale reported receiving consultancy fees from Janssen outside the submitted work. Dr. Moreno declared no competing financial interests related to her commentary.

An extreme price to pay for immortality

We know that men don’t live as long as women, but the reasons aren’t entirely clear. However, some New Zealand scientists have a thought on the subject, thanks to a sheep called Shrek.

Max Pixel

The researchers were inspired by a famous old sheep who escaped captivity, but was captured 6 years later at the age of 10. The sheep then lived 6 more years, far beyond the lifespan of a normal sheep, capturing the hearts and minds of Kiwis everywhere. Look, it’s New Zealand, sheep are life, so it’s only natural the country got attached. Scientists from the University of Otago suspected that Shrek lived such a long life because he was castrated.

So they undertook a study of sheep, and lo and behold, sheep that were castrated lived significantly longer than their uncastrated kin, thanks to a slowing of their epigenetic clocks – the DNA aged noticeably slower in the castrated sheep.

Although the research can most immediately be applied to the improvement of the New Zealand sheep industry, the implication for humanity is also apparent. Want to live longer? Get rid of the testosterone. An extreme solution to be sure. As previously reported in this column, researchers wanted to torture our mouths to get us to lose weight, and now they want to castrate people for longer life. What exactly is going on down there in New Zealand?

Man’s best mind reader

There are a lot of reasons why dogs are sometimes called “man’s best friend,” but the root of it may actually have something to do with how easily we communicate with each other. Researchers dug deeper and fetched something that Fido is born with, but his wild wolf cousin isn’t.

FreeImages.com/Boris Benko

That something is known as the “theory of mind” ability. Have you noticed that when you point and tell dogs to grab a leash or toy, they react as if they understood the language you spoke? Researchers from Duke University wondered if this ability is a canine thing or just a domesticated dog thing.

They compared 44 canine puppies and 37 wolf pups between 5 and 18 weeks old. The wolf pups were taken into human homes and raised with a great amount of human interaction, while the dog pups were left with their mothers and raised with less human interaction.

All the puppies were then put through multiple tests. In one test, they were given clues to find a treat under a bowl. In another test, a block of wood was placed next to the treat as a physical marker. During yet another test, researchers pointed to the food directly.

The researchers discovered that the dog puppies knew where the treat was every time, while their wild relatives didn’t.

“This study really solidifies the evidence that the social genius of dogs is a product of domestication,” senior author Brian Hare said in a separate statement.

The domestication hypothesis theorizes that dogs picked up the human social cues through thousands of years of interaction. The more friendly and cooperative a wolf was with humans, the more likely it was to survive and pass on those same traits and practices. Even within the study, the dog puppies were 30 times more likely to approach a stranger than were the wolf pups.

You may think your dog understands everything you say, but it’s actually body language that Fido is most fluent in.

I’m not a dentist, but I play one on TikTok

In last week’s column, it was garlic cloves up the nose to treat a cold. This week, TikTok brings us a new way to whiten teeth.

pxfuel

Familiar with the Mr. Clean Magic Eraser? If not, we’ll save you the trouble of Googling it: Check it out here and here.

Have you heard anything about using it to clean your teeth? No, neither did we, and we did a lot of Googling. Proctor & Gamble, which makes the Magic Eraser, goes so far as to say on the package: “Do not use on skin or other parts of the body. Using on skin will likely cause abrasions.” (The warning is actually in all caps, but we are stylistically forbidden by our editorial overlords to do that.)

But it’s magic, right? How can you not use it on your teeth? Enter TikTok. Heather Dunn posted a video in which she rubbed a bit of a Magic Eraser on her teeth – being careful to avoid her gums, because you can never be too careful – “as the product squeaked back and forth,” the Miami Herald reported. The video has almost 256,000 likes so far.

“Yeah, your teeth are white because you scrubbed all the enamel off them. So don’t do this,” Dr. Benjamin Winters, aka the Bentist, said in a YouTube video that has 105,000 likes.

In this race for common sense, common sense is losing. Please help the Bentist restore sanity to the dental world by liking his video. It would make Mr. Clean happy.

Don’t let an expiration date boss you around

Surely you’ve been there: It’s Taco Tuesday and you’re rummaging through the refrigerator to find that shredded cheese you’re sure you have. Jackpot! You find it, but realize it’s probably been in the refrigerator for a while. You open the bag, it smells and looks fine, but the expiration date was 2 days ago. Now you have a decision to make. Maybe you’ll be fine, or maybe you’ll risk food poisoning right before your brother’s wedding.

Richard Franki/MDedge News

But here’s the truth: Americans throw away perfectly good food every day. The average American family throws out $1,365 to $2,275 worth of food a year, according to a 2013 study.

Truthfully, expiration dates are not for buyers, rather they’re for stores to have an idea of their stock’s freshness. Emily Broad Leib, director of the Harvard Law School Food and Policy Clinic and lead author of the 2013 study, told Vox that manufacturers use the dates as a way of “protecting the brand” to keep consumers from eating food that’s just a little past its peak.

With approximately 40 million people in the United States concerned about where their next meal is coming from, the Vox article noted, we need to reevaluate our system. Our national misunderstanding of expiration labels is hurting both suppliers and consumers because perfectly good food is wasted.

Sure, there is always that chance that something might be a little funky after a certain amount of time, but all in all, food probably stays fresh a lot longer than we think. Don’t always judge the shredded cheese by its expiration date.

An extreme price to pay for immortality

We know that men don’t live as long as women, but the reasons aren’t entirely clear. However, some New Zealand scientists have a thought on the subject, thanks to a sheep called Shrek.

Max Pixel

The researchers were inspired by a famous old sheep who escaped captivity, but was captured 6 years later at the age of 10. The sheep then lived 6 more years, far beyond the lifespan of a normal sheep, capturing the hearts and minds of Kiwis everywhere. Look, it’s New Zealand, sheep are life, so it’s only natural the country got attached. Scientists from the University of Otago suspected that Shrek lived such a long life because he was castrated.

So they undertook a study of sheep, and lo and behold, sheep that were castrated lived significantly longer than their uncastrated kin, thanks to a slowing of their epigenetic clocks – the DNA aged noticeably slower in the castrated sheep.

Although the research can most immediately be applied to the improvement of the New Zealand sheep industry, the implication for humanity is also apparent. Want to live longer? Get rid of the testosterone. An extreme solution to be sure. As previously reported in this column, researchers wanted to torture our mouths to get us to lose weight, and now they want to castrate people for longer life. What exactly is going on down there in New Zealand?

Man’s best mind reader

There are a lot of reasons why dogs are sometimes called “man’s best friend,” but the root of it may actually have something to do with how easily we communicate with each other. Researchers dug deeper and fetched something that Fido is born with, but his wild wolf cousin isn’t.

FreeImages.com/Boris Benko

That something is known as the “theory of mind” ability. Have you noticed that when you point and tell dogs to grab a leash or toy, they react as if they understood the language you spoke? Researchers from Duke University wondered if this ability is a canine thing or just a domesticated dog thing.

They compared 44 canine puppies and 37 wolf pups between 5 and 18 weeks old. The wolf pups were taken into human homes and raised with a great amount of human interaction, while the dog pups were left with their mothers and raised with less human interaction.

All the puppies were then put through multiple tests. In one test, they were given clues to find a treat under a bowl. In another test, a block of wood was placed next to the treat as a physical marker. During yet another test, researchers pointed to the food directly.

The researchers discovered that the dog puppies knew where the treat was every time, while their wild relatives didn’t.

“This study really solidifies the evidence that the social genius of dogs is a product of domestication,” senior author Brian Hare said in a separate statement.

The domestication hypothesis theorizes that dogs picked up the human social cues through thousands of years of interaction. The more friendly and cooperative a wolf was with humans, the more likely it was to survive and pass on those same traits and practices. Even within the study, the dog puppies were 30 times more likely to approach a stranger than were the wolf pups.

You may think your dog understands everything you say, but it’s actually body language that Fido is most fluent in.

I’m not a dentist, but I play one on TikTok

In last week’s column, it was garlic cloves up the nose to treat a cold. This week, TikTok brings us a new way to whiten teeth.

pxfuel

Familiar with the Mr. Clean Magic Eraser? If not, we’ll save you the trouble of Googling it: Check it out here and here.

Have you heard anything about using it to clean your teeth? No, neither did we, and we did a lot of Googling. Proctor & Gamble, which makes the Magic Eraser, goes so far as to say on the package: “Do not use on skin or other parts of the body. Using on skin will likely cause abrasions.” (The warning is actually in all caps, but we are stylistically forbidden by our editorial overlords to do that.)

But it’s magic, right? How can you not use it on your teeth? Enter TikTok. Heather Dunn posted a video in which she rubbed a bit of a Magic Eraser on her teeth – being careful to avoid her gums, because you can never be too careful – “as the product squeaked back and forth,” the Miami Herald reported. The video has almost 256,000 likes so far.

“Yeah, your teeth are white because you scrubbed all the enamel off them. So don’t do this,” Dr. Benjamin Winters, aka the Bentist, said in a YouTube video that has 105,000 likes.

In this race for common sense, common sense is losing. Please help the Bentist restore sanity to the dental world by liking his video. It would make Mr. Clean happy.

Don’t let an expiration date boss you around

Surely you’ve been there: It’s Taco Tuesday and you’re rummaging through the refrigerator to find that shredded cheese you’re sure you have. Jackpot! You find it, but realize it’s probably been in the refrigerator for a while. You open the bag, it smells and looks fine, but the expiration date was 2 days ago. Now you have a decision to make. Maybe you’ll be fine, or maybe you’ll risk food poisoning right before your brother’s wedding.

Richard Franki/MDedge News

But here’s the truth: Americans throw away perfectly good food every day. The average American family throws out $1,365 to $2,275 worth of food a year, according to a 2013 study.

Truthfully, expiration dates are not for buyers, rather they’re for stores to have an idea of their stock’s freshness. Emily Broad Leib, director of the Harvard Law School Food and Policy Clinic and lead author of the 2013 study, told Vox that manufacturers use the dates as a way of “protecting the brand” to keep consumers from eating food that’s just a little past its peak.

With approximately 40 million people in the United States concerned about where their next meal is coming from, the Vox article noted, we need to reevaluate our system. Our national misunderstanding of expiration labels is hurting both suppliers and consumers because perfectly good food is wasted.

Sure, there is always that chance that something might be a little funky after a certain amount of time, but all in all, food probably stays fresh a lot longer than we think. Don’t always judge the shredded cheese by its expiration date.

An extreme price to pay for immortality

We know that men don’t live as long as women, but the reasons aren’t entirely clear. However, some New Zealand scientists have a thought on the subject, thanks to a sheep called Shrek.

Max Pixel

The researchers were inspired by a famous old sheep who escaped captivity, but was captured 6 years later at the age of 10. The sheep then lived 6 more years, far beyond the lifespan of a normal sheep, capturing the hearts and minds of Kiwis everywhere. Look, it’s New Zealand, sheep are life, so it’s only natural the country got attached. Scientists from the University of Otago suspected that Shrek lived such a long life because he was castrated.

So they undertook a study of sheep, and lo and behold, sheep that were castrated lived significantly longer than their uncastrated kin, thanks to a slowing of their epigenetic clocks – the DNA aged noticeably slower in the castrated sheep.

Although the research can most immediately be applied to the improvement of the New Zealand sheep industry, the implication for humanity is also apparent. Want to live longer? Get rid of the testosterone. An extreme solution to be sure. As previously reported in this column, researchers wanted to torture our mouths to get us to lose weight, and now they want to castrate people for longer life. What exactly is going on down there in New Zealand?

Man’s best mind reader

There are a lot of reasons why dogs are sometimes called “man’s best friend,” but the root of it may actually have something to do with how easily we communicate with each other. Researchers dug deeper and fetched something that Fido is born with, but his wild wolf cousin isn’t.

FreeImages.com/Boris Benko

That something is known as the “theory of mind” ability. Have you noticed that when you point and tell dogs to grab a leash or toy, they react as if they understood the language you spoke? Researchers from Duke University wondered if this ability is a canine thing or just a domesticated dog thing.

They compared 44 canine puppies and 37 wolf pups between 5 and 18 weeks old. The wolf pups were taken into human homes and raised with a great amount of human interaction, while the dog pups were left with their mothers and raised with less human interaction.

All the puppies were then put through multiple tests. In one test, they were given clues to find a treat under a bowl. In another test, a block of wood was placed next to the treat as a physical marker. During yet another test, researchers pointed to the food directly.

The researchers discovered that the dog puppies knew where the treat was every time, while their wild relatives didn’t.

“This study really solidifies the evidence that the social genius of dogs is a product of domestication,” senior author Brian Hare said in a separate statement.

The domestication hypothesis theorizes that dogs picked up the human social cues through thousands of years of interaction. The more friendly and cooperative a wolf was with humans, the more likely it was to survive and pass on those same traits and practices. Even within the study, the dog puppies were 30 times more likely to approach a stranger than were the wolf pups.

You may think your dog understands everything you say, but it’s actually body language that Fido is most fluent in.

I’m not a dentist, but I play one on TikTok

In last week’s column, it was garlic cloves up the nose to treat a cold. This week, TikTok brings us a new way to whiten teeth.

pxfuel

Familiar with the Mr. Clean Magic Eraser? If not, we’ll save you the trouble of Googling it: Check it out here and here.

Have you heard anything about using it to clean your teeth? No, neither did we, and we did a lot of Googling. Proctor & Gamble, which makes the Magic Eraser, goes so far as to say on the package: “Do not use on skin or other parts of the body. Using on skin will likely cause abrasions.” (The warning is actually in all caps, but we are stylistically forbidden by our editorial overlords to do that.)

But it’s magic, right? How can you not use it on your teeth? Enter TikTok. Heather Dunn posted a video in which she rubbed a bit of a Magic Eraser on her teeth – being careful to avoid her gums, because you can never be too careful – “as the product squeaked back and forth,” the Miami Herald reported. The video has almost 256,000 likes so far.

“Yeah, your teeth are white because you scrubbed all the enamel off them. So don’t do this,” Dr. Benjamin Winters, aka the Bentist, said in a YouTube video that has 105,000 likes.

In this race for common sense, common sense is losing. Please help the Bentist restore sanity to the dental world by liking his video. It would make Mr. Clean happy.

Don’t let an expiration date boss you around

Surely you’ve been there: It’s Taco Tuesday and you’re rummaging through the refrigerator to find that shredded cheese you’re sure you have. Jackpot! You find it, but realize it’s probably been in the refrigerator for a while. You open the bag, it smells and looks fine, but the expiration date was 2 days ago. Now you have a decision to make. Maybe you’ll be fine, or maybe you’ll risk food poisoning right before your brother’s wedding.

Richard Franki/MDedge News

But here’s the truth: Americans throw away perfectly good food every day. The average American family throws out $1,365 to $2,275 worth of food a year, according to a 2013 study.

Truthfully, expiration dates are not for buyers, rather they’re for stores to have an idea of their stock’s freshness. Emily Broad Leib, director of the Harvard Law School Food and Policy Clinic and lead author of the 2013 study, told Vox that manufacturers use the dates as a way of “protecting the brand” to keep consumers from eating food that’s just a little past its peak.

With approximately 40 million people in the United States concerned about where their next meal is coming from, the Vox article noted, we need to reevaluate our system. Our national misunderstanding of expiration labels is hurting both suppliers and consumers because perfectly good food is wasted.

Sure, there is always that chance that something might be a little funky after a certain amount of time, but all in all, food probably stays fresh a lot longer than we think. Don’t always judge the shredded cheese by its expiration date.

A Haitian-born doctor, who was based in Florida for more than 2 decades, has been arrested as a central suspect in the assassination of Haiti’s President Jovenel Moïse, according to The New York Times.

About two dozen people have been arrested as suspects, the newspaper reported, though police believe Christian Emmanuel Sanon, 63, was plotting to become president.

“He arrived by private plane in June with political objectives and contacted a private security firm to recruit the people who committed this act,” Léon Charles, Haiti’s national police chief, said during a news conference on July 11.

The firm, called CTU Security, is a Venezuelan company based in Miami, Mr. Charles said. During a raid at Mr. Sanon’s home in Port-au-Prince, police found six rifles, 20 boxes of bullets, 24 unused shooting targets, pistol holsters, and a hat with a U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency logo.

“This initial mission that was given to these assailants was to protect the individual named Emmanuel Sanon, but afterwards, the mission changed,” Mr. Charles said.

The new “mission” was to arrest President Moïse and install Mr. Sanon as president, The New York Times reported, though Mr. Charles didn’t explain when the mission changed to assassination or how Mr. Sanon could have taken control of the government.

President Moïse was shot to death on July 7 at his home in Port-au-Prince by a “team of commandos,” according to The Washington Post. On July 9, Haiti asked the U.S. to send troops to the country to protect its airport and key infrastructure.

The announcement of Mr. Sanon’s arrest came hours after FBI and Department of Homeland Security officials arrived in Haiti on July 11 to discuss how the U.S. can offer assistance, the newspaper reported.

Mr. Sanon has a YouTube channel with three political campaign videos from 2011, which include discussions about Haitian politics, according to Forbes. In one of the videos, titled “Dr. Christian Sanon – Leadership for Haiti,” Mr. Sanon talks about corruption in the country and presents himself as a potential leader.

Mr. Sanon lived in Florida for more than 20 years, ranging from the Tampa Bay area to South Florida, according to the Miami Herald. Public records show that he had more than a dozen businesses registered in the state, including medical services and real estate, though most are inactive.

Mr. Sanon is the third person with links to the U.S. who has been arrested in connection with the assassination, the Miami Herald reported. Two Haitian-Americans from southern Florida – James Solages, 35, and Joseph G. Vincent, 55 – were arrested by local police. They claimed they were working as translators for the assassins.

The first lady, Martine Moïse, was wounded in the attack and is now receiving treatment at a hospital in Miami, the newspaper reported.

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

A Haitian-born doctor, who was based in Florida for more than 2 decades, has been arrested as a central suspect in the assassination of Haiti’s President Jovenel Moïse, according to The New York Times.

About two dozen people have been arrested as suspects, the newspaper reported, though police believe Christian Emmanuel Sanon, 63, was plotting to become president.

“He arrived by private plane in June with political objectives and contacted a private security firm to recruit the people who committed this act,” Léon Charles, Haiti’s national police chief, said during a news conference on July 11.

The firm, called CTU Security, is a Venezuelan company based in Miami, Mr. Charles said. During a raid at Mr. Sanon’s home in Port-au-Prince, police found six rifles, 20 boxes of bullets, 24 unused shooting targets, pistol holsters, and a hat with a U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency logo.

“This initial mission that was given to these assailants was to protect the individual named Emmanuel Sanon, but afterwards, the mission changed,” Mr. Charles said.

The new “mission” was to arrest President Moïse and install Mr. Sanon as president, The New York Times reported, though Mr. Charles didn’t explain when the mission changed to assassination or how Mr. Sanon could have taken control of the government.

President Moïse was shot to death on July 7 at his home in Port-au-Prince by a “team of commandos,” according to The Washington Post. On July 9, Haiti asked the U.S. to send troops to the country to protect its airport and key infrastructure.

The announcement of Mr. Sanon’s arrest came hours after FBI and Department of Homeland Security officials arrived in Haiti on July 11 to discuss how the U.S. can offer assistance, the newspaper reported.

Mr. Sanon has a YouTube channel with three political campaign videos from 2011, which include discussions about Haitian politics, according to Forbes. In one of the videos, titled “Dr. Christian Sanon – Leadership for Haiti,” Mr. Sanon talks about corruption in the country and presents himself as a potential leader.

Mr. Sanon lived in Florida for more than 20 years, ranging from the Tampa Bay area to South Florida, according to the Miami Herald. Public records show that he had more than a dozen businesses registered in the state, including medical services and real estate, though most are inactive.

Mr. Sanon is the third person with links to the U.S. who has been arrested in connection with the assassination, the Miami Herald reported. Two Haitian-Americans from southern Florida – James Solages, 35, and Joseph G. Vincent, 55 – were arrested by local police. They claimed they were working as translators for the assassins.

The first lady, Martine Moïse, was wounded in the attack and is now receiving treatment at a hospital in Miami, the newspaper reported.

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

A Haitian-born doctor, who was based in Florida for more than 2 decades, has been arrested as a central suspect in the assassination of Haiti’s President Jovenel Moïse, according to The New York Times.

About two dozen people have been arrested as suspects, the newspaper reported, though police believe Christian Emmanuel Sanon, 63, was plotting to become president.

“He arrived by private plane in June with political objectives and contacted a private security firm to recruit the people who committed this act,” Léon Charles, Haiti’s national police chief, said during a news conference on July 11.

The firm, called CTU Security, is a Venezuelan company based in Miami, Mr. Charles said. During a raid at Mr. Sanon’s home in Port-au-Prince, police found six rifles, 20 boxes of bullets, 24 unused shooting targets, pistol holsters, and a hat with a U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency logo.

“This initial mission that was given to these assailants was to protect the individual named Emmanuel Sanon, but afterwards, the mission changed,” Mr. Charles said.

The new “mission” was to arrest President Moïse and install Mr. Sanon as president, The New York Times reported, though Mr. Charles didn’t explain when the mission changed to assassination or how Mr. Sanon could have taken control of the government.

President Moïse was shot to death on July 7 at his home in Port-au-Prince by a “team of commandos,” according to The Washington Post. On July 9, Haiti asked the U.S. to send troops to the country to protect its airport and key infrastructure.

The announcement of Mr. Sanon’s arrest came hours after FBI and Department of Homeland Security officials arrived in Haiti on July 11 to discuss how the U.S. can offer assistance, the newspaper reported.

Mr. Sanon has a YouTube channel with three political campaign videos from 2011, which include discussions about Haitian politics, according to Forbes. In one of the videos, titled “Dr. Christian Sanon – Leadership for Haiti,” Mr. Sanon talks about corruption in the country and presents himself as a potential leader.

Mr. Sanon lived in Florida for more than 20 years, ranging from the Tampa Bay area to South Florida, according to the Miami Herald. Public records show that he had more than a dozen businesses registered in the state, including medical services and real estate, though most are inactive.

Mr. Sanon is the third person with links to the U.S. who has been arrested in connection with the assassination, the Miami Herald reported. Two Haitian-Americans from southern Florida – James Solages, 35, and Joseph G. Vincent, 55 – were arrested by local police. They claimed they were working as translators for the assassins.

The first lady, Martine Moïse, was wounded in the attack and is now receiving treatment at a hospital in Miami, the newspaper reported.

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

A 46-year-old woman presents with fatigue. She reports that she has had unusually heavy periods for the past 6 months. Her blood work shows a hematocrit level of 32, a mean corpuscular volume of 77, a platelet count of 390,000, and a ferritin level of 5.

What would you recommend for iron replacement?

A. FeSO₄ 325 mg three times a day with vitamin C

B. FeSO₄ 325 mg daily with vitamin C

C. FeSO₄ 325 mg every other day

Recommendations and supporting research

I think I would start with choice C, FeSO₄ every other day.

Treatment of iron deficiency with oral iron has traditionally been done by giving 150-200 mg of elemental iron (which is equal to three 325 mg tablets of iron sulfate).¹ This dosing regimen has considerable gastrointestinal side effects. Recent evidence has shown that iron absorption is diminished the more frequently it is given.

Stoffel and colleagues found that fractional iron absorption was higher in iron-deficient women who were given iron every other day, compared with those who received daily iron.² They also found that the more frequently iron was administered, the higher the hepcidin levels were, and the lower the iron absorption.

Karacok and colleagues studied every other day iron versus daily iron for the treatment of iron-deficiency anemia of pregnancy.³ A total of 217 women completed randomization and participated in the study, with all women receiving 100 mg of elemental iron, either daily (111) or every other day (106). There was no significant difference in increase in ferritin levels, or hemoglobin increase between the groups. The daily iron group had more gastrointestinal symptoms (41.4%) than the every other day iron group (15.1%) (P < .0057).

Düzen Oflas and colleagues looked at the same question in nonpregnant women with iron deficiency anemia.⁴ Study patients either received 80 mg iron sulfate twice a day, 80 mg once a day, or 80 mg every other day. There was no statistically significant difference in hemoglobin improvement between groups, but the group that received twice a day dosing of iron had statistically significantly higher ferritin levels than the daily or every other day iron groups. This improvement in ferritin levels came at a cost, though, as 68% of patients in the twice daily iron group had gastrointestinal symptoms, compared with only 10% in the every other day iron group (P < .01).

Vitamin C is often recommended to be taken with iron to promote absorption. The evidence for this practice is scant, and dates back almost 50 years.^5,6

Cook and Reddy found there was no significant difference in mean iron absorption among the three dietary periods studied in 12 patients despite a range of mean daily intakes of dietary vitamin C of 51-247 mg/d.⁷

Hunt and colleagues studied 25 non pregnant, healthy women with low ferritin levels.⁸ The women’s meals were supplemented with vitamin C (500 mg, three times a day) for 5 of the 10 weeks, in a double-blind, crossover design. Vitamin C supplementation did not lead to a difference in iron absorption, lab indices of iron deficiency, or the biological half-life of iron.

Li and colleagues looked at the effect of vitamin C supplementation on iron levels in women with iron deficiency anemia.⁹ A total of 440 women were recruited, with 432 completing the trial. Women were randomized to receive iron supplements plus vitamin C or iron supplements only. Their findings were that oral iron supplements alone were equivalent to oral iron supplements plus vitamin C in improving hemoglobin recovery and iron absorption.
 

Bottom line

Less frequent administration of iron supplements (every other day) is as effective as more frequent administration, with less GI symptoms. Also, adding vitamin C does not appear to improve absorption of iron supplements.

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Dr. Paauw has no conflicts to disclose. Contact him at [email protected].

References

1. 1. Fairbanks VF and Beutler E. Iron deficiency, in “Williams Textbook of Hematology, 6th ed.” (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2001).

2. Stoffel N et al. Lancet Haematology. 2017;4: e524-33.

3. Karakoc G et al. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2021 Apr 18:1-5

4. Düzen Oflas N et al. Intern Med J. 2020 Jul;50(7):854-8

5. Cook JD and Monsen ER. Am J Clin Nutr. 1977;30:235-41.

6. Hallberg L etal. Hum Nutr Appl Nutr. 1986;40: 97-113.

7. Cook JD and Reddy M. Am J Clin Nutr. 2001;73:93-8.

8. Hunt JR et al. Am J Clin Nutr. 1994 Jun;59(6):1381-5.

9. Li N et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Nov 2;3(11):e2023644.

A 46-year-old woman presents with fatigue. She reports that she has had unusually heavy periods for the past 6 months. Her blood work shows a hematocrit level of 32, a mean corpuscular volume of 77, a platelet count of 390,000, and a ferritin level of 5.

What would you recommend for iron replacement?

A. FeSO₄ 325 mg three times a day with vitamin C

B. FeSO₄ 325 mg daily with vitamin C

C. FeSO₄ 325 mg every other day

Recommendations and supporting research

I think I would start with choice C, FeSO₄ every other day.

Treatment of iron deficiency with oral iron has traditionally been done by giving 150-200 mg of elemental iron (which is equal to three 325 mg tablets of iron sulfate).¹ This dosing regimen has considerable gastrointestinal side effects. Recent evidence has shown that iron absorption is diminished the more frequently it is given.

Stoffel and colleagues found that fractional iron absorption was higher in iron-deficient women who were given iron every other day, compared with those who received daily iron.² They also found that the more frequently iron was administered, the higher the hepcidin levels were, and the lower the iron absorption.

Karacok and colleagues studied every other day iron versus daily iron for the treatment of iron-deficiency anemia of pregnancy.³ A total of 217 women completed randomization and participated in the study, with all women receiving 100 mg of elemental iron, either daily (111) or every other day (106). There was no significant difference in increase in ferritin levels, or hemoglobin increase between the groups. The daily iron group had more gastrointestinal symptoms (41.4%) than the every other day iron group (15.1%) (P < .0057).

Düzen Oflas and colleagues looked at the same question in nonpregnant women with iron deficiency anemia.⁴ Study patients either received 80 mg iron sulfate twice a day, 80 mg once a day, or 80 mg every other day. There was no statistically significant difference in hemoglobin improvement between groups, but the group that received twice a day dosing of iron had statistically significantly higher ferritin levels than the daily or every other day iron groups. This improvement in ferritin levels came at a cost, though, as 68% of patients in the twice daily iron group had gastrointestinal symptoms, compared with only 10% in the every other day iron group (P < .01).

Vitamin C is often recommended to be taken with iron to promote absorption. The evidence for this practice is scant, and dates back almost 50 years.^5,6

Cook and Reddy found there was no significant difference in mean iron absorption among the three dietary periods studied in 12 patients despite a range of mean daily intakes of dietary vitamin C of 51-247 mg/d.⁷

Hunt and colleagues studied 25 non pregnant, healthy women with low ferritin levels.⁸ The women’s meals were supplemented with vitamin C (500 mg, three times a day) for 5 of the 10 weeks, in a double-blind, crossover design. Vitamin C supplementation did not lead to a difference in iron absorption, lab indices of iron deficiency, or the biological half-life of iron.

Li and colleagues looked at the effect of vitamin C supplementation on iron levels in women with iron deficiency anemia.⁹ A total of 440 women were recruited, with 432 completing the trial. Women were randomized to receive iron supplements plus vitamin C or iron supplements only. Their findings were that oral iron supplements alone were equivalent to oral iron supplements plus vitamin C in improving hemoglobin recovery and iron absorption.
 

Bottom line

Less frequent administration of iron supplements (every other day) is as effective as more frequent administration, with less GI symptoms. Also, adding vitamin C does not appear to improve absorption of iron supplements.

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Dr. Paauw has no conflicts to disclose. Contact him at [email protected].

References

1. 1. Fairbanks VF and Beutler E. Iron deficiency, in “Williams Textbook of Hematology, 6th ed.” (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2001).

2. Stoffel N et al. Lancet Haematology. 2017;4: e524-33.

3. Karakoc G et al. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2021 Apr 18:1-5

4. Düzen Oflas N et al. Intern Med J. 2020 Jul;50(7):854-8

5. Cook JD and Monsen ER. Am J Clin Nutr. 1977;30:235-41.

6. Hallberg L etal. Hum Nutr Appl Nutr. 1986;40: 97-113.

7. Cook JD and Reddy M. Am J Clin Nutr. 2001;73:93-8.

8. Hunt JR et al. Am J Clin Nutr. 1994 Jun;59(6):1381-5.

9. Li N et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Nov 2;3(11):e2023644.

A 46-year-old woman presents with fatigue. She reports that she has had unusually heavy periods for the past 6 months. Her blood work shows a hematocrit level of 32, a mean corpuscular volume of 77, a platelet count of 390,000, and a ferritin level of 5.

What would you recommend for iron replacement?

A. FeSO₄ 325 mg three times a day with vitamin C

B. FeSO₄ 325 mg daily with vitamin C

C. FeSO₄ 325 mg every other day

Recommendations and supporting research

I think I would start with choice C, FeSO₄ every other day.

Treatment of iron deficiency with oral iron has traditionally been done by giving 150-200 mg of elemental iron (which is equal to three 325 mg tablets of iron sulfate).¹ This dosing regimen has considerable gastrointestinal side effects. Recent evidence has shown that iron absorption is diminished the more frequently it is given.

Stoffel and colleagues found that fractional iron absorption was higher in iron-deficient women who were given iron every other day, compared with those who received daily iron.² They also found that the more frequently iron was administered, the higher the hepcidin levels were, and the lower the iron absorption.

Karacok and colleagues studied every other day iron versus daily iron for the treatment of iron-deficiency anemia of pregnancy.³ A total of 217 women completed randomization and participated in the study, with all women receiving 100 mg of elemental iron, either daily (111) or every other day (106). There was no significant difference in increase in ferritin levels, or hemoglobin increase between the groups. The daily iron group had more gastrointestinal symptoms (41.4%) than the every other day iron group (15.1%) (P < .0057).

Düzen Oflas and colleagues looked at the same question in nonpregnant women with iron deficiency anemia.⁴ Study patients either received 80 mg iron sulfate twice a day, 80 mg once a day, or 80 mg every other day. There was no statistically significant difference in hemoglobin improvement between groups, but the group that received twice a day dosing of iron had statistically significantly higher ferritin levels than the daily or every other day iron groups. This improvement in ferritin levels came at a cost, though, as 68% of patients in the twice daily iron group had gastrointestinal symptoms, compared with only 10% in the every other day iron group (P < .01).

Vitamin C is often recommended to be taken with iron to promote absorption. The evidence for this practice is scant, and dates back almost 50 years.^5,6

Cook and Reddy found there was no significant difference in mean iron absorption among the three dietary periods studied in 12 patients despite a range of mean daily intakes of dietary vitamin C of 51-247 mg/d.⁷

Hunt and colleagues studied 25 non pregnant, healthy women with low ferritin levels.⁸ The women’s meals were supplemented with vitamin C (500 mg, three times a day) for 5 of the 10 weeks, in a double-blind, crossover design. Vitamin C supplementation did not lead to a difference in iron absorption, lab indices of iron deficiency, or the biological half-life of iron.

Li and colleagues looked at the effect of vitamin C supplementation on iron levels in women with iron deficiency anemia.⁹ A total of 440 women were recruited, with 432 completing the trial. Women were randomized to receive iron supplements plus vitamin C or iron supplements only. Their findings were that oral iron supplements alone were equivalent to oral iron supplements plus vitamin C in improving hemoglobin recovery and iron absorption.
 

Bottom line

Less frequent administration of iron supplements (every other day) is as effective as more frequent administration, with less GI symptoms. Also, adding vitamin C does not appear to improve absorption of iron supplements.

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Dr. Paauw has no conflicts to disclose. Contact him at [email protected].

References

1. 1. Fairbanks VF and Beutler E. Iron deficiency, in “Williams Textbook of Hematology, 6th ed.” (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2001).

2. Stoffel N et al. Lancet Haematology. 2017;4: e524-33.

3. Karakoc G et al. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2021 Apr 18:1-5

4. Düzen Oflas N et al. Intern Med J. 2020 Jul;50(7):854-8

5. Cook JD and Monsen ER. Am J Clin Nutr. 1977;30:235-41.

6. Hallberg L etal. Hum Nutr Appl Nutr. 1986;40: 97-113.

7. Cook JD and Reddy M. Am J Clin Nutr. 2001;73:93-8.

8. Hunt JR et al. Am J Clin Nutr. 1994 Jun;59(6):1381-5.

9. Li N et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Nov 2;3(11):e2023644.

Medicare intends next year to allow physician assistants (PAs) to begin directly billing for their work and to expand coverage of telehealth services. It also intends to change the approach to payments for office visits and for coaching programs for diabetes prevention.

adventtr/iStock/Getty Images Plus

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services recently posted its proposed 2022 physician fee schedule. Running to more than 1,700 pages, the draft rule contains myriad other changes in how the giant federal health program pays for medical care, including revisions to its approach to evaluation and management (E/M) services, which represent many office visits. In addition, Medicare is seeking to increase participation in a program intended to prevent people from developing diabetes.

Physician groups posted quick complaints about a proposed 3.75% reduction to the conversion factor because of budget neutrality requirements. The cut reinstates a reduction Congress prevented in late 2020.

In a statement, Anders Gilberg, senior vice president of government affairs for the Medical Group Management Association, called the draft rule a “mixed bag for physician practices.” Mr. Gilberg said the MGMA will seek congressional intervention to avert the cut for services in 2022.

In keeping with a provision Congress included in a massive spending bill enacted in December, Medicare will let PAs directly bill, as nurse practitioners already can. In a press release, CMS on July 13 described this as a move likely to expand access to care and reduce administrative burden. In 2020, the American Academy of PAs praised the inclusion in the spending bill of the provision allowing its members to directly bill Medicare.

In the draft rule, CMS also intends to remove certain geographic restrictions regarding use of telehealth services for diagnosis, evaluation, and treatment of mental health disorders. CMS also is proposing to allow payment to eligible clinicians for certain mental health and behavioral health services to patients via audio-only telephone calls. These services would include counseling and therapy services provided through opioid treatment programs.

“These changes would be particularly helpful for those in areas with poor broadband infrastructure and among people with Medicare who are not capable of, or do not consent to the use of, devices that permit a two-way, audio/video interaction for their health care visits,” CMS said in a statement.
 

Slimmer Medicare enrollees, bigger payments for coaches?

CMS is seeking to draw more participants to the Medicare Diabetes Prevention Program (MDPP). This program includes organizations that provide structured, coach-led sessions in community and health care settings to help people lose weight and exercise more. During the COVID-19 public health emergency, CMS waived an enrollment fee for new suppliers of services in MDPP. CMS now is proposing to waive this fee for all organizations that submit an application to enroll in Medicare as an MDPP supplier on or after Jan. 1, 2022.

Another proposed change in MDPP services is a restructuring of payments so that organizations involved in coaching would receive larger payments when their participants reach milestones for attendance and for becoming slimmer.

“We propose to increase performance payments for MDPP beneficiary achievement of the 5% weight-loss goal, as well as continued attendance during each core maintenance interval,” CMS said in a statement.

Medicare remains engaged in a review of its payments for E/M services. In the draft rule, CMS is proposing a number of refinements to current policies for split, or shared, E/M visits, critical care services, and services furnished by teaching physicians involving residents. The intention of these changes is to “better reflect the current practice of medicine, the evolving role of nonphysician practitioners as members of the medical team, and to clarify conditions of payment that must be met to bill Medicare for these services,” CMS said.

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

Medicare intends next year to allow physician assistants (PAs) to begin directly billing for their work and to expand coverage of telehealth services. It also intends to change the approach to payments for office visits and for coaching programs for diabetes prevention.

adventtr/iStock/Getty Images Plus

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services recently posted its proposed 2022 physician fee schedule. Running to more than 1,700 pages, the draft rule contains myriad other changes in how the giant federal health program pays for medical care, including revisions to its approach to evaluation and management (E/M) services, which represent many office visits. In addition, Medicare is seeking to increase participation in a program intended to prevent people from developing diabetes.

Physician groups posted quick complaints about a proposed 3.75% reduction to the conversion factor because of budget neutrality requirements. The cut reinstates a reduction Congress prevented in late 2020.

In a statement, Anders Gilberg, senior vice president of government affairs for the Medical Group Management Association, called the draft rule a “mixed bag for physician practices.” Mr. Gilberg said the MGMA will seek congressional intervention to avert the cut for services in 2022.

In keeping with a provision Congress included in a massive spending bill enacted in December, Medicare will let PAs directly bill, as nurse practitioners already can. In a press release, CMS on July 13 described this as a move likely to expand access to care and reduce administrative burden. In 2020, the American Academy of PAs praised the inclusion in the spending bill of the provision allowing its members to directly bill Medicare.

In the draft rule, CMS also intends to remove certain geographic restrictions regarding use of telehealth services for diagnosis, evaluation, and treatment of mental health disorders. CMS also is proposing to allow payment to eligible clinicians for certain mental health and behavioral health services to patients via audio-only telephone calls. These services would include counseling and therapy services provided through opioid treatment programs.

“These changes would be particularly helpful for those in areas with poor broadband infrastructure and among people with Medicare who are not capable of, or do not consent to the use of, devices that permit a two-way, audio/video interaction for their health care visits,” CMS said in a statement.
 

Slimmer Medicare enrollees, bigger payments for coaches?

CMS is seeking to draw more participants to the Medicare Diabetes Prevention Program (MDPP). This program includes organizations that provide structured, coach-led sessions in community and health care settings to help people lose weight and exercise more. During the COVID-19 public health emergency, CMS waived an enrollment fee for new suppliers of services in MDPP. CMS now is proposing to waive this fee for all organizations that submit an application to enroll in Medicare as an MDPP supplier on or after Jan. 1, 2022.

Another proposed change in MDPP services is a restructuring of payments so that organizations involved in coaching would receive larger payments when their participants reach milestones for attendance and for becoming slimmer.

“We propose to increase performance payments for MDPP beneficiary achievement of the 5% weight-loss goal, as well as continued attendance during each core maintenance interval,” CMS said in a statement.

Medicare remains engaged in a review of its payments for E/M services. In the draft rule, CMS is proposing a number of refinements to current policies for split, or shared, E/M visits, critical care services, and services furnished by teaching physicians involving residents. The intention of these changes is to “better reflect the current practice of medicine, the evolving role of nonphysician practitioners as members of the medical team, and to clarify conditions of payment that must be met to bill Medicare for these services,” CMS said.

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

Medicare intends next year to allow physician assistants (PAs) to begin directly billing for their work and to expand coverage of telehealth services. It also intends to change the approach to payments for office visits and for coaching programs for diabetes prevention.

adventtr/iStock/Getty Images Plus

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services recently posted its proposed 2022 physician fee schedule. Running to more than 1,700 pages, the draft rule contains myriad other changes in how the giant federal health program pays for medical care, including revisions to its approach to evaluation and management (E/M) services, which represent many office visits. In addition, Medicare is seeking to increase participation in a program intended to prevent people from developing diabetes.

Physician groups posted quick complaints about a proposed 3.75% reduction to the conversion factor because of budget neutrality requirements. The cut reinstates a reduction Congress prevented in late 2020.

In a statement, Anders Gilberg, senior vice president of government affairs for the Medical Group Management Association, called the draft rule a “mixed bag for physician practices.” Mr. Gilberg said the MGMA will seek congressional intervention to avert the cut for services in 2022.

In keeping with a provision Congress included in a massive spending bill enacted in December, Medicare will let PAs directly bill, as nurse practitioners already can. In a press release, CMS on July 13 described this as a move likely to expand access to care and reduce administrative burden. In 2020, the American Academy of PAs praised the inclusion in the spending bill of the provision allowing its members to directly bill Medicare.

In the draft rule, CMS also intends to remove certain geographic restrictions regarding use of telehealth services for diagnosis, evaluation, and treatment of mental health disorders. CMS also is proposing to allow payment to eligible clinicians for certain mental health and behavioral health services to patients via audio-only telephone calls. These services would include counseling and therapy services provided through opioid treatment programs.

“These changes would be particularly helpful for those in areas with poor broadband infrastructure and among people with Medicare who are not capable of, or do not consent to the use of, devices that permit a two-way, audio/video interaction for their health care visits,” CMS said in a statement.
 

Slimmer Medicare enrollees, bigger payments for coaches?

CMS is seeking to draw more participants to the Medicare Diabetes Prevention Program (MDPP). This program includes organizations that provide structured, coach-led sessions in community and health care settings to help people lose weight and exercise more. During the COVID-19 public health emergency, CMS waived an enrollment fee for new suppliers of services in MDPP. CMS now is proposing to waive this fee for all organizations that submit an application to enroll in Medicare as an MDPP supplier on or after Jan. 1, 2022.

Another proposed change in MDPP services is a restructuring of payments so that organizations involved in coaching would receive larger payments when their participants reach milestones for attendance and for becoming slimmer.

“We propose to increase performance payments for MDPP beneficiary achievement of the 5% weight-loss goal, as well as continued attendance during each core maintenance interval,” CMS said in a statement.

Medicare remains engaged in a review of its payments for E/M services. In the draft rule, CMS is proposing a number of refinements to current policies for split, or shared, E/M visits, critical care services, and services furnished by teaching physicians involving residents. The intention of these changes is to “better reflect the current practice of medicine, the evolving role of nonphysician practitioners as members of the medical team, and to clarify conditions of payment that must be met to bill Medicare for these services,” CMS said.

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