Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management

BARCELONA – Hospitalized patients in the ICU because of an acute COVID-19 infection had significantly fewer thrombotic events and complications when treated with full-dose anticoagulation, compared with patients who received standard-dose anticoagulation prophylaxis, but full-dose anticoagulation also triggered an excess of moderate and severe bleeding events, randomized trial results show.

The new findings from the COVID-PACT trial in an exclusively U.S.-based cohort of 382 on-treatment patients in the ICU with COVID-19 infection may lead to a change in existing guidelines, which currently recommend standard-dose prophylaxis based on results from prior head-to-head comparisons, such as guidelines posted March 2022 from the American Society of Hematology.

The new findings suggest “full-dose anticoagulation should be considered to prevent thrombotic complications in selected critically ill patients with COVID-19” after weighing an individual patient’s risk for both thrombotic events and bleeding, David D. Berg, MD, said at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology. Simultaneous with his report at the congress, the results also appeared online in the journal Circulation.

“What the results tell us is that full-dose anticoagulation in critically ill patients with COVID-19 is highly effective for reducing thrombotic complications,” said Dr. Berg, a cardiologist and critical care physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.

The report’s designated discussant agreed with Dr. Berg’s conclusions.
 

‘Need to replace the guidelines’

“We probably need to replace the guidelines,” said Eduardo Ramacciotti, MD, PhD, MPH, a professor of vascular surgery at Santa Casa School of Medicine, São Paulo. Dr. Ramacciotti praised the study’s design, the endpoints, and the fact that the design excluded patients at high risk for bleeding complications, particularly those with a fibrinogen level below 200 mg/dL (2 g/L).

But other experts questioned the significance of the COVID-PACT results given that the outcomes did not show that full-dose anticoagulation produced incremental improvement in patient survival.

“We should abandon the thought that intensified anticoagulation should be routine, because it did not overall increase the number of patients discharged from the hospital alive,” commented John W. Eikelboom, MBBS, a professor of hematology and thromboembolism at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.

“Preventing venous thrombosis is a good thing, but the money is in saving lives and stopping need for ventilation, and we haven’t been successful doing that with an antithrombotic strategy,” said Dr. Eikelboom. “It is useful to prevent venous thrombosis, but we need to look elsewhere to improve the outcomes of [critically ill] patients with COVID-19.”
 

Reducing thromboembolism is a ‘valid goal’

Dr. Berg took a different view. “It’s a valid goal to try to reduce venous thromboembolism complications,” the major benefit seen in his study, he said. “There is clinical significance to reducing thrombotic events in terms of how people feel, their functional status, and their complications. There are a lot of clinically relevant consequences of thrombosis beyond mortality.”

COVID-PACT ran at 34 U.S. centers from August 2020 to March 2022 but stopped short of its enrollment goal of 750 patients because of waning numbers of patients with COVID-19 admitted to ICUs. In addition to randomly assigning patients within 96 hours of their ICU admission to full-dose anticoagulation or to standard-dose antithrombotic prophylaxis, the study included a second, concurrent randomization to the antiplatelet agent clopidogrel (Plavix) or to no antiplatelet drug. Both randomizations used an open-label design.

The results failed to show a discernable effect from adding clopidogrel on both the primary efficacy and primary safety endpoints, adding to accumulated evidence that treatment with an antiplatelet agent, including aspirin, confers no antithrombotic benefit in patients with COVID-19.

The trial’s participants averaged 61 years old, 68% were obese, 59% had hypertension, and 32% had diabetes. The median time after ICU admission when randomized treatment began was 2.1 days, and researchers followed patients for a median of 13 days, including a median time on anticoagulation of 10.6 days.

The trial design allowed clinicians to use either low molecular weight heparin or unfractionated heparin for anticoagulation, and 82% of patients received low molecular weight heparin as their initial treatment. The prespecified design called for an on-treatment analysis because of an anticipated high crossover rate. During the trial, 34% of patients who started on the prophylactic dose switched to full dose, and 17% had the reverse crossover.
 

95% increased win ratio with full dose

The study’s primary efficacy endpoint used a win-ratio analysis that included seven different adverse outcomes that ranged from death from venous or arterial thrombosis to clinically silent deep vein thrombosis. Treatment with full-dose anticoagulation led to a significant 95% increase in win ratio.

Researchers also applied a more conventional time-to-first-event secondary efficacy analysis, which showed that full-dose anticoagulation cut the incidence of an adverse outcome by a significant 44% relative to prophylactic dosing.

The two study groups showed no difference in all-cause death rates. The efficacy advantage of the full-dose regimen was driven by reduced rates of venous thrombotic events, especially a reduction in clinically evident deep vein thrombotic events.

The primary safety endpoint was the rate of fatal or life-threatening bleeding episodes, and while life-threatening bleeds were numerically more common among the full-dose recipients (four events, compared with one event on prophylaxis dosing) the difference was not significant, and no patients died from a bleeding event.
 

More secondary safety bleeds

The safety difference showed up in a secondary measure of bleeding severity, the rate of GUSTO moderate or severe bleeds. These occurred in 15 of the full-dose recipients, compared with 1 patient on the prophylactic dose.

Dr. Berg highlighted that several prior studies have assessed various anticoagulation regimens in critically ill (ICU-admitted and on respiratory or cardiovascular support) patients with COVID-19. For example, two influential reports published in 2021 by the same team of investigators in the New England Journal of Medicine had sharply divergent results.

One multicenter study, which tested full-dose heparin against prophylactic treatment in more than 1,000 critically ill patients, was stopped prematurely because it had not shown a significant difference between the treatment arms. The second study, in more than 2,000 multicenter patients with COVID-19 who did not require critical-level organ support, showed clear superiority of the full-dose heparin regimen.

Notably, both previous studies used a different primary efficacy endpoint than the COVID-PACT study. The earlier reports both measured efficacy in terms of patients being alive and off organ support by 21 days from randomization.
 

Patients to exclude

Although Dr. Berg stressed the clear positive result, he also cautioned that they should not apply to patients excluded from the study: those with severe coagulopathies, those with severe thrombocytopenia, and patients already maintained on dual antiplatelet therapy. He also cautioned against using the full-dose strategy in elderly patients, because in COVID-PACT, those who developed bleeding complications tended to be older.

Dr. Berg also noted that heparin prophylaxis is a well-established intervention for ICU-admitted patients without COVID-19 for the purpose of preventing venous thromboembolisms without evidence that this approach reduces deaths or organ failure.

But he conceded that “the priority of treatment depends on whether it saves lives, so anticoagulation is probably not as high a priority as other effective treatments” that reduce mortality. “Preventing venous thromboembolism has rarely been shown to have a mortality benefit,” Dr. Berg noted.

COVID-PACT received no direct commercial funding. Dr. Berg has been a consultant to AstraZeneca, Mobility Bio, and Youngene Therapeutics, and he participated in a trial sponsored by Kowa. Dr. Ramacciotti has been a consultant to or speaker on behalf of Aspen, Bayer, Daiichi Sankyo, Mylan, Pfizer, and Sanofi, and he has received research support from Bayer, Esperon, Novartis, and Pfizer. Dr. Eikelboom has received honoraria and research support from Bayer.

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

BARCELONA – Hospitalized patients in the ICU because of an acute COVID-19 infection had significantly fewer thrombotic events and complications when treated with full-dose anticoagulation, compared with patients who received standard-dose anticoagulation prophylaxis, but full-dose anticoagulation also triggered an excess of moderate and severe bleeding events, randomized trial results show.

The new findings from the COVID-PACT trial in an exclusively U.S.-based cohort of 382 on-treatment patients in the ICU with COVID-19 infection may lead to a change in existing guidelines, which currently recommend standard-dose prophylaxis based on results from prior head-to-head comparisons, such as guidelines posted March 2022 from the American Society of Hematology.

The new findings suggest “full-dose anticoagulation should be considered to prevent thrombotic complications in selected critically ill patients with COVID-19” after weighing an individual patient’s risk for both thrombotic events and bleeding, David D. Berg, MD, said at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology. Simultaneous with his report at the congress, the results also appeared online in the journal Circulation.

“What the results tell us is that full-dose anticoagulation in critically ill patients with COVID-19 is highly effective for reducing thrombotic complications,” said Dr. Berg, a cardiologist and critical care physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.

The report’s designated discussant agreed with Dr. Berg’s conclusions.
 

‘Need to replace the guidelines’

“We probably need to replace the guidelines,” said Eduardo Ramacciotti, MD, PhD, MPH, a professor of vascular surgery at Santa Casa School of Medicine, São Paulo. Dr. Ramacciotti praised the study’s design, the endpoints, and the fact that the design excluded patients at high risk for bleeding complications, particularly those with a fibrinogen level below 200 mg/dL (2 g/L).

But other experts questioned the significance of the COVID-PACT results given that the outcomes did not show that full-dose anticoagulation produced incremental improvement in patient survival.

“We should abandon the thought that intensified anticoagulation should be routine, because it did not overall increase the number of patients discharged from the hospital alive,” commented John W. Eikelboom, MBBS, a professor of hematology and thromboembolism at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.

“Preventing venous thrombosis is a good thing, but the money is in saving lives and stopping need for ventilation, and we haven’t been successful doing that with an antithrombotic strategy,” said Dr. Eikelboom. “It is useful to prevent venous thrombosis, but we need to look elsewhere to improve the outcomes of [critically ill] patients with COVID-19.”
 

Reducing thromboembolism is a ‘valid goal’

Dr. Berg took a different view. “It’s a valid goal to try to reduce venous thromboembolism complications,” the major benefit seen in his study, he said. “There is clinical significance to reducing thrombotic events in terms of how people feel, their functional status, and their complications. There are a lot of clinically relevant consequences of thrombosis beyond mortality.”

COVID-PACT ran at 34 U.S. centers from August 2020 to March 2022 but stopped short of its enrollment goal of 750 patients because of waning numbers of patients with COVID-19 admitted to ICUs. In addition to randomly assigning patients within 96 hours of their ICU admission to full-dose anticoagulation or to standard-dose antithrombotic prophylaxis, the study included a second, concurrent randomization to the antiplatelet agent clopidogrel (Plavix) or to no antiplatelet drug. Both randomizations used an open-label design.

The results failed to show a discernable effect from adding clopidogrel on both the primary efficacy and primary safety endpoints, adding to accumulated evidence that treatment with an antiplatelet agent, including aspirin, confers no antithrombotic benefit in patients with COVID-19.

The trial’s participants averaged 61 years old, 68% were obese, 59% had hypertension, and 32% had diabetes. The median time after ICU admission when randomized treatment began was 2.1 days, and researchers followed patients for a median of 13 days, including a median time on anticoagulation of 10.6 days.

The trial design allowed clinicians to use either low molecular weight heparin or unfractionated heparin for anticoagulation, and 82% of patients received low molecular weight heparin as their initial treatment. The prespecified design called for an on-treatment analysis because of an anticipated high crossover rate. During the trial, 34% of patients who started on the prophylactic dose switched to full dose, and 17% had the reverse crossover.
 

95% increased win ratio with full dose

The study’s primary efficacy endpoint used a win-ratio analysis that included seven different adverse outcomes that ranged from death from venous or arterial thrombosis to clinically silent deep vein thrombosis. Treatment with full-dose anticoagulation led to a significant 95% increase in win ratio.

Researchers also applied a more conventional time-to-first-event secondary efficacy analysis, which showed that full-dose anticoagulation cut the incidence of an adverse outcome by a significant 44% relative to prophylactic dosing.

The two study groups showed no difference in all-cause death rates. The efficacy advantage of the full-dose regimen was driven by reduced rates of venous thrombotic events, especially a reduction in clinically evident deep vein thrombotic events.

The primary safety endpoint was the rate of fatal or life-threatening bleeding episodes, and while life-threatening bleeds were numerically more common among the full-dose recipients (four events, compared with one event on prophylaxis dosing) the difference was not significant, and no patients died from a bleeding event.
 

More secondary safety bleeds

The safety difference showed up in a secondary measure of bleeding severity, the rate of GUSTO moderate or severe bleeds. These occurred in 15 of the full-dose recipients, compared with 1 patient on the prophylactic dose.

Dr. Berg highlighted that several prior studies have assessed various anticoagulation regimens in critically ill (ICU-admitted and on respiratory or cardiovascular support) patients with COVID-19. For example, two influential reports published in 2021 by the same team of investigators in the New England Journal of Medicine had sharply divergent results.

One multicenter study, which tested full-dose heparin against prophylactic treatment in more than 1,000 critically ill patients, was stopped prematurely because it had not shown a significant difference between the treatment arms. The second study, in more than 2,000 multicenter patients with COVID-19 who did not require critical-level organ support, showed clear superiority of the full-dose heparin regimen.

Notably, both previous studies used a different primary efficacy endpoint than the COVID-PACT study. The earlier reports both measured efficacy in terms of patients being alive and off organ support by 21 days from randomization.
 

Patients to exclude

Although Dr. Berg stressed the clear positive result, he also cautioned that they should not apply to patients excluded from the study: those with severe coagulopathies, those with severe thrombocytopenia, and patients already maintained on dual antiplatelet therapy. He also cautioned against using the full-dose strategy in elderly patients, because in COVID-PACT, those who developed bleeding complications tended to be older.

Dr. Berg also noted that heparin prophylaxis is a well-established intervention for ICU-admitted patients without COVID-19 for the purpose of preventing venous thromboembolisms without evidence that this approach reduces deaths or organ failure.

But he conceded that “the priority of treatment depends on whether it saves lives, so anticoagulation is probably not as high a priority as other effective treatments” that reduce mortality. “Preventing venous thromboembolism has rarely been shown to have a mortality benefit,” Dr. Berg noted.

COVID-PACT received no direct commercial funding. Dr. Berg has been a consultant to AstraZeneca, Mobility Bio, and Youngene Therapeutics, and he participated in a trial sponsored by Kowa. Dr. Ramacciotti has been a consultant to or speaker on behalf of Aspen, Bayer, Daiichi Sankyo, Mylan, Pfizer, and Sanofi, and he has received research support from Bayer, Esperon, Novartis, and Pfizer. Dr. Eikelboom has received honoraria and research support from Bayer.

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

BARCELONA – Hospitalized patients in the ICU because of an acute COVID-19 infection had significantly fewer thrombotic events and complications when treated with full-dose anticoagulation, compared with patients who received standard-dose anticoagulation prophylaxis, but full-dose anticoagulation also triggered an excess of moderate and severe bleeding events, randomized trial results show.

The new findings from the COVID-PACT trial in an exclusively U.S.-based cohort of 382 on-treatment patients in the ICU with COVID-19 infection may lead to a change in existing guidelines, which currently recommend standard-dose prophylaxis based on results from prior head-to-head comparisons, such as guidelines posted March 2022 from the American Society of Hematology.

The new findings suggest “full-dose anticoagulation should be considered to prevent thrombotic complications in selected critically ill patients with COVID-19” after weighing an individual patient’s risk for both thrombotic events and bleeding, David D. Berg, MD, said at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology. Simultaneous with his report at the congress, the results also appeared online in the journal Circulation.

“What the results tell us is that full-dose anticoagulation in critically ill patients with COVID-19 is highly effective for reducing thrombotic complications,” said Dr. Berg, a cardiologist and critical care physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.

The report’s designated discussant agreed with Dr. Berg’s conclusions.
 

‘Need to replace the guidelines’

“We probably need to replace the guidelines,” said Eduardo Ramacciotti, MD, PhD, MPH, a professor of vascular surgery at Santa Casa School of Medicine, São Paulo. Dr. Ramacciotti praised the study’s design, the endpoints, and the fact that the design excluded patients at high risk for bleeding complications, particularly those with a fibrinogen level below 200 mg/dL (2 g/L).

But other experts questioned the significance of the COVID-PACT results given that the outcomes did not show that full-dose anticoagulation produced incremental improvement in patient survival.

“We should abandon the thought that intensified anticoagulation should be routine, because it did not overall increase the number of patients discharged from the hospital alive,” commented John W. Eikelboom, MBBS, a professor of hematology and thromboembolism at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.

“Preventing venous thrombosis is a good thing, but the money is in saving lives and stopping need for ventilation, and we haven’t been successful doing that with an antithrombotic strategy,” said Dr. Eikelboom. “It is useful to prevent venous thrombosis, but we need to look elsewhere to improve the outcomes of [critically ill] patients with COVID-19.”
 

Reducing thromboembolism is a ‘valid goal’

Dr. Berg took a different view. “It’s a valid goal to try to reduce venous thromboembolism complications,” the major benefit seen in his study, he said. “There is clinical significance to reducing thrombotic events in terms of how people feel, their functional status, and their complications. There are a lot of clinically relevant consequences of thrombosis beyond mortality.”

COVID-PACT ran at 34 U.S. centers from August 2020 to March 2022 but stopped short of its enrollment goal of 750 patients because of waning numbers of patients with COVID-19 admitted to ICUs. In addition to randomly assigning patients within 96 hours of their ICU admission to full-dose anticoagulation or to standard-dose antithrombotic prophylaxis, the study included a second, concurrent randomization to the antiplatelet agent clopidogrel (Plavix) or to no antiplatelet drug. Both randomizations used an open-label design.

The results failed to show a discernable effect from adding clopidogrel on both the primary efficacy and primary safety endpoints, adding to accumulated evidence that treatment with an antiplatelet agent, including aspirin, confers no antithrombotic benefit in patients with COVID-19.

The trial’s participants averaged 61 years old, 68% were obese, 59% had hypertension, and 32% had diabetes. The median time after ICU admission when randomized treatment began was 2.1 days, and researchers followed patients for a median of 13 days, including a median time on anticoagulation of 10.6 days.

The trial design allowed clinicians to use either low molecular weight heparin or unfractionated heparin for anticoagulation, and 82% of patients received low molecular weight heparin as their initial treatment. The prespecified design called for an on-treatment analysis because of an anticipated high crossover rate. During the trial, 34% of patients who started on the prophylactic dose switched to full dose, and 17% had the reverse crossover.
 

95% increased win ratio with full dose

The study’s primary efficacy endpoint used a win-ratio analysis that included seven different adverse outcomes that ranged from death from venous or arterial thrombosis to clinically silent deep vein thrombosis. Treatment with full-dose anticoagulation led to a significant 95% increase in win ratio.

Researchers also applied a more conventional time-to-first-event secondary efficacy analysis, which showed that full-dose anticoagulation cut the incidence of an adverse outcome by a significant 44% relative to prophylactic dosing.

The two study groups showed no difference in all-cause death rates. The efficacy advantage of the full-dose regimen was driven by reduced rates of venous thrombotic events, especially a reduction in clinically evident deep vein thrombotic events.

The primary safety endpoint was the rate of fatal or life-threatening bleeding episodes, and while life-threatening bleeds were numerically more common among the full-dose recipients (four events, compared with one event on prophylaxis dosing) the difference was not significant, and no patients died from a bleeding event.
 

More secondary safety bleeds

The safety difference showed up in a secondary measure of bleeding severity, the rate of GUSTO moderate or severe bleeds. These occurred in 15 of the full-dose recipients, compared with 1 patient on the prophylactic dose.

Dr. Berg highlighted that several prior studies have assessed various anticoagulation regimens in critically ill (ICU-admitted and on respiratory or cardiovascular support) patients with COVID-19. For example, two influential reports published in 2021 by the same team of investigators in the New England Journal of Medicine had sharply divergent results.

One multicenter study, which tested full-dose heparin against prophylactic treatment in more than 1,000 critically ill patients, was stopped prematurely because it had not shown a significant difference between the treatment arms. The second study, in more than 2,000 multicenter patients with COVID-19 who did not require critical-level organ support, showed clear superiority of the full-dose heparin regimen.

Notably, both previous studies used a different primary efficacy endpoint than the COVID-PACT study. The earlier reports both measured efficacy in terms of patients being alive and off organ support by 21 days from randomization.
 

Patients to exclude

Although Dr. Berg stressed the clear positive result, he also cautioned that they should not apply to patients excluded from the study: those with severe coagulopathies, those with severe thrombocytopenia, and patients already maintained on dual antiplatelet therapy. He also cautioned against using the full-dose strategy in elderly patients, because in COVID-PACT, those who developed bleeding complications tended to be older.

Dr. Berg also noted that heparin prophylaxis is a well-established intervention for ICU-admitted patients without COVID-19 for the purpose of preventing venous thromboembolisms without evidence that this approach reduces deaths or organ failure.

But he conceded that “the priority of treatment depends on whether it saves lives, so anticoagulation is probably not as high a priority as other effective treatments” that reduce mortality. “Preventing venous thromboembolism has rarely been shown to have a mortality benefit,” Dr. Berg noted.

COVID-PACT received no direct commercial funding. Dr. Berg has been a consultant to AstraZeneca, Mobility Bio, and Youngene Therapeutics, and he participated in a trial sponsored by Kowa. Dr. Ramacciotti has been a consultant to or speaker on behalf of Aspen, Bayer, Daiichi Sankyo, Mylan, Pfizer, and Sanofi, and he has received research support from Bayer, Esperon, Novartis, and Pfizer. Dr. Eikelboom has received honoraria and research support from Bayer.

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

A panel of infectious disease experts shared their take recently on the importance of the newly approved bivalent COVID-19 vaccines, why authorization without human data is not for them a cause for alarm, and what they are most optimistic about at this stage of the pandemic.

“I’m very encouraged by this new development,” Kathryn M. Edwards, MD, said during a media briefing sponsored by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA).

It makes sense to develop a vaccine that targets both the original SARS-CoV-2 strain and Omicron BA.4 and BA.5, she said. “It does seem that if you have a circulating strain BA.4 and BA.5, hitting it with the appropriate vaccine targeted for that is most immunogenic, certainly. We will hopefully see that in terms of effectiveness.”

Changing the vaccines at this point is appropriate, Walter A. Orenstein, MD, said. “One of our challenges is that this virus mutates. Our immune response is focused on an area of the virus that can change and be evaded,” said Dr. Orenstein, professor and associate director of the Emory Vaccine Center at Emory University, Atlanta.

“This is different than measles or polio,” he said. “But for influenza and now with SARS-CoV-2 ... we have to update our vaccines, because the virus changes.”
 

Man versus mouse

Dr. Edwards addressed the controversy over a lack of human data specific to these next-generation Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines. “I do not want people to be unhappy or worried that the bivalent vaccine will act in a different way than the ones that we have been administering for the past 2 years.”

The Food and Drug Administration emergency use authorization may have relied primarily on animal studies, she said, but mice given a vaccine specific to BA.4 and BA.5 “have a much more robust immune response,” compared with those given a BA.1 vaccine.

Also, “over and over and over again we have seen with these SARS-CoV-2 vaccines that the mouse responses mirror the human responses,” said Dr. Edwards, scientific director of the Vanderbilt Vaccine Research Program at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., and an IDSA fellow.

“Human data will be coming very soon to look at the immunogenicity,” she said.
 

A ‘glass half full’ perspective

When asked what they are most optimistic about at this point in the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Orenstein said, “I’m really positive in the sense that the vaccines we have are already very effective against severe disease, death, and hospitalization. I feel really good about that. And we have great tools.

“The bottom line for me is, I want to get it myself,” he said regarding the bivalent vaccine.

“There are a lot of things to be happy with,” Dr. Edwards said. “I’m kind of a glass-half-full kind of person.”

Dr. Edwards is confident that the surveillance systems now in place can accurately detect major changes in the virus, including new variants. She is also optimistic about the mRNA technology that allows rapid updates to COVID-19 vaccines.

Furthermore, “I’m happy that we’re beginning to open up – that we can go do different things that we have done in the past and feel much more comfortable,” she said.
 

More motivational messaging needed

Now is also a good time to renew efforts to get people vaccinated.

“We invested a lot into developing these vaccines, but I think we also need to invest in what I call ‘implementation science research,’ ” Dr. Orenstein said, the goal being to convince people to get vaccinated.

He pointed out that it’s vaccinations, not vaccines, that saves lives. “Vaccine doses that remain in the vial are 0% effective.

“When I was director of the United States’ immunization program at the CDC,” Dr. Orenstein said, “my director of communications used to say that you need the right message delivered by the right messenger through the right communications channel.”

Dr. Edwards agreed that listening to people’s concerns and respecting their questions are important. “We also need to make sure that we use the proper messenger, just as Walt said. Maybe the proper messenger isn’t an old gray-haired lady,” she said, referring to herself, “but it’s someone that lives in your community or is your primary care doctor who has taken care of you or your children for many years.”

Research on how to better motivate people to get vaccinated is warranted, Dr. Edwards said, as well as on “how to make sure that this is really a medical issue and not a political issue. That’s been a really big problem.”

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

A panel of infectious disease experts shared their take recently on the importance of the newly approved bivalent COVID-19 vaccines, why authorization without human data is not for them a cause for alarm, and what they are most optimistic about at this stage of the pandemic.

“I’m very encouraged by this new development,” Kathryn M. Edwards, MD, said during a media briefing sponsored by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA).

It makes sense to develop a vaccine that targets both the original SARS-CoV-2 strain and Omicron BA.4 and BA.5, she said. “It does seem that if you have a circulating strain BA.4 and BA.5, hitting it with the appropriate vaccine targeted for that is most immunogenic, certainly. We will hopefully see that in terms of effectiveness.”

Changing the vaccines at this point is appropriate, Walter A. Orenstein, MD, said. “One of our challenges is that this virus mutates. Our immune response is focused on an area of the virus that can change and be evaded,” said Dr. Orenstein, professor and associate director of the Emory Vaccine Center at Emory University, Atlanta.

“This is different than measles or polio,” he said. “But for influenza and now with SARS-CoV-2 ... we have to update our vaccines, because the virus changes.”
 

Man versus mouse

Dr. Edwards addressed the controversy over a lack of human data specific to these next-generation Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines. “I do not want people to be unhappy or worried that the bivalent vaccine will act in a different way than the ones that we have been administering for the past 2 years.”

The Food and Drug Administration emergency use authorization may have relied primarily on animal studies, she said, but mice given a vaccine specific to BA.4 and BA.5 “have a much more robust immune response,” compared with those given a BA.1 vaccine.

Also, “over and over and over again we have seen with these SARS-CoV-2 vaccines that the mouse responses mirror the human responses,” said Dr. Edwards, scientific director of the Vanderbilt Vaccine Research Program at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., and an IDSA fellow.

“Human data will be coming very soon to look at the immunogenicity,” she said.
 

A ‘glass half full’ perspective

When asked what they are most optimistic about at this point in the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Orenstein said, “I’m really positive in the sense that the vaccines we have are already very effective against severe disease, death, and hospitalization. I feel really good about that. And we have great tools.

“The bottom line for me is, I want to get it myself,” he said regarding the bivalent vaccine.

“There are a lot of things to be happy with,” Dr. Edwards said. “I’m kind of a glass-half-full kind of person.”

Dr. Edwards is confident that the surveillance systems now in place can accurately detect major changes in the virus, including new variants. She is also optimistic about the mRNA technology that allows rapid updates to COVID-19 vaccines.

Furthermore, “I’m happy that we’re beginning to open up – that we can go do different things that we have done in the past and feel much more comfortable,” she said.
 

More motivational messaging needed

Now is also a good time to renew efforts to get people vaccinated.

“We invested a lot into developing these vaccines, but I think we also need to invest in what I call ‘implementation science research,’ ” Dr. Orenstein said, the goal being to convince people to get vaccinated.

He pointed out that it’s vaccinations, not vaccines, that saves lives. “Vaccine doses that remain in the vial are 0% effective.

“When I was director of the United States’ immunization program at the CDC,” Dr. Orenstein said, “my director of communications used to say that you need the right message delivered by the right messenger through the right communications channel.”

Dr. Edwards agreed that listening to people’s concerns and respecting their questions are important. “We also need to make sure that we use the proper messenger, just as Walt said. Maybe the proper messenger isn’t an old gray-haired lady,” she said, referring to herself, “but it’s someone that lives in your community or is your primary care doctor who has taken care of you or your children for many years.”

Research on how to better motivate people to get vaccinated is warranted, Dr. Edwards said, as well as on “how to make sure that this is really a medical issue and not a political issue. That’s been a really big problem.”

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

A panel of infectious disease experts shared their take recently on the importance of the newly approved bivalent COVID-19 vaccines, why authorization without human data is not for them a cause for alarm, and what they are most optimistic about at this stage of the pandemic.

“I’m very encouraged by this new development,” Kathryn M. Edwards, MD, said during a media briefing sponsored by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA).

It makes sense to develop a vaccine that targets both the original SARS-CoV-2 strain and Omicron BA.4 and BA.5, she said. “It does seem that if you have a circulating strain BA.4 and BA.5, hitting it with the appropriate vaccine targeted for that is most immunogenic, certainly. We will hopefully see that in terms of effectiveness.”

Changing the vaccines at this point is appropriate, Walter A. Orenstein, MD, said. “One of our challenges is that this virus mutates. Our immune response is focused on an area of the virus that can change and be evaded,” said Dr. Orenstein, professor and associate director of the Emory Vaccine Center at Emory University, Atlanta.

“This is different than measles or polio,” he said. “But for influenza and now with SARS-CoV-2 ... we have to update our vaccines, because the virus changes.”
 

Man versus mouse

Dr. Edwards addressed the controversy over a lack of human data specific to these next-generation Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines. “I do not want people to be unhappy or worried that the bivalent vaccine will act in a different way than the ones that we have been administering for the past 2 years.”

The Food and Drug Administration emergency use authorization may have relied primarily on animal studies, she said, but mice given a vaccine specific to BA.4 and BA.5 “have a much more robust immune response,” compared with those given a BA.1 vaccine.

Also, “over and over and over again we have seen with these SARS-CoV-2 vaccines that the mouse responses mirror the human responses,” said Dr. Edwards, scientific director of the Vanderbilt Vaccine Research Program at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., and an IDSA fellow.

“Human data will be coming very soon to look at the immunogenicity,” she said.
 

A ‘glass half full’ perspective

When asked what they are most optimistic about at this point in the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Orenstein said, “I’m really positive in the sense that the vaccines we have are already very effective against severe disease, death, and hospitalization. I feel really good about that. And we have great tools.

“The bottom line for me is, I want to get it myself,” he said regarding the bivalent vaccine.

“There are a lot of things to be happy with,” Dr. Edwards said. “I’m kind of a glass-half-full kind of person.”

Dr. Edwards is confident that the surveillance systems now in place can accurately detect major changes in the virus, including new variants. She is also optimistic about the mRNA technology that allows rapid updates to COVID-19 vaccines.

Furthermore, “I’m happy that we’re beginning to open up – that we can go do different things that we have done in the past and feel much more comfortable,” she said.
 

More motivational messaging needed

Now is also a good time to renew efforts to get people vaccinated.

“We invested a lot into developing these vaccines, but I think we also need to invest in what I call ‘implementation science research,’ ” Dr. Orenstein said, the goal being to convince people to get vaccinated.

He pointed out that it’s vaccinations, not vaccines, that saves lives. “Vaccine doses that remain in the vial are 0% effective.

“When I was director of the United States’ immunization program at the CDC,” Dr. Orenstein said, “my director of communications used to say that you need the right message delivered by the right messenger through the right communications channel.”

Dr. Edwards agreed that listening to people’s concerns and respecting their questions are important. “We also need to make sure that we use the proper messenger, just as Walt said. Maybe the proper messenger isn’t an old gray-haired lady,” she said, referring to herself, “but it’s someone that lives in your community or is your primary care doctor who has taken care of you or your children for many years.”

Research on how to better motivate people to get vaccinated is warranted, Dr. Edwards said, as well as on “how to make sure that this is really a medical issue and not a political issue. That’s been a really big problem.”

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

A trip to the cath lab for possible revascularization after a positive stress test, compared with a wait-and-see approach backed by optimal medications, did not improve 5-year survival for patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) in the ISCHEMIA-CKD trial’s extension study, ISCHEMIA-CKD EXTEND.

The long-term results, from the same 777 patients followed for an average of 2.2 years in the main trial, are consistent with the overall findings of no survival advantage with an initially invasive strategy, compared with one that is initially conservative. The finding applies to patients like those in the trial who had moderate to severe ischemia at stress testing and whose CKD put them in an especially high-risk and little-studied coronary artery disease (CAD) category.

Indeed, in a reflection of that high-risk status, 5-year all-cause mortality reached about 40% and cardiovascular (CV) mortality approached 30%, with no significant differences between patients in the invasive- and conservative-strategy groups.

MDedge News/Mitchel L. Zoler

Those numbers arguably put CKD’s effect on CAD survival in about the same league as an ejection fraction (EF) of 35% or less. For context, all-cause mortality over 3-4 years was about 32% in the REVIVED-BCIS2 trial of such patients with ischemic reduced-EF cardiomyopathy, whether or not they were revascularized, observed Sripal Bangalore, MD, MHA.

Yet in ISCHEMIA-CKD EXTEND, “you’re seeing in a group of patients, with largely preserved EF but advanced CKD, a mortality rate close to 40% at 5 years,” said Dr. Bangalore of New York University.

Although the study doesn’t show benefit from the initially invasive approach in CKD patients with stable CAD, for those with acute coronary syndromes (ACS), it seems to suggest that “at least the invasive strategy is safe,” Dr. Bangalore said during a press conference preceding his presentation of the study Aug. 29 at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology, held in Barcelona.

REVIVED-BCIS2 was also presented at the ESC sessions on Aug. 27, as reported by this news organization.

ISCHEMIA-CKD EXTEND “is a large trial and a very well-done trial. The results are robust, and they should influence clinical practice,” Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, MPH, Brigham and Women’s Hospital Heart & Vascular Center, Boston, said as the invited discussant after Dr. Bangalore’s presentation.

“The main message here, really, is don’t just go looking for ischemia, at least with the modalities used in this trial, in your CKD patients as a routine practice, and then try to stomp out that ischemia with revascularization,” Dr. Bhatt said. “The right thing to do in these high-risk patients is to focus on lifestyle modification and intensive medical therapy.”

A caveat, he said, is that the trial’s results don’t apply to the types of patients excluded from it, including those with recent ACS and those who are highly symptomatic or have an EF of less than 35%.

“Those CKD patients likely benefit from an invasive strategy with anatomically appropriate revascularization,” whether percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary bypass surgery, Dr. Bhatt said.

At a median follow-up of 5 years in the extension study, the rates of death from any cause were 40.6% for patients in the invasive-strategy group and 37.4% for those in the conservative-strategy group. That yielded a hazard ratio of 1.12 (95% confidence interval, 0.89-1.41; P = .32) after adjustment for age, sex, diabetes status, EF, dialysis status, and – for patients not on dialysis – baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate.

The rates of CV death were 29% for patients managed invasively and 27% for those initially managed conservatively, for a similarly adjusted HR of 1.04 (95% CI, 0.80-1.37; P = .75).

In subgroup analyses, Dr. Bangalore reported, there were no significant differences in all-cause or CV mortality by diabetes status, by severity of baseline ischemia, or by whether the patient had recently experienced new or more frequent angina at study entry, was on guideline-directed medical therapy at baseline, or was on dialysis.

Among the contributions of ISCHEMIA-CKD and its 5-year extension study, Dr. Bangalore told this news organization, is that the relative safety of revascularization they showed may help to counter “renalism,” that is, the aversion to invasive intervention in patients with advanced CKD in clinical practice.

For example, if a patient with advanced CKD presents with an acute myocardial infarction, “people are hesitant to take them to the cath lab,” Dr. Bangalore said. But “if you follow protocols, if you follow strategies to minimize the risk, you can safely go ahead and do it.”

But in patients with stable CAD, as the ISCHEMIA-CKD studies show, “routinely revascularizing them may not have significant benefits.”

ISCHEMIC-CKD and its extension study were funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Bangalore discloses receiving research grants from NHLBI and serving as a consultant for Abbott Vascular, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Amgen, Pfizer, Merck, and Reata. Dr. Bhatt has disclosed grants and/or personal fees from many companies; personal fees from WebMD and other publications or organizations; and having other relationships with Medscape Cardiology and other publications or organizations.

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

A trip to the cath lab for possible revascularization after a positive stress test, compared with a wait-and-see approach backed by optimal medications, did not improve 5-year survival for patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) in the ISCHEMIA-CKD trial’s extension study, ISCHEMIA-CKD EXTEND.

The long-term results, from the same 777 patients followed for an average of 2.2 years in the main trial, are consistent with the overall findings of no survival advantage with an initially invasive strategy, compared with one that is initially conservative. The finding applies to patients like those in the trial who had moderate to severe ischemia at stress testing and whose CKD put them in an especially high-risk and little-studied coronary artery disease (CAD) category.

Indeed, in a reflection of that high-risk status, 5-year all-cause mortality reached about 40% and cardiovascular (CV) mortality approached 30%, with no significant differences between patients in the invasive- and conservative-strategy groups.

MDedge News/Mitchel L. Zoler

Those numbers arguably put CKD’s effect on CAD survival in about the same league as an ejection fraction (EF) of 35% or less. For context, all-cause mortality over 3-4 years was about 32% in the REVIVED-BCIS2 trial of such patients with ischemic reduced-EF cardiomyopathy, whether or not they were revascularized, observed Sripal Bangalore, MD, MHA.

Yet in ISCHEMIA-CKD EXTEND, “you’re seeing in a group of patients, with largely preserved EF but advanced CKD, a mortality rate close to 40% at 5 years,” said Dr. Bangalore of New York University.

Although the study doesn’t show benefit from the initially invasive approach in CKD patients with stable CAD, for those with acute coronary syndromes (ACS), it seems to suggest that “at least the invasive strategy is safe,” Dr. Bangalore said during a press conference preceding his presentation of the study Aug. 29 at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology, held in Barcelona.

REVIVED-BCIS2 was also presented at the ESC sessions on Aug. 27, as reported by this news organization.

ISCHEMIA-CKD EXTEND “is a large trial and a very well-done trial. The results are robust, and they should influence clinical practice,” Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, MPH, Brigham and Women’s Hospital Heart & Vascular Center, Boston, said as the invited discussant after Dr. Bangalore’s presentation.

“The main message here, really, is don’t just go looking for ischemia, at least with the modalities used in this trial, in your CKD patients as a routine practice, and then try to stomp out that ischemia with revascularization,” Dr. Bhatt said. “The right thing to do in these high-risk patients is to focus on lifestyle modification and intensive medical therapy.”

A caveat, he said, is that the trial’s results don’t apply to the types of patients excluded from it, including those with recent ACS and those who are highly symptomatic or have an EF of less than 35%.

“Those CKD patients likely benefit from an invasive strategy with anatomically appropriate revascularization,” whether percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary bypass surgery, Dr. Bhatt said.

At a median follow-up of 5 years in the extension study, the rates of death from any cause were 40.6% for patients in the invasive-strategy group and 37.4% for those in the conservative-strategy group. That yielded a hazard ratio of 1.12 (95% confidence interval, 0.89-1.41; P = .32) after adjustment for age, sex, diabetes status, EF, dialysis status, and – for patients not on dialysis – baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate.

The rates of CV death were 29% for patients managed invasively and 27% for those initially managed conservatively, for a similarly adjusted HR of 1.04 (95% CI, 0.80-1.37; P = .75).

In subgroup analyses, Dr. Bangalore reported, there were no significant differences in all-cause or CV mortality by diabetes status, by severity of baseline ischemia, or by whether the patient had recently experienced new or more frequent angina at study entry, was on guideline-directed medical therapy at baseline, or was on dialysis.

Among the contributions of ISCHEMIA-CKD and its 5-year extension study, Dr. Bangalore told this news organization, is that the relative safety of revascularization they showed may help to counter “renalism,” that is, the aversion to invasive intervention in patients with advanced CKD in clinical practice.

For example, if a patient with advanced CKD presents with an acute myocardial infarction, “people are hesitant to take them to the cath lab,” Dr. Bangalore said. But “if you follow protocols, if you follow strategies to minimize the risk, you can safely go ahead and do it.”

But in patients with stable CAD, as the ISCHEMIA-CKD studies show, “routinely revascularizing them may not have significant benefits.”

ISCHEMIC-CKD and its extension study were funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Bangalore discloses receiving research grants from NHLBI and serving as a consultant for Abbott Vascular, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Amgen, Pfizer, Merck, and Reata. Dr. Bhatt has disclosed grants and/or personal fees from many companies; personal fees from WebMD and other publications or organizations; and having other relationships with Medscape Cardiology and other publications or organizations.

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

A trip to the cath lab for possible revascularization after a positive stress test, compared with a wait-and-see approach backed by optimal medications, did not improve 5-year survival for patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) in the ISCHEMIA-CKD trial’s extension study, ISCHEMIA-CKD EXTEND.

The long-term results, from the same 777 patients followed for an average of 2.2 years in the main trial, are consistent with the overall findings of no survival advantage with an initially invasive strategy, compared with one that is initially conservative. The finding applies to patients like those in the trial who had moderate to severe ischemia at stress testing and whose CKD put them in an especially high-risk and little-studied coronary artery disease (CAD) category.

Indeed, in a reflection of that high-risk status, 5-year all-cause mortality reached about 40% and cardiovascular (CV) mortality approached 30%, with no significant differences between patients in the invasive- and conservative-strategy groups.

MDedge News/Mitchel L. Zoler

Those numbers arguably put CKD’s effect on CAD survival in about the same league as an ejection fraction (EF) of 35% or less. For context, all-cause mortality over 3-4 years was about 32% in the REVIVED-BCIS2 trial of such patients with ischemic reduced-EF cardiomyopathy, whether or not they were revascularized, observed Sripal Bangalore, MD, MHA.

Yet in ISCHEMIA-CKD EXTEND, “you’re seeing in a group of patients, with largely preserved EF but advanced CKD, a mortality rate close to 40% at 5 years,” said Dr. Bangalore of New York University.

Although the study doesn’t show benefit from the initially invasive approach in CKD patients with stable CAD, for those with acute coronary syndromes (ACS), it seems to suggest that “at least the invasive strategy is safe,” Dr. Bangalore said during a press conference preceding his presentation of the study Aug. 29 at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology, held in Barcelona.

REVIVED-BCIS2 was also presented at the ESC sessions on Aug. 27, as reported by this news organization.

ISCHEMIA-CKD EXTEND “is a large trial and a very well-done trial. The results are robust, and they should influence clinical practice,” Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, MPH, Brigham and Women’s Hospital Heart & Vascular Center, Boston, said as the invited discussant after Dr. Bangalore’s presentation.

“The main message here, really, is don’t just go looking for ischemia, at least with the modalities used in this trial, in your CKD patients as a routine practice, and then try to stomp out that ischemia with revascularization,” Dr. Bhatt said. “The right thing to do in these high-risk patients is to focus on lifestyle modification and intensive medical therapy.”

A caveat, he said, is that the trial’s results don’t apply to the types of patients excluded from it, including those with recent ACS and those who are highly symptomatic or have an EF of less than 35%.

“Those CKD patients likely benefit from an invasive strategy with anatomically appropriate revascularization,” whether percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary bypass surgery, Dr. Bhatt said.

At a median follow-up of 5 years in the extension study, the rates of death from any cause were 40.6% for patients in the invasive-strategy group and 37.4% for those in the conservative-strategy group. That yielded a hazard ratio of 1.12 (95% confidence interval, 0.89-1.41; P = .32) after adjustment for age, sex, diabetes status, EF, dialysis status, and – for patients not on dialysis – baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate.

The rates of CV death were 29% for patients managed invasively and 27% for those initially managed conservatively, for a similarly adjusted HR of 1.04 (95% CI, 0.80-1.37; P = .75).

In subgroup analyses, Dr. Bangalore reported, there were no significant differences in all-cause or CV mortality by diabetes status, by severity of baseline ischemia, or by whether the patient had recently experienced new or more frequent angina at study entry, was on guideline-directed medical therapy at baseline, or was on dialysis.

Among the contributions of ISCHEMIA-CKD and its 5-year extension study, Dr. Bangalore told this news organization, is that the relative safety of revascularization they showed may help to counter “renalism,” that is, the aversion to invasive intervention in patients with advanced CKD in clinical practice.

For example, if a patient with advanced CKD presents with an acute myocardial infarction, “people are hesitant to take them to the cath lab,” Dr. Bangalore said. But “if you follow protocols, if you follow strategies to minimize the risk, you can safely go ahead and do it.”

But in patients with stable CAD, as the ISCHEMIA-CKD studies show, “routinely revascularizing them may not have significant benefits.”

ISCHEMIC-CKD and its extension study were funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Bangalore discloses receiving research grants from NHLBI and serving as a consultant for Abbott Vascular, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Amgen, Pfizer, Merck, and Reata. Dr. Bhatt has disclosed grants and/or personal fees from many companies; personal fees from WebMD and other publications or organizations; and having other relationships with Medscape Cardiology and other publications or organizations.

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

The American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association have issued a set of data standards for chest pain and acute myocardial infarction to accompany the 2021 guidelines for evaluation and diagnosis of chest pain.

In October 2021, the AHA/ACC issued a joint clinical practice guideline encouraging clinicians to use standardized risk assessments, clinical pathways, and tools to evaluate and communicate with patients who present with chest pain, as reported by this news organization.

The writing group underscored the need to reach a consensus for the definitions of chest pain. The new document standardizes related data elements for consistent reporting on chest pain syndromes.

“This is an appendix to the guidelines and a planned effort to try to harmonize and bring uniformity to the language applied,” writing committee chair H.V. “Skip” Anderson, MD, with UT Health Science Center, Houston, told this news organization.

“You want heart attack to mean the same thing in Miami Beach as in Western Pennsylvania, as in Oregon and Washington and every place in between,” Dr. Anderson explained. “You want everybody to be using the same language, so that’s what these data standards are meant to do.”

In the document, data elements are grouped into three broad categories: chest pain, myocardial injury, and MI.

“We deliberately followed the plans contained in the new guideline and focused on potentially serious cardiovascular causes of chest pain as might be encountered in emergency departments,” the writing group notes in the document.

The terms “typical” and “atypical” as descriptors of chest pain or anginal syndromes are not used in the new document, in line with the 2021 guidance to abandon these terms.

Instead, the new document divides chest pain syndromes into three categories: “cardiac,” “possible cardiac,” and “noncardiac” – again, in keeping with the chest pain guideline.

The document also includes data elements for risk stratification scoring according to several common risk scoring algorithms and for procedure-related myocardial injury and procedure-related MI.

Each year, chest pain sends more than 7 million adults to the emergency department in the United States. Although noncardiac causes of chest pain make up a large majority of these cases, there are several life-threatening causes of chest pain that must be identified and treated promptly.

Distinguishing between serious and nonserious causes of chest pain is an urgent imperative, the writing group says.

Overall, they say this new clinical lexicon and set of data standards should be “broadly applicable” in various settings, including clinical trials and observational studies, patient care, electronic health records (EHRs), quality and performance improvement initiatives, registries, and public reporting programs.

The 2022 ACC/AHA Key Data Elements and Definitions for Chest Pain and Acute Myocardial Infarction was simultaneously published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology and Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes.

It was developed in collaboration with the American College of Emergency Physicians and the Society for Cardiac Angiography and Interventions and endorsed by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.

Dr. Anderson noted that “almost all of the guidelines that come out now, certainly in the last few years, have been followed after a certain interval by a set of data standards applicable to the guidelines.”

“It would be really great if it could actually be attached as an appendix, but the nature of the development of these things is such that there will always be a bit of a time lag between the writing group that develops the guidelines and the work group that develops the data standards; you can’t really have them working in parallel at the same time,” Dr. Anderson said in an interview.

This research had no commercial funding. The authors have no relevant disclosures.

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

The American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association have issued a set of data standards for chest pain and acute myocardial infarction to accompany the 2021 guidelines for evaluation and diagnosis of chest pain.

In October 2021, the AHA/ACC issued a joint clinical practice guideline encouraging clinicians to use standardized risk assessments, clinical pathways, and tools to evaluate and communicate with patients who present with chest pain, as reported by this news organization.

The writing group underscored the need to reach a consensus for the definitions of chest pain. The new document standardizes related data elements for consistent reporting on chest pain syndromes.

“This is an appendix to the guidelines and a planned effort to try to harmonize and bring uniformity to the language applied,” writing committee chair H.V. “Skip” Anderson, MD, with UT Health Science Center, Houston, told this news organization.

“You want heart attack to mean the same thing in Miami Beach as in Western Pennsylvania, as in Oregon and Washington and every place in between,” Dr. Anderson explained. “You want everybody to be using the same language, so that’s what these data standards are meant to do.”

In the document, data elements are grouped into three broad categories: chest pain, myocardial injury, and MI.

“We deliberately followed the plans contained in the new guideline and focused on potentially serious cardiovascular causes of chest pain as might be encountered in emergency departments,” the writing group notes in the document.

The terms “typical” and “atypical” as descriptors of chest pain or anginal syndromes are not used in the new document, in line with the 2021 guidance to abandon these terms.

Instead, the new document divides chest pain syndromes into three categories: “cardiac,” “possible cardiac,” and “noncardiac” – again, in keeping with the chest pain guideline.

The document also includes data elements for risk stratification scoring according to several common risk scoring algorithms and for procedure-related myocardial injury and procedure-related MI.

Each year, chest pain sends more than 7 million adults to the emergency department in the United States. Although noncardiac causes of chest pain make up a large majority of these cases, there are several life-threatening causes of chest pain that must be identified and treated promptly.

Distinguishing between serious and nonserious causes of chest pain is an urgent imperative, the writing group says.

Overall, they say this new clinical lexicon and set of data standards should be “broadly applicable” in various settings, including clinical trials and observational studies, patient care, electronic health records (EHRs), quality and performance improvement initiatives, registries, and public reporting programs.

The 2022 ACC/AHA Key Data Elements and Definitions for Chest Pain and Acute Myocardial Infarction was simultaneously published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology and Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes.

It was developed in collaboration with the American College of Emergency Physicians and the Society for Cardiac Angiography and Interventions and endorsed by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.

Dr. Anderson noted that “almost all of the guidelines that come out now, certainly in the last few years, have been followed after a certain interval by a set of data standards applicable to the guidelines.”

“It would be really great if it could actually be attached as an appendix, but the nature of the development of these things is such that there will always be a bit of a time lag between the writing group that develops the guidelines and the work group that develops the data standards; you can’t really have them working in parallel at the same time,” Dr. Anderson said in an interview.

This research had no commercial funding. The authors have no relevant disclosures.

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

The American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association have issued a set of data standards for chest pain and acute myocardial infarction to accompany the 2021 guidelines for evaluation and diagnosis of chest pain.

In October 2021, the AHA/ACC issued a joint clinical practice guideline encouraging clinicians to use standardized risk assessments, clinical pathways, and tools to evaluate and communicate with patients who present with chest pain, as reported by this news organization.

The writing group underscored the need to reach a consensus for the definitions of chest pain. The new document standardizes related data elements for consistent reporting on chest pain syndromes.

“This is an appendix to the guidelines and a planned effort to try to harmonize and bring uniformity to the language applied,” writing committee chair H.V. “Skip” Anderson, MD, with UT Health Science Center, Houston, told this news organization.

“You want heart attack to mean the same thing in Miami Beach as in Western Pennsylvania, as in Oregon and Washington and every place in between,” Dr. Anderson explained. “You want everybody to be using the same language, so that’s what these data standards are meant to do.”

In the document, data elements are grouped into three broad categories: chest pain, myocardial injury, and MI.

“We deliberately followed the plans contained in the new guideline and focused on potentially serious cardiovascular causes of chest pain as might be encountered in emergency departments,” the writing group notes in the document.

The terms “typical” and “atypical” as descriptors of chest pain or anginal syndromes are not used in the new document, in line with the 2021 guidance to abandon these terms.

Instead, the new document divides chest pain syndromes into three categories: “cardiac,” “possible cardiac,” and “noncardiac” – again, in keeping with the chest pain guideline.

The document also includes data elements for risk stratification scoring according to several common risk scoring algorithms and for procedure-related myocardial injury and procedure-related MI.

Each year, chest pain sends more than 7 million adults to the emergency department in the United States. Although noncardiac causes of chest pain make up a large majority of these cases, there are several life-threatening causes of chest pain that must be identified and treated promptly.

Distinguishing between serious and nonserious causes of chest pain is an urgent imperative, the writing group says.

Overall, they say this new clinical lexicon and set of data standards should be “broadly applicable” in various settings, including clinical trials and observational studies, patient care, electronic health records (EHRs), quality and performance improvement initiatives, registries, and public reporting programs.

The 2022 ACC/AHA Key Data Elements and Definitions for Chest Pain and Acute Myocardial Infarction was simultaneously published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology and Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes.

It was developed in collaboration with the American College of Emergency Physicians and the Society for Cardiac Angiography and Interventions and endorsed by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.

Dr. Anderson noted that “almost all of the guidelines that come out now, certainly in the last few years, have been followed after a certain interval by a set of data standards applicable to the guidelines.”

“It would be really great if it could actually be attached as an appendix, but the nature of the development of these things is such that there will always be a bit of a time lag between the writing group that develops the guidelines and the work group that develops the data standards; you can’t really have them working in parallel at the same time,” Dr. Anderson said in an interview.

This research had no commercial funding. The authors have no relevant disclosures.

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

Health concerns about the consumption of artificial sweeteners could be strengthened with the publication of a new study linking their intake to increased risk of heart disease and stroke events.

In this latest large-scale, prospective study of French adults, total artificial sweetener intake from all sources was associated with increased risk overall of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease.

The study was published online in the BMJ.

The current study differs from those done previously in that it includes artificial sweetener intake from both food and drinks, whereas previous studies have focused mainly on artificial sweetener content of beverages alone.

“Here we have quantified for the first time the global exposure to artificial sweeteners. This is not just beverages but includes the use of tabletop sweeteners, and other foods that include artificial sweeteners such as yogurts and desserts. This is the first time this information has been correlated to risk of heart disease,” senior author Mathilde Touvier, MD, Sorbonne Paris Nord University, told this news organization.

Just over half of the artificial sweetener intake in the study came from drinks, with the rest coming from tabletop sweeteners and foods.

“We included hard cardio- and cerebrovascular clinical endpoints such as a heart attack or stroke, and our results suggest that the amount of artificial sweetener in less than one can of soda could increase the risk of such events,” Dr. Touvier noted.

“This is an important and statistically significant association which shows robustness in all models after adjusting for many other possible confounding factors,” she said.

“There is now mounting evidence correlating artificial sweeteners to weight gain and heart disease,” she concluded. “My advice would be that we all need to try to limit sugar intake, but we should not consider artificial sweeteners as safe alternatives. Rather, we need to try to reduce our need for a sugary taste in our diet.”

But another leading researcher in the field urges caution in interpreting these results.

John Sievenpiper, MD, departments of nutritional sciences and medicine, University of Toronto, commented: “This paper shows the same relationship seen by many other large prospective cohorts which model the intake of artificial sweeteners as baseline or prevalent exposures.

“These observations are well recognized to be at high risk of residual confounding from behavior clustering and reverse causality in which being at risk for cardiovascular disease causes people to consume artificial sweeteners as a strategy to mitigate this risk as opposed to the other way around.”
 

Risk increased by 9%

The current study included 103,388 French adults from the NutriNet-Sante cohort, of whom 37.1% reported consumption of artificial sweeteners. The sweeteners assessed were mainly aspartame (58% of sweetener intake), acesulfame potassium (29%), and sucralose (10%), with the other 3% made up of various other sweeteners including cyclamates and saccharin.

Results showed that over an average 9 years of follow-up, artificial sweetener intake was associated with a 9% increased risk of cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events, including myocardial infarction, acute coronary syndrome, angioplasty, angina, stroke, or transient ischemic attack, with a hazard ratio of 1.09 (95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.18; P = .03).

The average intake of artificial sweeteners among those who reported consuming them was 42.46 mg/day, which corresponds to approximately one individual packet of tabletop sweetener or 100 mL of diet soda.

“We don’t have enough evidence to work out an amount of artificial sweetener that is harmful, but we did show a dose-effect association, with a higher risk of cardiovascular events with higher consumption,” Dr. Touvier said.

“Higher consumption in this study was a mean of 77 mg/day artificial sweetener, which is about 200 mL of soda – just a bit less than one standard can of soda,” she added.

The absolute incidence rate of cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events in higher consumers was 346 per 100,000 person-years vs. 314 per 100,000 person-years in nonconsumers.

Further analysis suggested that aspartame intake was particularly associated with increased risk of cerebrovascular events, while acesulfame potassium and sucralose were associated with increased coronary heart disease risk.
 

Study strengths

Dr. Touvier acknowledged that dietary studies, which generally rely on individuals self-reporting food and drink intake, are always hard to interpret. But she said this study used a more reliable method of dietary assessment, with repeated 24-hour dietary records, which were validated by interviews with a trained dietitian and against blood and urinary biomarkers.

And whereas residual confounding cannot be totally excluded, she pointed out that models were adjusted for a wide range of potential sociodemographic, anthropometric, dietary, and lifestyle confounders.

Dr. Touvier also noted that cases of cardiovascular disease in the first 2 years of follow-up were excluded to minimize the bias caused by individuals who maybe have switched to artificial sweeteners because of a cardiovascular issue.

“While this study has many strengths, it cannot on its own prove a causal relationship between artificial sweetener and increased cardiovascular risk,” she added. “We need health agencies to examine all the literature in the field. This is however another important piece of evidence.”

Dr. Touvier says that although observational studies have their issues, they will form the basis of the evidence on the effects of artificial sweeteners on health.

“Randomized studies in this area can only really look at short-term outcomes such as weight gain or biomarker changes. So, we will have to use observational studies together with experimental research to build the evidence. This is what happened with cigarette smoking and lung cancer. That link was not established by randomized trials, but by the accumulation of observational and experimental data.”
 

Different artificial sweeteners may be better?

Commenting on the study, Kim Williams Sr., MD, University of Louisville (Ky.), pointed out that this study included artificial sweeteners that increase insulin or decrease insulin sensitivity, and that insulin spikes increase obesity, insulin resistance, hypertension, and atherosclerosis.

“There are some safer artificial sweeteners that do not increase insulin much or at all, such as erythritol, yacon root/yacon syrup, stevia root, but they weren’t included in the analysis,” Dr. Williams added.

Dr. Sievenpiper explained that most studies on artificial sweeteners look at their consumption in isolation without considering how they compare to the intake of the sugars that they are intended to replace.

“The comparator matters as no food is consumed in a vacuum,” he said.

To address this, Dr. Sievenpiper and colleagues have recently published a systematic review and meta-analysis of the prospective cohort study evidence that shows if exposure to artificially sweetened beverages is modeled in substitution for sugar-sweetened beverages, then they are associated with less coronary heart disease, cardiovascular mortality, and all-cause mortality.

On the other hand, if exposure to artificially sweetened beverages is compared with water, then no difference in these outcomes was seen.

“These observations are more biologically plausible, robust, and reproducible and agree with the evidence for the effect of artificial sweeteners on intermediate risk factors in randomized trials,” Dr. Sievenpiper notes.

His group has also recently published a review of randomized studies showing that when compared with sugar-sweetened beverages, intake of artificially sweetened beverages was associated with small improvements in body weight and cardiometabolic risk factors without evidence of harm.

“I think the context provided by these studies is important, and taken together, the totality of the evidence suggests that artificial sweeteners are likely to be a useful tool in sugar reduction strategies,” Dr. Sievenpiper concludes.

The current study was funded by the European Research Council under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program, French National Cancer Institute, French Ministry of Health, IdEx Université de Paris Cité, Bettencourt-Schueller Foundation Research Prize 2021. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Health concerns about the consumption of artificial sweeteners could be strengthened with the publication of a new study linking their intake to increased risk of heart disease and stroke events.

In this latest large-scale, prospective study of French adults, total artificial sweetener intake from all sources was associated with increased risk overall of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease.

The study was published online in the BMJ.

The current study differs from those done previously in that it includes artificial sweetener intake from both food and drinks, whereas previous studies have focused mainly on artificial sweetener content of beverages alone.

“Here we have quantified for the first time the global exposure to artificial sweeteners. This is not just beverages but includes the use of tabletop sweeteners, and other foods that include artificial sweeteners such as yogurts and desserts. This is the first time this information has been correlated to risk of heart disease,” senior author Mathilde Touvier, MD, Sorbonne Paris Nord University, told this news organization.

Just over half of the artificial sweetener intake in the study came from drinks, with the rest coming from tabletop sweeteners and foods.

“We included hard cardio- and cerebrovascular clinical endpoints such as a heart attack or stroke, and our results suggest that the amount of artificial sweetener in less than one can of soda could increase the risk of such events,” Dr. Touvier noted.

“This is an important and statistically significant association which shows robustness in all models after adjusting for many other possible confounding factors,” she said.

“There is now mounting evidence correlating artificial sweeteners to weight gain and heart disease,” she concluded. “My advice would be that we all need to try to limit sugar intake, but we should not consider artificial sweeteners as safe alternatives. Rather, we need to try to reduce our need for a sugary taste in our diet.”

But another leading researcher in the field urges caution in interpreting these results.

John Sievenpiper, MD, departments of nutritional sciences and medicine, University of Toronto, commented: “This paper shows the same relationship seen by many other large prospective cohorts which model the intake of artificial sweeteners as baseline or prevalent exposures.

“These observations are well recognized to be at high risk of residual confounding from behavior clustering and reverse causality in which being at risk for cardiovascular disease causes people to consume artificial sweeteners as a strategy to mitigate this risk as opposed to the other way around.”
 

Risk increased by 9%

The current study included 103,388 French adults from the NutriNet-Sante cohort, of whom 37.1% reported consumption of artificial sweeteners. The sweeteners assessed were mainly aspartame (58% of sweetener intake), acesulfame potassium (29%), and sucralose (10%), with the other 3% made up of various other sweeteners including cyclamates and saccharin.

Results showed that over an average 9 years of follow-up, artificial sweetener intake was associated with a 9% increased risk of cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events, including myocardial infarction, acute coronary syndrome, angioplasty, angina, stroke, or transient ischemic attack, with a hazard ratio of 1.09 (95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.18; P = .03).

The average intake of artificial sweeteners among those who reported consuming them was 42.46 mg/day, which corresponds to approximately one individual packet of tabletop sweetener or 100 mL of diet soda.

“We don’t have enough evidence to work out an amount of artificial sweetener that is harmful, but we did show a dose-effect association, with a higher risk of cardiovascular events with higher consumption,” Dr. Touvier said.

“Higher consumption in this study was a mean of 77 mg/day artificial sweetener, which is about 200 mL of soda – just a bit less than one standard can of soda,” she added.

The absolute incidence rate of cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events in higher consumers was 346 per 100,000 person-years vs. 314 per 100,000 person-years in nonconsumers.

Further analysis suggested that aspartame intake was particularly associated with increased risk of cerebrovascular events, while acesulfame potassium and sucralose were associated with increased coronary heart disease risk.
 

Study strengths

Dr. Touvier acknowledged that dietary studies, which generally rely on individuals self-reporting food and drink intake, are always hard to interpret. But she said this study used a more reliable method of dietary assessment, with repeated 24-hour dietary records, which were validated by interviews with a trained dietitian and against blood and urinary biomarkers.

And whereas residual confounding cannot be totally excluded, she pointed out that models were adjusted for a wide range of potential sociodemographic, anthropometric, dietary, and lifestyle confounders.

Dr. Touvier also noted that cases of cardiovascular disease in the first 2 years of follow-up were excluded to minimize the bias caused by individuals who maybe have switched to artificial sweeteners because of a cardiovascular issue.

“While this study has many strengths, it cannot on its own prove a causal relationship between artificial sweetener and increased cardiovascular risk,” she added. “We need health agencies to examine all the literature in the field. This is however another important piece of evidence.”

Dr. Touvier says that although observational studies have their issues, they will form the basis of the evidence on the effects of artificial sweeteners on health.

“Randomized studies in this area can only really look at short-term outcomes such as weight gain or biomarker changes. So, we will have to use observational studies together with experimental research to build the evidence. This is what happened with cigarette smoking and lung cancer. That link was not established by randomized trials, but by the accumulation of observational and experimental data.”
 

Different artificial sweeteners may be better?

Commenting on the study, Kim Williams Sr., MD, University of Louisville (Ky.), pointed out that this study included artificial sweeteners that increase insulin or decrease insulin sensitivity, and that insulin spikes increase obesity, insulin resistance, hypertension, and atherosclerosis.

“There are some safer artificial sweeteners that do not increase insulin much or at all, such as erythritol, yacon root/yacon syrup, stevia root, but they weren’t included in the analysis,” Dr. Williams added.

Dr. Sievenpiper explained that most studies on artificial sweeteners look at their consumption in isolation without considering how they compare to the intake of the sugars that they are intended to replace.

“The comparator matters as no food is consumed in a vacuum,” he said.

To address this, Dr. Sievenpiper and colleagues have recently published a systematic review and meta-analysis of the prospective cohort study evidence that shows if exposure to artificially sweetened beverages is modeled in substitution for sugar-sweetened beverages, then they are associated with less coronary heart disease, cardiovascular mortality, and all-cause mortality.

On the other hand, if exposure to artificially sweetened beverages is compared with water, then no difference in these outcomes was seen.

“These observations are more biologically plausible, robust, and reproducible and agree with the evidence for the effect of artificial sweeteners on intermediate risk factors in randomized trials,” Dr. Sievenpiper notes.

His group has also recently published a review of randomized studies showing that when compared with sugar-sweetened beverages, intake of artificially sweetened beverages was associated with small improvements in body weight and cardiometabolic risk factors without evidence of harm.

“I think the context provided by these studies is important, and taken together, the totality of the evidence suggests that artificial sweeteners are likely to be a useful tool in sugar reduction strategies,” Dr. Sievenpiper concludes.

The current study was funded by the European Research Council under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program, French National Cancer Institute, French Ministry of Health, IdEx Université de Paris Cité, Bettencourt-Schueller Foundation Research Prize 2021. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Health concerns about the consumption of artificial sweeteners could be strengthened with the publication of a new study linking their intake to increased risk of heart disease and stroke events.

In this latest large-scale, prospective study of French adults, total artificial sweetener intake from all sources was associated with increased risk overall of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease.

The study was published online in the BMJ.

The current study differs from those done previously in that it includes artificial sweetener intake from both food and drinks, whereas previous studies have focused mainly on artificial sweetener content of beverages alone.

“Here we have quantified for the first time the global exposure to artificial sweeteners. This is not just beverages but includes the use of tabletop sweeteners, and other foods that include artificial sweeteners such as yogurts and desserts. This is the first time this information has been correlated to risk of heart disease,” senior author Mathilde Touvier, MD, Sorbonne Paris Nord University, told this news organization.

Just over half of the artificial sweetener intake in the study came from drinks, with the rest coming from tabletop sweeteners and foods.

“We included hard cardio- and cerebrovascular clinical endpoints such as a heart attack or stroke, and our results suggest that the amount of artificial sweetener in less than one can of soda could increase the risk of such events,” Dr. Touvier noted.

“This is an important and statistically significant association which shows robustness in all models after adjusting for many other possible confounding factors,” she said.

“There is now mounting evidence correlating artificial sweeteners to weight gain and heart disease,” she concluded. “My advice would be that we all need to try to limit sugar intake, but we should not consider artificial sweeteners as safe alternatives. Rather, we need to try to reduce our need for a sugary taste in our diet.”

But another leading researcher in the field urges caution in interpreting these results.

John Sievenpiper, MD, departments of nutritional sciences and medicine, University of Toronto, commented: “This paper shows the same relationship seen by many other large prospective cohorts which model the intake of artificial sweeteners as baseline or prevalent exposures.

“These observations are well recognized to be at high risk of residual confounding from behavior clustering and reverse causality in which being at risk for cardiovascular disease causes people to consume artificial sweeteners as a strategy to mitigate this risk as opposed to the other way around.”
 

Risk increased by 9%

The current study included 103,388 French adults from the NutriNet-Sante cohort, of whom 37.1% reported consumption of artificial sweeteners. The sweeteners assessed were mainly aspartame (58% of sweetener intake), acesulfame potassium (29%), and sucralose (10%), with the other 3% made up of various other sweeteners including cyclamates and saccharin.

Results showed that over an average 9 years of follow-up, artificial sweetener intake was associated with a 9% increased risk of cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events, including myocardial infarction, acute coronary syndrome, angioplasty, angina, stroke, or transient ischemic attack, with a hazard ratio of 1.09 (95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.18; P = .03).

The average intake of artificial sweeteners among those who reported consuming them was 42.46 mg/day, which corresponds to approximately one individual packet of tabletop sweetener or 100 mL of diet soda.

“We don’t have enough evidence to work out an amount of artificial sweetener that is harmful, but we did show a dose-effect association, with a higher risk of cardiovascular events with higher consumption,” Dr. Touvier said.

“Higher consumption in this study was a mean of 77 mg/day artificial sweetener, which is about 200 mL of soda – just a bit less than one standard can of soda,” she added.

The absolute incidence rate of cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events in higher consumers was 346 per 100,000 person-years vs. 314 per 100,000 person-years in nonconsumers.

Further analysis suggested that aspartame intake was particularly associated with increased risk of cerebrovascular events, while acesulfame potassium and sucralose were associated with increased coronary heart disease risk.
 

Study strengths

Dr. Touvier acknowledged that dietary studies, which generally rely on individuals self-reporting food and drink intake, are always hard to interpret. But she said this study used a more reliable method of dietary assessment, with repeated 24-hour dietary records, which were validated by interviews with a trained dietitian and against blood and urinary biomarkers.

And whereas residual confounding cannot be totally excluded, she pointed out that models were adjusted for a wide range of potential sociodemographic, anthropometric, dietary, and lifestyle confounders.

Dr. Touvier also noted that cases of cardiovascular disease in the first 2 years of follow-up were excluded to minimize the bias caused by individuals who maybe have switched to artificial sweeteners because of a cardiovascular issue.

“While this study has many strengths, it cannot on its own prove a causal relationship between artificial sweetener and increased cardiovascular risk,” she added. “We need health agencies to examine all the literature in the field. This is however another important piece of evidence.”

Dr. Touvier says that although observational studies have their issues, they will form the basis of the evidence on the effects of artificial sweeteners on health.

“Randomized studies in this area can only really look at short-term outcomes such as weight gain or biomarker changes. So, we will have to use observational studies together with experimental research to build the evidence. This is what happened with cigarette smoking and lung cancer. That link was not established by randomized trials, but by the accumulation of observational and experimental data.”
 

Different artificial sweeteners may be better?

Commenting on the study, Kim Williams Sr., MD, University of Louisville (Ky.), pointed out that this study included artificial sweeteners that increase insulin or decrease insulin sensitivity, and that insulin spikes increase obesity, insulin resistance, hypertension, and atherosclerosis.

“There are some safer artificial sweeteners that do not increase insulin much or at all, such as erythritol, yacon root/yacon syrup, stevia root, but they weren’t included in the analysis,” Dr. Williams added.

Dr. Sievenpiper explained that most studies on artificial sweeteners look at their consumption in isolation without considering how they compare to the intake of the sugars that they are intended to replace.

“The comparator matters as no food is consumed in a vacuum,” he said.

To address this, Dr. Sievenpiper and colleagues have recently published a systematic review and meta-analysis of the prospective cohort study evidence that shows if exposure to artificially sweetened beverages is modeled in substitution for sugar-sweetened beverages, then they are associated with less coronary heart disease, cardiovascular mortality, and all-cause mortality.

On the other hand, if exposure to artificially sweetened beverages is compared with water, then no difference in these outcomes was seen.

“These observations are more biologically plausible, robust, and reproducible and agree with the evidence for the effect of artificial sweeteners on intermediate risk factors in randomized trials,” Dr. Sievenpiper notes.

His group has also recently published a review of randomized studies showing that when compared with sugar-sweetened beverages, intake of artificially sweetened beverages was associated with small improvements in body weight and cardiometabolic risk factors without evidence of harm.

“I think the context provided by these studies is important, and taken together, the totality of the evidence suggests that artificial sweeteners are likely to be a useful tool in sugar reduction strategies,” Dr. Sievenpiper concludes.

The current study was funded by the European Research Council under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program, French National Cancer Institute, French Ministry of Health, IdEx Université de Paris Cité, Bettencourt-Schueller Foundation Research Prize 2021. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The largest-ever independent study into the effects of cannabis on the brain is being carried out in the United Kingdom.

Even though cannabis is the most commonly used illegal drug in the United Kingdom and medicinal cannabis has been legal there since 2018 little is known about why some people react badly to it and others seem to benefit from it.

According to Home Office figures on drug use from 2019, 7.6% of adults aged 16-59 used cannabis in the previous year.

Medicinal cannabis in the United Kingdom can only be prescribed if no other licensed medicine could help the patient. At the moment, GPs can’t prescribe it, only specialist hospital doctors can. The National Health Service says it can only be used in three circumstances: in rare, severe epilepsy; to deal with chemotherapy side effects such as nausea; or to help with multiple sclerosis.

So, with cannabis being used both recreationally and medicinally, King’s College London is carrying out a wide-reaching scientific study into its effect on the human brain.

As part of the Cannabis&Me study, KCL needs to get 3,000 current cannabis users and 3,000 non–cannabis users to take part in an online survey, with a third of those survey respondents then taking part in a face-to-face assessment that includes virtual reality (VR) and psychological analysis. The study also aims to determine how the DNA of cannabis users and their endocannabinoid system impacts their experiences, both negative and positive, with the drug. 

The study is spearheaded by Marta Di Forti, MD, PhD, and has been allocated over £2.5 million in funding by the Medical Research Council. 

This news organization asked Dr. Di Forti about the study.
 

Question: How do you describe the study? 

Answer: “It’s a really unique study. We are aiming to see what’s happening to people using cannabis in the privacy of their homes for medicinal, recreational reasons, or whatever other reason.

“The debate on cannabis has always been quite polarized. There have been people who experience adversities with cannabis use, especially psychosis, whose families may perhaps like cannabis to be abolished if possible. Then there are other people who are saying they get positive benefits from using cannabis.”
 

Q: So where does the study come in?

A: “The study wants to bring the two sides of the argument together and understand what’s really happening. The group I see as a clinician comes to severe harm when they use cannabis regularly. We want to find out who they are and whether we can identify them. While we need to make sure they never come to harm when using cannabis, we need to consider others who won’t come to harm from using cannabis and give them a chance to use it in a way that’s beneficial.”

Q: How does the study work?

A: “The first step of the study is to use an online questionnaire that can be filled in by anyone aged 18-45 who lives in the London area or can travel here if selected. The first set of questions are a general idea of their cannabis use: ‘Why do they use it?’ ‘What are its benefits?’ Then, general questions on what their life has been like up to that point: ‘Did they have any adversities in childhood?’ ‘How is their mood and anxiety levels?’ ‘Do they experience any paranoid responses in everyday life?’ It probably takes between 30 and 40 minutes to fill out the questionnaire.”

Q: Can you explain about paranoid responses?

A: “We go through the questionnaires looking at people’s paranoid response to everyday life, not in a clinical disorder term, just in terms of the differences in how we respond to certain circumstances. For example: ‘How do you feel if someone’s staring at you on the Tube?’ Some people are afraid, some feel uncomfortable, some people don’t notice, and others think a person is staring at them as they look good or another such positive feeling. So, we give people a paranoia score and will invite some at the top and some at the bottom of that score for a face-to-face assessment. We want to select those people who are using cannabis daily and they are getting either no paranoia or high paranoia.”

Q: What happens at the face-to-face assessments?

A: “We do two things which are very novel. We ask them to take part in a virtual reality experience. They are in a lovely shop and within this experience they come across challenges, which may or may not induce a benign paranoia response. We will ask them to donate a sample of blood before they go into the VR set. We will test for tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD). We will also look at the metabolites of the two. People don’t take into account how differently individuals metabolize cannabis, which could be one of the reasons why some people can tolerate it and others can’t.”

Q: There’s also a genetic aspect of the study?

A: “From the same sample, we will extract DNA to look at the genetics across the genome and compare genetic variations between high and low paranoia in the context of cannabis use. Also, we will look at the epigenetics, as we have learned from neuroscience, and also cancer, that sometimes a substance we ingest has an effect on our health. It’s perhaps an interaction with the way our DNA is written but also with the changes to the way our DNA is read and translated into biology if exposed to that substance. We know that smoking tobacco does have an impact at an epigenetic level on the DNA. We do know that in people who stop smoking, these impacts on the epigenetics are partially reversed. This work hasn’t been done properly for cannabis.

“There have been four published studies that have looked at the effect of cannabis use on epigenetics but they have been quite inconclusive, and they haven’t looked at large numbers of current users taking into account how much they are using. Moreover, we do know that when THC and CBD get into our bodies, they interact with something that is already embedded in our biology which is the endocannabinoid system. Therefore, in the blood samples we also aim to measures the levels of the endocannabinoids we naturally produce.

“All of this data will then be analyzed to see if we can get close to understanding what makes some cannabis users susceptible to paranoia while others who are using cannabis get some benefits, even in the domain of mental health.”
 

Q: Who are you looking for to take part in your study?

A: “What we don’t want is to get only people who are the classic friends and family of academics to do the study. We want a representative sample of people out there who are using cannabis. My ideal candidate would be someone who hates me and usually sends me abusive emails saying I’m against cannabis, which is wrong. All I want to find out is who is susceptible to harm which will keep everybody else safe. We are not trying to demonize cannabis; it’s exactly the opposite. We would like people from all ethnic and socioeconomic backgrounds to join to give voice to everyone out there using cannabis, the reasons why, and the effects they experience.”

Q: Will this study perhaps give more information of when it’s appropriate to prescribe medicinal cannabis, as it’s still quite unusual for it to be prescribed in the United Kingdom isn’t it?

A: “Absolutely spot on. That’s exactly the point. We want to hear from people who are receiving medicinal cannabis as a prescription, as they are likely to take it on a daily basis and daily use is what epidemiological studies have linked to the highest risk of psychosis. There will be people taking THC everyday for pain, nausea, for Crohn’s disease, and more.

“Normally when you receive a prescription for a medication the physician in charge will tell you the potential side effects which will be monitored to make sure it’s safe, and you may have to swap to a different medication. Now this isn’t really happening with medicinal cannabis, which is one of the reasons clinicians are anxious about prescribing it, and they have been criticized for not prescribing it very much. There’s much less structure and guidance about ‘psychosis-related’ side effects monitoring. If we can really identify those people who are likely to develop psychosis or disabling paranoia when they use cannabis, physicians might be more prepared to prescribe more widely when indicated.

“You could even have a virtual reality scenario available as a screening tool when you get prescribed medicinal cannabis, to see if there are changes in your perception of the world, which is ultimately what psychosis is about. Could this be a way of implementing safe prescribing which will encourage physicians to use safe cannabis compounds and make some people less anxious about it?

“This study is not here to highlight the negativity of cannabis, on the contrary it’s to understand how it can be used recreationally, but even more important, medicinally in a safe way so people that are coming to no harm can continue to do so and people who are at risk can be kept safe, or at least monitored adequately.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

The largest-ever independent study into the effects of cannabis on the brain is being carried out in the United Kingdom.

Even though cannabis is the most commonly used illegal drug in the United Kingdom and medicinal cannabis has been legal there since 2018 little is known about why some people react badly to it and others seem to benefit from it.

According to Home Office figures on drug use from 2019, 7.6% of adults aged 16-59 used cannabis in the previous year.

Medicinal cannabis in the United Kingdom can only be prescribed if no other licensed medicine could help the patient. At the moment, GPs can’t prescribe it, only specialist hospital doctors can. The National Health Service says it can only be used in three circumstances: in rare, severe epilepsy; to deal with chemotherapy side effects such as nausea; or to help with multiple sclerosis.

So, with cannabis being used both recreationally and medicinally, King’s College London is carrying out a wide-reaching scientific study into its effect on the human brain.

As part of the Cannabis&Me study, KCL needs to get 3,000 current cannabis users and 3,000 non–cannabis users to take part in an online survey, with a third of those survey respondents then taking part in a face-to-face assessment that includes virtual reality (VR) and psychological analysis. The study also aims to determine how the DNA of cannabis users and their endocannabinoid system impacts their experiences, both negative and positive, with the drug. 

The study is spearheaded by Marta Di Forti, MD, PhD, and has been allocated over £2.5 million in funding by the Medical Research Council. 

This news organization asked Dr. Di Forti about the study.
 

Question: How do you describe the study? 

Answer: “It’s a really unique study. We are aiming to see what’s happening to people using cannabis in the privacy of their homes for medicinal, recreational reasons, or whatever other reason.

“The debate on cannabis has always been quite polarized. There have been people who experience adversities with cannabis use, especially psychosis, whose families may perhaps like cannabis to be abolished if possible. Then there are other people who are saying they get positive benefits from using cannabis.”
 

Q: So where does the study come in?

A: “The study wants to bring the two sides of the argument together and understand what’s really happening. The group I see as a clinician comes to severe harm when they use cannabis regularly. We want to find out who they are and whether we can identify them. While we need to make sure they never come to harm when using cannabis, we need to consider others who won’t come to harm from using cannabis and give them a chance to use it in a way that’s beneficial.”

Q: How does the study work?

A: “The first step of the study is to use an online questionnaire that can be filled in by anyone aged 18-45 who lives in the London area or can travel here if selected. The first set of questions are a general idea of their cannabis use: ‘Why do they use it?’ ‘What are its benefits?’ Then, general questions on what their life has been like up to that point: ‘Did they have any adversities in childhood?’ ‘How is their mood and anxiety levels?’ ‘Do they experience any paranoid responses in everyday life?’ It probably takes between 30 and 40 minutes to fill out the questionnaire.”

Q: Can you explain about paranoid responses?

A: “We go through the questionnaires looking at people’s paranoid response to everyday life, not in a clinical disorder term, just in terms of the differences in how we respond to certain circumstances. For example: ‘How do you feel if someone’s staring at you on the Tube?’ Some people are afraid, some feel uncomfortable, some people don’t notice, and others think a person is staring at them as they look good or another such positive feeling. So, we give people a paranoia score and will invite some at the top and some at the bottom of that score for a face-to-face assessment. We want to select those people who are using cannabis daily and they are getting either no paranoia or high paranoia.”

Q: What happens at the face-to-face assessments?

A: “We do two things which are very novel. We ask them to take part in a virtual reality experience. They are in a lovely shop and within this experience they come across challenges, which may or may not induce a benign paranoia response. We will ask them to donate a sample of blood before they go into the VR set. We will test for tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD). We will also look at the metabolites of the two. People don’t take into account how differently individuals metabolize cannabis, which could be one of the reasons why some people can tolerate it and others can’t.”

Q: There’s also a genetic aspect of the study?

A: “From the same sample, we will extract DNA to look at the genetics across the genome and compare genetic variations between high and low paranoia in the context of cannabis use. Also, we will look at the epigenetics, as we have learned from neuroscience, and also cancer, that sometimes a substance we ingest has an effect on our health. It’s perhaps an interaction with the way our DNA is written but also with the changes to the way our DNA is read and translated into biology if exposed to that substance. We know that smoking tobacco does have an impact at an epigenetic level on the DNA. We do know that in people who stop smoking, these impacts on the epigenetics are partially reversed. This work hasn’t been done properly for cannabis.

“There have been four published studies that have looked at the effect of cannabis use on epigenetics but they have been quite inconclusive, and they haven’t looked at large numbers of current users taking into account how much they are using. Moreover, we do know that when THC and CBD get into our bodies, they interact with something that is already embedded in our biology which is the endocannabinoid system. Therefore, in the blood samples we also aim to measures the levels of the endocannabinoids we naturally produce.

“All of this data will then be analyzed to see if we can get close to understanding what makes some cannabis users susceptible to paranoia while others who are using cannabis get some benefits, even in the domain of mental health.”
 

Q: Who are you looking for to take part in your study?

A: “What we don’t want is to get only people who are the classic friends and family of academics to do the study. We want a representative sample of people out there who are using cannabis. My ideal candidate would be someone who hates me and usually sends me abusive emails saying I’m against cannabis, which is wrong. All I want to find out is who is susceptible to harm which will keep everybody else safe. We are not trying to demonize cannabis; it’s exactly the opposite. We would like people from all ethnic and socioeconomic backgrounds to join to give voice to everyone out there using cannabis, the reasons why, and the effects they experience.”

Q: Will this study perhaps give more information of when it’s appropriate to prescribe medicinal cannabis, as it’s still quite unusual for it to be prescribed in the United Kingdom isn’t it?

A: “Absolutely spot on. That’s exactly the point. We want to hear from people who are receiving medicinal cannabis as a prescription, as they are likely to take it on a daily basis and daily use is what epidemiological studies have linked to the highest risk of psychosis. There will be people taking THC everyday for pain, nausea, for Crohn’s disease, and more.

“Normally when you receive a prescription for a medication the physician in charge will tell you the potential side effects which will be monitored to make sure it’s safe, and you may have to swap to a different medication. Now this isn’t really happening with medicinal cannabis, which is one of the reasons clinicians are anxious about prescribing it, and they have been criticized for not prescribing it very much. There’s much less structure and guidance about ‘psychosis-related’ side effects monitoring. If we can really identify those people who are likely to develop psychosis or disabling paranoia when they use cannabis, physicians might be more prepared to prescribe more widely when indicated.

“You could even have a virtual reality scenario available as a screening tool when you get prescribed medicinal cannabis, to see if there are changes in your perception of the world, which is ultimately what psychosis is about. Could this be a way of implementing safe prescribing which will encourage physicians to use safe cannabis compounds and make some people less anxious about it?

“This study is not here to highlight the negativity of cannabis, on the contrary it’s to understand how it can be used recreationally, but even more important, medicinally in a safe way so people that are coming to no harm can continue to do so and people who are at risk can be kept safe, or at least monitored adequately.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

The largest-ever independent study into the effects of cannabis on the brain is being carried out in the United Kingdom.

Even though cannabis is the most commonly used illegal drug in the United Kingdom and medicinal cannabis has been legal there since 2018 little is known about why some people react badly to it and others seem to benefit from it.

According to Home Office figures on drug use from 2019, 7.6% of adults aged 16-59 used cannabis in the previous year.

Medicinal cannabis in the United Kingdom can only be prescribed if no other licensed medicine could help the patient. At the moment, GPs can’t prescribe it, only specialist hospital doctors can. The National Health Service says it can only be used in three circumstances: in rare, severe epilepsy; to deal with chemotherapy side effects such as nausea; or to help with multiple sclerosis.

So, with cannabis being used both recreationally and medicinally, King’s College London is carrying out a wide-reaching scientific study into its effect on the human brain.

As part of the Cannabis&Me study, KCL needs to get 3,000 current cannabis users and 3,000 non–cannabis users to take part in an online survey, with a third of those survey respondents then taking part in a face-to-face assessment that includes virtual reality (VR) and psychological analysis. The study also aims to determine how the DNA of cannabis users and their endocannabinoid system impacts their experiences, both negative and positive, with the drug. 

The study is spearheaded by Marta Di Forti, MD, PhD, and has been allocated over £2.5 million in funding by the Medical Research Council. 

This news organization asked Dr. Di Forti about the study.
 

Question: How do you describe the study? 

Answer: “It’s a really unique study. We are aiming to see what’s happening to people using cannabis in the privacy of their homes for medicinal, recreational reasons, or whatever other reason.

“The debate on cannabis has always been quite polarized. There have been people who experience adversities with cannabis use, especially psychosis, whose families may perhaps like cannabis to be abolished if possible. Then there are other people who are saying they get positive benefits from using cannabis.”
 

Q: So where does the study come in?

A: “The study wants to bring the two sides of the argument together and understand what’s really happening. The group I see as a clinician comes to severe harm when they use cannabis regularly. We want to find out who they are and whether we can identify them. While we need to make sure they never come to harm when using cannabis, we need to consider others who won’t come to harm from using cannabis and give them a chance to use it in a way that’s beneficial.”

Q: How does the study work?

A: “The first step of the study is to use an online questionnaire that can be filled in by anyone aged 18-45 who lives in the London area or can travel here if selected. The first set of questions are a general idea of their cannabis use: ‘Why do they use it?’ ‘What are its benefits?’ Then, general questions on what their life has been like up to that point: ‘Did they have any adversities in childhood?’ ‘How is their mood and anxiety levels?’ ‘Do they experience any paranoid responses in everyday life?’ It probably takes between 30 and 40 minutes to fill out the questionnaire.”

Q: Can you explain about paranoid responses?

A: “We go through the questionnaires looking at people’s paranoid response to everyday life, not in a clinical disorder term, just in terms of the differences in how we respond to certain circumstances. For example: ‘How do you feel if someone’s staring at you on the Tube?’ Some people are afraid, some feel uncomfortable, some people don’t notice, and others think a person is staring at them as they look good or another such positive feeling. So, we give people a paranoia score and will invite some at the top and some at the bottom of that score for a face-to-face assessment. We want to select those people who are using cannabis daily and they are getting either no paranoia or high paranoia.”

Q: What happens at the face-to-face assessments?

A: “We do two things which are very novel. We ask them to take part in a virtual reality experience. They are in a lovely shop and within this experience they come across challenges, which may or may not induce a benign paranoia response. We will ask them to donate a sample of blood before they go into the VR set. We will test for tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD). We will also look at the metabolites of the two. People don’t take into account how differently individuals metabolize cannabis, which could be one of the reasons why some people can tolerate it and others can’t.”

Q: There’s also a genetic aspect of the study?

A: “From the same sample, we will extract DNA to look at the genetics across the genome and compare genetic variations between high and low paranoia in the context of cannabis use. Also, we will look at the epigenetics, as we have learned from neuroscience, and also cancer, that sometimes a substance we ingest has an effect on our health. It’s perhaps an interaction with the way our DNA is written but also with the changes to the way our DNA is read and translated into biology if exposed to that substance. We know that smoking tobacco does have an impact at an epigenetic level on the DNA. We do know that in people who stop smoking, these impacts on the epigenetics are partially reversed. This work hasn’t been done properly for cannabis.

“There have been four published studies that have looked at the effect of cannabis use on epigenetics but they have been quite inconclusive, and they haven’t looked at large numbers of current users taking into account how much they are using. Moreover, we do know that when THC and CBD get into our bodies, they interact with something that is already embedded in our biology which is the endocannabinoid system. Therefore, in the blood samples we also aim to measures the levels of the endocannabinoids we naturally produce.

“All of this data will then be analyzed to see if we can get close to understanding what makes some cannabis users susceptible to paranoia while others who are using cannabis get some benefits, even in the domain of mental health.”
 

Q: Who are you looking for to take part in your study?

A: “What we don’t want is to get only people who are the classic friends and family of academics to do the study. We want a representative sample of people out there who are using cannabis. My ideal candidate would be someone who hates me and usually sends me abusive emails saying I’m against cannabis, which is wrong. All I want to find out is who is susceptible to harm which will keep everybody else safe. We are not trying to demonize cannabis; it’s exactly the opposite. We would like people from all ethnic and socioeconomic backgrounds to join to give voice to everyone out there using cannabis, the reasons why, and the effects they experience.”

Q: Will this study perhaps give more information of when it’s appropriate to prescribe medicinal cannabis, as it’s still quite unusual for it to be prescribed in the United Kingdom isn’t it?

A: “Absolutely spot on. That’s exactly the point. We want to hear from people who are receiving medicinal cannabis as a prescription, as they are likely to take it on a daily basis and daily use is what epidemiological studies have linked to the highest risk of psychosis. There will be people taking THC everyday for pain, nausea, for Crohn’s disease, and more.

“Normally when you receive a prescription for a medication the physician in charge will tell you the potential side effects which will be monitored to make sure it’s safe, and you may have to swap to a different medication. Now this isn’t really happening with medicinal cannabis, which is one of the reasons clinicians are anxious about prescribing it, and they have been criticized for not prescribing it very much. There’s much less structure and guidance about ‘psychosis-related’ side effects monitoring. If we can really identify those people who are likely to develop psychosis or disabling paranoia when they use cannabis, physicians might be more prepared to prescribe more widely when indicated.

“You could even have a virtual reality scenario available as a screening tool when you get prescribed medicinal cannabis, to see if there are changes in your perception of the world, which is ultimately what psychosis is about. Could this be a way of implementing safe prescribing which will encourage physicians to use safe cannabis compounds and make some people less anxious about it?

“This study is not here to highlight the negativity of cannabis, on the contrary it’s to understand how it can be used recreationally, but even more important, medicinally in a safe way so people that are coming to no harm can continue to do so and people who are at risk can be kept safe, or at least monitored adequately.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

Two large studies out of the United Kingdom and Norway show vitamin D supplementation has no benefit – as low dose, high dose, or in the form of cod liver oil supplementation – in preventing COVID-19 or acute respiratory tract infections, regardless of whether individuals are deficient or not.

copyright Joss/Fotolia.com

The studies, published in the BMJ, underscore that “vaccination is still the most effective way to protect people from COVID-19, and vitamin D and cod liver oil supplementation should not be offered to healthy people with normal vitamin D levels,” writes Peter Bergman, MD, of the Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, in an editorial published alongside the studies.

Suboptimal levels of vitamin D are known to be associated with an increased risk of acute respiratory infections, and some observational studies have linked low 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) with more severe COVID-19; however, data on a possible protective effect of vitamin D supplementation in preventing infection have been inconsistent.
 

U.K. study compares doses

To further investigate the relationship with infections, including COVID-19, in a large cohort, the authors of the first of the two BMJ studies, a phase 3 open-label trial, enrolled 6,200 people in the United Kingdom aged 16 and older between December 2020 and June 2021 who were not taking vitamin D supplements at baseline.

Half of participants were offered a finger-prick blood test, and of the 2,674 who accepted, 86.3% were found to have low concentrations of 25(OH)D (< 75 nmol/L). These participants were provided with vitamin D supplementation at a lower (800 IU/day; n = 1328) or higher dose (3,200 IU/day; n = 1,346) for 6 months. The other half of the group received no tests or supplements.

The results showed minimal differences between groups in terms of rates of developing at least one acute respiratory infection, which occurred in 5% of those in the lower-dose group, 5.7% in the higher-dose group, and 4.6% of participants not offered supplementation.

Similarly, there were no significant differences in the development of real-time PCR-confirmed COVID-19, with rates of 3.6% in the lower-dose group, 3.0% in the higher-dose group, and 2.6% in the group not offered supplementation.

The study is “the first phase 3 randomized controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness of a test-and-treat approach for correction of suboptimal vitamin D status to prevent acute respiratory tract infections,” report the authors, led by Adrian R. Martineau, MD, PhD, of Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London.

While uptake and supplementation in the study were favorable, “no statistically significant effect of either dose was seen on the primary outcome of swab test, doctor-confirmed acute respiratory tract infection, or on the major secondary outcome of swab test-confirmed COVID-19,” they conclude.
 

Traditional use of cod liver oil of benefit?

In the second study, researchers in Norway, led by Arne Soraas, MD, PhD, of the department of microbiology, Oslo University Hospital, evaluated whether that country’s long-held tradition of consuming cod liver oil during the winter to prevent vitamin D deficiency could affect the development of COVID-19 or outcomes.

For the Cod Liver Oil for COVID-19 Prevention Study (CLOC), a large cohort of 34,601 adults with a mean age of 44.9 years who were not taking daily vitamin D supplements were randomized to receive 5 mL/day of cod liver oil, representing a surrogate dose of 400 IU/day of vitamin D (n = 17,278), or placebo (n = 17,323) for up to 6 months.

In contrast with the first study, the vast majority of patients in the CLOC study (86%) had adequate vitamin D levels, defined as greater than 50 nmol/L, at baseline.

Again, however, the results showed no association between increased vitamin D supplementation with cod liver oil and PCR-confirmed COVID-19 or acute respiratory infections, with approximately 1.3% in each group testing positive for COVID-19 over a median of 164 days.

Supplementation with cod liver oil was also not associated with a reduced risk of any of the coprimary endpoints, including other acute respiratory infections.

“Daily supplementation with cod liver oil, a low-dose vitamin D, eicosapentaenoic acid, and docosahexaenoic acid supplement, for 6 months during the SARS-CoV-2pandemic among Norwegian adults did not reduce the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection, serious COVID-19, or other acute respiratory infections,” the authors report.
 

Key study limitations

In his editorial, Dr. Bergman underscores the limitations of two studies – also acknowledged by the authors – including the key confounding role of vaccines that emerged during the studies.

“The null findings of the studies should be interpreted in the context of a highly effective vaccine rolled out during both studies,” Dr. Bergman writes.

In the U.K. study, for instance, whereas only 1.2% of participants were vaccinated at baseline, the rate soared to 89.1% having received at least one dose by study end, potentially masking any effect of vitamin D, he says.

Additionally, for the Norway study, Dr. Bergman notes that cod liver oil also contains a substantial amount of vitamin A, which can be a potent immunomodulator.

“Excessive intake of vitamin A can cause adverse effects and may also interfere with vitamin D-mediated effects on the immune system,” he writes.

With two recent large meta-analyses showing benefits of vitamin D supplementation to be specifically among people who are vitamin D deficient, “a pragmatic approach for the clinician could be to focus on risk groups” for supplementation, Dr. Bergman writes.

“[These include] those who could be tested before supplementation, including people with dark skin, or skin that is rarely exposed to the sun, pregnant women, and elderly people with chronic diseases.”

The U.K. trial was supported by Barts Charity, Pharma Nord, the Fischer Family Foundation, DSM Nutritional Products, the Exilarch’s Foundation, the Karl R. Pfleger Foundation, the AIM Foundation, Synergy Biologics, Cytoplan, the Clinical Research Network of the U.K. National Institute for Health and Care Research, the HDR UK BREATHE Hub, the U.K. Research and Innovation Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund, Thornton & Ross, Warburtons, Hyphens Pharma, and philanthropist Matthew Isaacs.

The CLOC trial was funded by Orkla Health, the manufacturer of the cod liver oil used in the trial. Dr. Bergman has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Two large studies out of the United Kingdom and Norway show vitamin D supplementation has no benefit – as low dose, high dose, or in the form of cod liver oil supplementation – in preventing COVID-19 or acute respiratory tract infections, regardless of whether individuals are deficient or not.

copyright Joss/Fotolia.com

The studies, published in the BMJ, underscore that “vaccination is still the most effective way to protect people from COVID-19, and vitamin D and cod liver oil supplementation should not be offered to healthy people with normal vitamin D levels,” writes Peter Bergman, MD, of the Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, in an editorial published alongside the studies.

Suboptimal levels of vitamin D are known to be associated with an increased risk of acute respiratory infections, and some observational studies have linked low 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) with more severe COVID-19; however, data on a possible protective effect of vitamin D supplementation in preventing infection have been inconsistent.
 

U.K. study compares doses

To further investigate the relationship with infections, including COVID-19, in a large cohort, the authors of the first of the two BMJ studies, a phase 3 open-label trial, enrolled 6,200 people in the United Kingdom aged 16 and older between December 2020 and June 2021 who were not taking vitamin D supplements at baseline.

Half of participants were offered a finger-prick blood test, and of the 2,674 who accepted, 86.3% were found to have low concentrations of 25(OH)D (< 75 nmol/L). These participants were provided with vitamin D supplementation at a lower (800 IU/day; n = 1328) or higher dose (3,200 IU/day; n = 1,346) for 6 months. The other half of the group received no tests or supplements.

The results showed minimal differences between groups in terms of rates of developing at least one acute respiratory infection, which occurred in 5% of those in the lower-dose group, 5.7% in the higher-dose group, and 4.6% of participants not offered supplementation.

Similarly, there were no significant differences in the development of real-time PCR-confirmed COVID-19, with rates of 3.6% in the lower-dose group, 3.0% in the higher-dose group, and 2.6% in the group not offered supplementation.

The study is “the first phase 3 randomized controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness of a test-and-treat approach for correction of suboptimal vitamin D status to prevent acute respiratory tract infections,” report the authors, led by Adrian R. Martineau, MD, PhD, of Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London.

While uptake and supplementation in the study were favorable, “no statistically significant effect of either dose was seen on the primary outcome of swab test, doctor-confirmed acute respiratory tract infection, or on the major secondary outcome of swab test-confirmed COVID-19,” they conclude.
 

Traditional use of cod liver oil of benefit?

In the second study, researchers in Norway, led by Arne Soraas, MD, PhD, of the department of microbiology, Oslo University Hospital, evaluated whether that country’s long-held tradition of consuming cod liver oil during the winter to prevent vitamin D deficiency could affect the development of COVID-19 or outcomes.

For the Cod Liver Oil for COVID-19 Prevention Study (CLOC), a large cohort of 34,601 adults with a mean age of 44.9 years who were not taking daily vitamin D supplements were randomized to receive 5 mL/day of cod liver oil, representing a surrogate dose of 400 IU/day of vitamin D (n = 17,278), or placebo (n = 17,323) for up to 6 months.

In contrast with the first study, the vast majority of patients in the CLOC study (86%) had adequate vitamin D levels, defined as greater than 50 nmol/L, at baseline.

Again, however, the results showed no association between increased vitamin D supplementation with cod liver oil and PCR-confirmed COVID-19 or acute respiratory infections, with approximately 1.3% in each group testing positive for COVID-19 over a median of 164 days.

Supplementation with cod liver oil was also not associated with a reduced risk of any of the coprimary endpoints, including other acute respiratory infections.

“Daily supplementation with cod liver oil, a low-dose vitamin D, eicosapentaenoic acid, and docosahexaenoic acid supplement, for 6 months during the SARS-CoV-2pandemic among Norwegian adults did not reduce the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection, serious COVID-19, or other acute respiratory infections,” the authors report.
 

Key study limitations

In his editorial, Dr. Bergman underscores the limitations of two studies – also acknowledged by the authors – including the key confounding role of vaccines that emerged during the studies.

“The null findings of the studies should be interpreted in the context of a highly effective vaccine rolled out during both studies,” Dr. Bergman writes.

In the U.K. study, for instance, whereas only 1.2% of participants were vaccinated at baseline, the rate soared to 89.1% having received at least one dose by study end, potentially masking any effect of vitamin D, he says.

Additionally, for the Norway study, Dr. Bergman notes that cod liver oil also contains a substantial amount of vitamin A, which can be a potent immunomodulator.

“Excessive intake of vitamin A can cause adverse effects and may also interfere with vitamin D-mediated effects on the immune system,” he writes.

With two recent large meta-analyses showing benefits of vitamin D supplementation to be specifically among people who are vitamin D deficient, “a pragmatic approach for the clinician could be to focus on risk groups” for supplementation, Dr. Bergman writes.

“[These include] those who could be tested before supplementation, including people with dark skin, or skin that is rarely exposed to the sun, pregnant women, and elderly people with chronic diseases.”

The U.K. trial was supported by Barts Charity, Pharma Nord, the Fischer Family Foundation, DSM Nutritional Products, the Exilarch’s Foundation, the Karl R. Pfleger Foundation, the AIM Foundation, Synergy Biologics, Cytoplan, the Clinical Research Network of the U.K. National Institute for Health and Care Research, the HDR UK BREATHE Hub, the U.K. Research and Innovation Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund, Thornton & Ross, Warburtons, Hyphens Pharma, and philanthropist Matthew Isaacs.

The CLOC trial was funded by Orkla Health, the manufacturer of the cod liver oil used in the trial. Dr. Bergman has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Two large studies out of the United Kingdom and Norway show vitamin D supplementation has no benefit – as low dose, high dose, or in the form of cod liver oil supplementation – in preventing COVID-19 or acute respiratory tract infections, regardless of whether individuals are deficient or not.

copyright Joss/Fotolia.com

The studies, published in the BMJ, underscore that “vaccination is still the most effective way to protect people from COVID-19, and vitamin D and cod liver oil supplementation should not be offered to healthy people with normal vitamin D levels,” writes Peter Bergman, MD, of the Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, in an editorial published alongside the studies.

Suboptimal levels of vitamin D are known to be associated with an increased risk of acute respiratory infections, and some observational studies have linked low 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) with more severe COVID-19; however, data on a possible protective effect of vitamin D supplementation in preventing infection have been inconsistent.
 

U.K. study compares doses

To further investigate the relationship with infections, including COVID-19, in a large cohort, the authors of the first of the two BMJ studies, a phase 3 open-label trial, enrolled 6,200 people in the United Kingdom aged 16 and older between December 2020 and June 2021 who were not taking vitamin D supplements at baseline.

Half of participants were offered a finger-prick blood test, and of the 2,674 who accepted, 86.3% were found to have low concentrations of 25(OH)D (< 75 nmol/L). These participants were provided with vitamin D supplementation at a lower (800 IU/day; n = 1328) or higher dose (3,200 IU/day; n = 1,346) for 6 months. The other half of the group received no tests or supplements.

The results showed minimal differences between groups in terms of rates of developing at least one acute respiratory infection, which occurred in 5% of those in the lower-dose group, 5.7% in the higher-dose group, and 4.6% of participants not offered supplementation.

Similarly, there were no significant differences in the development of real-time PCR-confirmed COVID-19, with rates of 3.6% in the lower-dose group, 3.0% in the higher-dose group, and 2.6% in the group not offered supplementation.

The study is “the first phase 3 randomized controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness of a test-and-treat approach for correction of suboptimal vitamin D status to prevent acute respiratory tract infections,” report the authors, led by Adrian R. Martineau, MD, PhD, of Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London.

While uptake and supplementation in the study were favorable, “no statistically significant effect of either dose was seen on the primary outcome of swab test, doctor-confirmed acute respiratory tract infection, or on the major secondary outcome of swab test-confirmed COVID-19,” they conclude.
 

Traditional use of cod liver oil of benefit?

In the second study, researchers in Norway, led by Arne Soraas, MD, PhD, of the department of microbiology, Oslo University Hospital, evaluated whether that country’s long-held tradition of consuming cod liver oil during the winter to prevent vitamin D deficiency could affect the development of COVID-19 or outcomes.

For the Cod Liver Oil for COVID-19 Prevention Study (CLOC), a large cohort of 34,601 adults with a mean age of 44.9 years who were not taking daily vitamin D supplements were randomized to receive 5 mL/day of cod liver oil, representing a surrogate dose of 400 IU/day of vitamin D (n = 17,278), or placebo (n = 17,323) for up to 6 months.

In contrast with the first study, the vast majority of patients in the CLOC study (86%) had adequate vitamin D levels, defined as greater than 50 nmol/L, at baseline.

Again, however, the results showed no association between increased vitamin D supplementation with cod liver oil and PCR-confirmed COVID-19 or acute respiratory infections, with approximately 1.3% in each group testing positive for COVID-19 over a median of 164 days.

Supplementation with cod liver oil was also not associated with a reduced risk of any of the coprimary endpoints, including other acute respiratory infections.

“Daily supplementation with cod liver oil, a low-dose vitamin D, eicosapentaenoic acid, and docosahexaenoic acid supplement, for 6 months during the SARS-CoV-2pandemic among Norwegian adults did not reduce the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection, serious COVID-19, or other acute respiratory infections,” the authors report.
 

Key study limitations

In his editorial, Dr. Bergman underscores the limitations of two studies – also acknowledged by the authors – including the key confounding role of vaccines that emerged during the studies.

“The null findings of the studies should be interpreted in the context of a highly effective vaccine rolled out during both studies,” Dr. Bergman writes.

In the U.K. study, for instance, whereas only 1.2% of participants were vaccinated at baseline, the rate soared to 89.1% having received at least one dose by study end, potentially masking any effect of vitamin D, he says.

Additionally, for the Norway study, Dr. Bergman notes that cod liver oil also contains a substantial amount of vitamin A, which can be a potent immunomodulator.

“Excessive intake of vitamin A can cause adverse effects and may also interfere with vitamin D-mediated effects on the immune system,” he writes.

With two recent large meta-analyses showing benefits of vitamin D supplementation to be specifically among people who are vitamin D deficient, “a pragmatic approach for the clinician could be to focus on risk groups” for supplementation, Dr. Bergman writes.

“[These include] those who could be tested before supplementation, including people with dark skin, or skin that is rarely exposed to the sun, pregnant women, and elderly people with chronic diseases.”

The U.K. trial was supported by Barts Charity, Pharma Nord, the Fischer Family Foundation, DSM Nutritional Products, the Exilarch’s Foundation, the Karl R. Pfleger Foundation, the AIM Foundation, Synergy Biologics, Cytoplan, the Clinical Research Network of the U.K. National Institute for Health and Care Research, the HDR UK BREATHE Hub, the U.K. Research and Innovation Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund, Thornton & Ross, Warburtons, Hyphens Pharma, and philanthropist Matthew Isaacs.

The CLOC trial was funded by Orkla Health, the manufacturer of the cod liver oil used in the trial. Dr. Bergman has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Among men who have not been vaccinated against COVID-19, having low levels of testosterone may increase the risk of hospitalization from the disease – but hormone therapy appears to reduce the likelihood of severe COVID, researchers have found.

Low testosterone has long been linked to multiple chronic conditions, including obesity, heart disease, and type 2 diabetes, as well as acute conditions, such as heart attack and stroke. A study published earlier in the pandemic suggested that suppressing the sex hormone might protect against COVID-19. The new study, published in JAMA Network Open, is among the first to suggest a link between low testosterone and the risk for severe COVID.

Researchers at Washington University in St. Louis evaluated data from 723 unvaccinated men who had been infected with SARS-CoV-2. Of those, 116 had been diagnosed with hypogonadism, and 180 were receiving testosterone supplementation.

The study found that men whose testosterone levels were less than 200 ng/dL were 2.4 times more likely to experience a severe case of COVID-19 that required hospitalization than were those with normal levels of the hormone. The study accounted for the fact that participants with low testosterone were also more likely to have comorbidities such as diabetes and obesity.

Paresh Dandona, MD, PhD, distinguished professor of medicine and endocrinology at the State University of New York at Buffalo, called the findings “very exciting” and “fundamental.”

“In the world of hypogonadism, this is the first to show that low testosterone makes you vulnerable” to COVID, added Dr. Dandona, who was not involved with the research.

Men who were receiving hormone replacement therapy were at lower risk of hospitalization, compared with those who were not receiving treatment, the study found.

“Testosterone therapy seemed to negate the harmful effects of COVID,” said Sandeep Dhindsa, MD, an endocrinologist at Saint Louis University and lead author of the study.

Approximately 50% more men have died from confirmed COVID-19 than women since the start of the pandemic, according to the Sex, Gender and COVID-19 Project. Previous findings suggesting that sex may be a risk factor for death from COVID prompted researchers to consider whether hormones may play a role in the increased risk among men and whether treatments that suppress androgen levels could cut hospitalizations, but researchers consistently found that androgen suppression was not effective.

“There are other reasons women might be doing better – they may have followed public health guidelines a lot better,” according to Abhinav Diwan, MD, professor of medicine at Washington University in St. Louis, who helped conduct the new study. “It may be chromosomal and not necessarily just hormonal. The differences between men and women go beyond one factor.”

According to the researchers, the findings do not suggest that hormone therapy be used as a preventive measure against COVID.

“We don’t want patients to get excited and start to ask their doctors for testosterone,” Dr. Dhindsa said.

However, viewing low testosterone as a risk factor for COVID could be considered a shift in thinking for some clinicians, according to Dr. Dandana.

“All obese and all [men with] type 2 diabetes should be tested for testosterone, which is the practice in my clinic right now, even if they have no symptoms,” Dr. Dandana said. “Certainly, those with symptoms [of low testosterone] but no diagnosis, they should be tested, too.”

Participants in the study were infected with SARS-CoV-2 early in 2020, before vaccines were available. The researchers did not assess whether the rate of hospitalizations among participants with low testosterone would be different had they been vaccinated.

“Whatever benefits we saw with testosterone might be minor compared to getting the vaccine,” Dr. Dhindsa said.

Dr. Diwan agreed. “COVID hospitalization continues to be a problem, the strains are evolving, and new vaccines are coming in,” he said. “The bottom line is to get vaccinated.”

Dr. Dhindsa has received personal fees from Bayer and Acerus Pharmaceuticals and grants from Clarus Therapeutics outside the submitted work. Dr. Diwan has served as a consultant for the interpretation of echocardiograms for clinical trials for Clario (previously ERT) and has received nonfinancial support from Dewpoint Therapeutics outside the submitted work. Dr. Dandana has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Among men who have not been vaccinated against COVID-19, having low levels of testosterone may increase the risk of hospitalization from the disease – but hormone therapy appears to reduce the likelihood of severe COVID, researchers have found.

Low testosterone has long been linked to multiple chronic conditions, including obesity, heart disease, and type 2 diabetes, as well as acute conditions, such as heart attack and stroke. A study published earlier in the pandemic suggested that suppressing the sex hormone might protect against COVID-19. The new study, published in JAMA Network Open, is among the first to suggest a link between low testosterone and the risk for severe COVID.

Researchers at Washington University in St. Louis evaluated data from 723 unvaccinated men who had been infected with SARS-CoV-2. Of those, 116 had been diagnosed with hypogonadism, and 180 were receiving testosterone supplementation.

The study found that men whose testosterone levels were less than 200 ng/dL were 2.4 times more likely to experience a severe case of COVID-19 that required hospitalization than were those with normal levels of the hormone. The study accounted for the fact that participants with low testosterone were also more likely to have comorbidities such as diabetes and obesity.

Paresh Dandona, MD, PhD, distinguished professor of medicine and endocrinology at the State University of New York at Buffalo, called the findings “very exciting” and “fundamental.”

“In the world of hypogonadism, this is the first to show that low testosterone makes you vulnerable” to COVID, added Dr. Dandona, who was not involved with the research.

Men who were receiving hormone replacement therapy were at lower risk of hospitalization, compared with those who were not receiving treatment, the study found.

“Testosterone therapy seemed to negate the harmful effects of COVID,” said Sandeep Dhindsa, MD, an endocrinologist at Saint Louis University and lead author of the study.

Approximately 50% more men have died from confirmed COVID-19 than women since the start of the pandemic, according to the Sex, Gender and COVID-19 Project. Previous findings suggesting that sex may be a risk factor for death from COVID prompted researchers to consider whether hormones may play a role in the increased risk among men and whether treatments that suppress androgen levels could cut hospitalizations, but researchers consistently found that androgen suppression was not effective.

“There are other reasons women might be doing better – they may have followed public health guidelines a lot better,” according to Abhinav Diwan, MD, professor of medicine at Washington University in St. Louis, who helped conduct the new study. “It may be chromosomal and not necessarily just hormonal. The differences between men and women go beyond one factor.”

According to the researchers, the findings do not suggest that hormone therapy be used as a preventive measure against COVID.

“We don’t want patients to get excited and start to ask their doctors for testosterone,” Dr. Dhindsa said.

However, viewing low testosterone as a risk factor for COVID could be considered a shift in thinking for some clinicians, according to Dr. Dandana.

“All obese and all [men with] type 2 diabetes should be tested for testosterone, which is the practice in my clinic right now, even if they have no symptoms,” Dr. Dandana said. “Certainly, those with symptoms [of low testosterone] but no diagnosis, they should be tested, too.”

Participants in the study were infected with SARS-CoV-2 early in 2020, before vaccines were available. The researchers did not assess whether the rate of hospitalizations among participants with low testosterone would be different had they been vaccinated.

“Whatever benefits we saw with testosterone might be minor compared to getting the vaccine,” Dr. Dhindsa said.

Dr. Diwan agreed. “COVID hospitalization continues to be a problem, the strains are evolving, and new vaccines are coming in,” he said. “The bottom line is to get vaccinated.”

Dr. Dhindsa has received personal fees from Bayer and Acerus Pharmaceuticals and grants from Clarus Therapeutics outside the submitted work. Dr. Diwan has served as a consultant for the interpretation of echocardiograms for clinical trials for Clario (previously ERT) and has received nonfinancial support from Dewpoint Therapeutics outside the submitted work. Dr. Dandana has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Among men who have not been vaccinated against COVID-19, having low levels of testosterone may increase the risk of hospitalization from the disease – but hormone therapy appears to reduce the likelihood of severe COVID, researchers have found.

Low testosterone has long been linked to multiple chronic conditions, including obesity, heart disease, and type 2 diabetes, as well as acute conditions, such as heart attack and stroke. A study published earlier in the pandemic suggested that suppressing the sex hormone might protect against COVID-19. The new study, published in JAMA Network Open, is among the first to suggest a link between low testosterone and the risk for severe COVID.

Researchers at Washington University in St. Louis evaluated data from 723 unvaccinated men who had been infected with SARS-CoV-2. Of those, 116 had been diagnosed with hypogonadism, and 180 were receiving testosterone supplementation.

The study found that men whose testosterone levels were less than 200 ng/dL were 2.4 times more likely to experience a severe case of COVID-19 that required hospitalization than were those with normal levels of the hormone. The study accounted for the fact that participants with low testosterone were also more likely to have comorbidities such as diabetes and obesity.

Paresh Dandona, MD, PhD, distinguished professor of medicine and endocrinology at the State University of New York at Buffalo, called the findings “very exciting” and “fundamental.”

“In the world of hypogonadism, this is the first to show that low testosterone makes you vulnerable” to COVID, added Dr. Dandona, who was not involved with the research.

Men who were receiving hormone replacement therapy were at lower risk of hospitalization, compared with those who were not receiving treatment, the study found.

“Testosterone therapy seemed to negate the harmful effects of COVID,” said Sandeep Dhindsa, MD, an endocrinologist at Saint Louis University and lead author of the study.

Approximately 50% more men have died from confirmed COVID-19 than women since the start of the pandemic, according to the Sex, Gender and COVID-19 Project. Previous findings suggesting that sex may be a risk factor for death from COVID prompted researchers to consider whether hormones may play a role in the increased risk among men and whether treatments that suppress androgen levels could cut hospitalizations, but researchers consistently found that androgen suppression was not effective.

“There are other reasons women might be doing better – they may have followed public health guidelines a lot better,” according to Abhinav Diwan, MD, professor of medicine at Washington University in St. Louis, who helped conduct the new study. “It may be chromosomal and not necessarily just hormonal. The differences between men and women go beyond one factor.”

According to the researchers, the findings do not suggest that hormone therapy be used as a preventive measure against COVID.

“We don’t want patients to get excited and start to ask their doctors for testosterone,” Dr. Dhindsa said.

However, viewing low testosterone as a risk factor for COVID could be considered a shift in thinking for some clinicians, according to Dr. Dandana.

“All obese and all [men with] type 2 diabetes should be tested for testosterone, which is the practice in my clinic right now, even if they have no symptoms,” Dr. Dandana said. “Certainly, those with symptoms [of low testosterone] but no diagnosis, they should be tested, too.”

Participants in the study were infected with SARS-CoV-2 early in 2020, before vaccines were available. The researchers did not assess whether the rate of hospitalizations among participants with low testosterone would be different had they been vaccinated.

“Whatever benefits we saw with testosterone might be minor compared to getting the vaccine,” Dr. Dhindsa said.

Dr. Diwan agreed. “COVID hospitalization continues to be a problem, the strains are evolving, and new vaccines are coming in,” he said. “The bottom line is to get vaccinated.”

Dr. Dhindsa has received personal fees from Bayer and Acerus Pharmaceuticals and grants from Clarus Therapeutics outside the submitted work. Dr. Diwan has served as a consultant for the interpretation of echocardiograms for clinical trials for Clario (previously ERT) and has received nonfinancial support from Dewpoint Therapeutics outside the submitted work. Dr. Dandana has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Scientists have harnessed the power of a woman’s hypersensitive sense of smell to develop a test to determine whether people have Parkinson’s disease.

The test has been years in the making after academics realized that Joy Milne could smell the condition.

The 72-year-old from Perth, Scotland, has a rare condition that gives her a heightened sense of smell.

She noticed that her late husband Les developed a different odor when he was 33 – some 12 years before he was diagnosed with the disease, which leads to parts of the brain become progressively damaged over many years.

Mrs. Milne, dubbed ‘the woman who can smell Parkinson’s, described a “musky” aroma, different from his normal scent.

Her observation piqued the interest of scientists who decided to research what she could smell, and whether this could be harnessed to help identify people with the neurological condition.
 

‘Early phases of research’

Years later, academics at the University of Manchester (England) have made a breakthrough by developing a test that can identify people with Parkinson’s disease using a simple cotton bud run along the back of the neck.

Researchers can examine the sample to identify molecules linked to the disease to help diagnose whether someone has the disease.

While still in the early phases of research, scientists are excited about the prospect of the NHS being able to deploy a simple test for the disease.

There is currently no definitive test for Parkinson’s disease, with diagnosis based on a patient’s symptoms and medical history.

If the new skin swab is successful outside laboratory conditions it could be rolled out to achieve faster diagnosis.

Mrs. Milne told the PA news agency that it was “not acceptable” that people with Parkinson’s had such high degrees of neurologic damage at the time of diagnosis, adding: “I think it has to be detected far earlier – the same as cancer and diabetes, earlier diagnosis means far more efficient treatment and a better lifestyle for people.

“It has been found that exercise and change of diet can make a phenomenal difference.”

She said her husband, a former doctor, was “determined” to find the right researcher to examine the link between odor and Parkinson’s and they sought out Tilo Kunath, PhD, at the University of Edinburgh in 2012.
 

Chemical change in sebum

Dr. Kunath paired up with Perdita Barran, PhD, to examine Mrs. Milne’s sense of smell.

The scientists believed that the scent may be caused by a chemical change in skin oil, known as sebum, that is triggered by the disease.

In their preliminary work they asked Mrs. Milne to smell t-shirts worn by people who have Parkinson’s and those who did not.

Mrs. Milne correctly identified the t-shirts worn by Parkinson’s patients but she also said that one from the group of people without Parkinson’s smelled like the disease – 8 months later the individual who wore the t-shirt was diagnosed with Parkinson’s.

Researchers hoped the finding could lead to a test being developed to detect Parkinson’s, working under the assumption that if they were able to identify a unique chemical signature in the skin linked to Parkinson’s, they may eventually be able to diagnose the condition from simple skin swabs.

In 2019 researchers at the University of Manchester, led by Dr. Barran, announced that they had identified molecules linked to the disease found in skin swabs.

And now the scientists have developed a test using this information.

The tests have been successfully conducted in research labs and now scientists are assessing whether they can be used in hospital settings.

If successful, the test could potentially be used in the NHS so GPs can refer patients for Parkinson’s tests.

The findings, which have been published in the Journal of the American Chemical Society, detail how sebum can be analyzed with mass spectrometry – a method which weighs molecules – to identify the disease.

Some molecules are present only in people who have Parkinson’s disease.

Researchers compared swabs from 79 people with Parkinson’s with a healthy control group of 71 people.

Dr. Barran told the PA news agency: “At the moment, there are no cures for Parkinson’s, but a confirmatory diagnostic would allow them to get the right treatment and get the drugs that will help to alleviate their symptoms.

“There would also be nonpharmaceutical interventions, including movement and also nutritional classes, which can really help.

“And I think most critically, it will allow them to have a confirmed diagnosis to actually know what’s wrong with them.”

She added: “What we are now doing is seeing if [hospital laboratories] can do what we’ve done in a research lab in a hospital lab. Once that’s happened then we want to see if we can make this a confirmatory diagnostic that could be used along with the referral process from a GP to a consultant. At the moment in Greater Manchester there are about 18,000 people waiting for a neurological consult and just to clear that list, without any new people joining it, will take up to 2 years. Of those 10%-15% are suspect Parkinson’s. Our test would be able to tell them whether they did or whether they didn’t [have Parkinson’s] and allow them to be referred to the right specialist. So at the moment, we’re talking about being able to refer people in a timely manner to the right specialism and that will be transformative.”
 

Mrs. Milne may be able to smell other diseases

Mrs. Milne is now working with scientists around the world to see if she can smell other diseases like cancer and tuberculosis.

“I have to go shopping very early or very late because of people’s perfumes, I can’t go into the chemical aisle in the supermarket,” she told the PA news agency. “So yes, a curse sometimes but I have also been out to Tanzania and have done research on TB, and research on cancer in the U.S. – just preliminary work. So it is a curse and a benefit.”

She said that she can sometimes smell people who have Parkinson’s while in the supermarket or walking down the street but has been told by medical ethicists she cannot tell them. “Which GP would accept a man or a woman walking in saying ‘the woman who smells Parkinson’s has told me I have it?’ Maybe in the future but not now.”

Mrs. Milne said that her husband, who died 7 years ago, was like a “changed man” after researchers found the link between Parkinson’s and odor.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

Scientists have harnessed the power of a woman’s hypersensitive sense of smell to develop a test to determine whether people have Parkinson’s disease.

The test has been years in the making after academics realized that Joy Milne could smell the condition.

The 72-year-old from Perth, Scotland, has a rare condition that gives her a heightened sense of smell.

She noticed that her late husband Les developed a different odor when he was 33 – some 12 years before he was diagnosed with the disease, which leads to parts of the brain become progressively damaged over many years.

Mrs. Milne, dubbed ‘the woman who can smell Parkinson’s, described a “musky” aroma, different from his normal scent.

Her observation piqued the interest of scientists who decided to research what she could smell, and whether this could be harnessed to help identify people with the neurological condition.
 

‘Early phases of research’

Years later, academics at the University of Manchester (England) have made a breakthrough by developing a test that can identify people with Parkinson’s disease using a simple cotton bud run along the back of the neck.

Researchers can examine the sample to identify molecules linked to the disease to help diagnose whether someone has the disease.

While still in the early phases of research, scientists are excited about the prospect of the NHS being able to deploy a simple test for the disease.

There is currently no definitive test for Parkinson’s disease, with diagnosis based on a patient’s symptoms and medical history.

If the new skin swab is successful outside laboratory conditions it could be rolled out to achieve faster diagnosis.

Mrs. Milne told the PA news agency that it was “not acceptable” that people with Parkinson’s had such high degrees of neurologic damage at the time of diagnosis, adding: “I think it has to be detected far earlier – the same as cancer and diabetes, earlier diagnosis means far more efficient treatment and a better lifestyle for people.

“It has been found that exercise and change of diet can make a phenomenal difference.”

She said her husband, a former doctor, was “determined” to find the right researcher to examine the link between odor and Parkinson’s and they sought out Tilo Kunath, PhD, at the University of Edinburgh in 2012.
 

Chemical change in sebum

Dr. Kunath paired up with Perdita Barran, PhD, to examine Mrs. Milne’s sense of smell.

The scientists believed that the scent may be caused by a chemical change in skin oil, known as sebum, that is triggered by the disease.

In their preliminary work they asked Mrs. Milne to smell t-shirts worn by people who have Parkinson’s and those who did not.

Mrs. Milne correctly identified the t-shirts worn by Parkinson’s patients but she also said that one from the group of people without Parkinson’s smelled like the disease – 8 months later the individual who wore the t-shirt was diagnosed with Parkinson’s.

Researchers hoped the finding could lead to a test being developed to detect Parkinson’s, working under the assumption that if they were able to identify a unique chemical signature in the skin linked to Parkinson’s, they may eventually be able to diagnose the condition from simple skin swabs.

In 2019 researchers at the University of Manchester, led by Dr. Barran, announced that they had identified molecules linked to the disease found in skin swabs.

And now the scientists have developed a test using this information.

The tests have been successfully conducted in research labs and now scientists are assessing whether they can be used in hospital settings.

If successful, the test could potentially be used in the NHS so GPs can refer patients for Parkinson’s tests.

The findings, which have been published in the Journal of the American Chemical Society, detail how sebum can be analyzed with mass spectrometry – a method which weighs molecules – to identify the disease.

Some molecules are present only in people who have Parkinson’s disease.

Researchers compared swabs from 79 people with Parkinson’s with a healthy control group of 71 people.

Dr. Barran told the PA news agency: “At the moment, there are no cures for Parkinson’s, but a confirmatory diagnostic would allow them to get the right treatment and get the drugs that will help to alleviate their symptoms.

“There would also be nonpharmaceutical interventions, including movement and also nutritional classes, which can really help.

“And I think most critically, it will allow them to have a confirmed diagnosis to actually know what’s wrong with them.”

She added: “What we are now doing is seeing if [hospital laboratories] can do what we’ve done in a research lab in a hospital lab. Once that’s happened then we want to see if we can make this a confirmatory diagnostic that could be used along with the referral process from a GP to a consultant. At the moment in Greater Manchester there are about 18,000 people waiting for a neurological consult and just to clear that list, without any new people joining it, will take up to 2 years. Of those 10%-15% are suspect Parkinson’s. Our test would be able to tell them whether they did or whether they didn’t [have Parkinson’s] and allow them to be referred to the right specialist. So at the moment, we’re talking about being able to refer people in a timely manner to the right specialism and that will be transformative.”
 

Mrs. Milne may be able to smell other diseases

Mrs. Milne is now working with scientists around the world to see if she can smell other diseases like cancer and tuberculosis.

“I have to go shopping very early or very late because of people’s perfumes, I can’t go into the chemical aisle in the supermarket,” she told the PA news agency. “So yes, a curse sometimes but I have also been out to Tanzania and have done research on TB, and research on cancer in the U.S. – just preliminary work. So it is a curse and a benefit.”

She said that she can sometimes smell people who have Parkinson’s while in the supermarket or walking down the street but has been told by medical ethicists she cannot tell them. “Which GP would accept a man or a woman walking in saying ‘the woman who smells Parkinson’s has told me I have it?’ Maybe in the future but not now.”

Mrs. Milne said that her husband, who died 7 years ago, was like a “changed man” after researchers found the link between Parkinson’s and odor.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

Scientists have harnessed the power of a woman’s hypersensitive sense of smell to develop a test to determine whether people have Parkinson’s disease.

The test has been years in the making after academics realized that Joy Milne could smell the condition.

The 72-year-old from Perth, Scotland, has a rare condition that gives her a heightened sense of smell.

She noticed that her late husband Les developed a different odor when he was 33 – some 12 years before he was diagnosed with the disease, which leads to parts of the brain become progressively damaged over many years.

Mrs. Milne, dubbed ‘the woman who can smell Parkinson’s, described a “musky” aroma, different from his normal scent.

Her observation piqued the interest of scientists who decided to research what she could smell, and whether this could be harnessed to help identify people with the neurological condition.
 

‘Early phases of research’

Years later, academics at the University of Manchester (England) have made a breakthrough by developing a test that can identify people with Parkinson’s disease using a simple cotton bud run along the back of the neck.

Researchers can examine the sample to identify molecules linked to the disease to help diagnose whether someone has the disease.

While still in the early phases of research, scientists are excited about the prospect of the NHS being able to deploy a simple test for the disease.

There is currently no definitive test for Parkinson’s disease, with diagnosis based on a patient’s symptoms and medical history.

If the new skin swab is successful outside laboratory conditions it could be rolled out to achieve faster diagnosis.

Mrs. Milne told the PA news agency that it was “not acceptable” that people with Parkinson’s had such high degrees of neurologic damage at the time of diagnosis, adding: “I think it has to be detected far earlier – the same as cancer and diabetes, earlier diagnosis means far more efficient treatment and a better lifestyle for people.

“It has been found that exercise and change of diet can make a phenomenal difference.”

She said her husband, a former doctor, was “determined” to find the right researcher to examine the link between odor and Parkinson’s and they sought out Tilo Kunath, PhD, at the University of Edinburgh in 2012.
 

Chemical change in sebum

Dr. Kunath paired up with Perdita Barran, PhD, to examine Mrs. Milne’s sense of smell.

The scientists believed that the scent may be caused by a chemical change in skin oil, known as sebum, that is triggered by the disease.

In their preliminary work they asked Mrs. Milne to smell t-shirts worn by people who have Parkinson’s and those who did not.

Mrs. Milne correctly identified the t-shirts worn by Parkinson’s patients but she also said that one from the group of people without Parkinson’s smelled like the disease – 8 months later the individual who wore the t-shirt was diagnosed with Parkinson’s.

Researchers hoped the finding could lead to a test being developed to detect Parkinson’s, working under the assumption that if they were able to identify a unique chemical signature in the skin linked to Parkinson’s, they may eventually be able to diagnose the condition from simple skin swabs.

In 2019 researchers at the University of Manchester, led by Dr. Barran, announced that they had identified molecules linked to the disease found in skin swabs.

And now the scientists have developed a test using this information.

The tests have been successfully conducted in research labs and now scientists are assessing whether they can be used in hospital settings.

If successful, the test could potentially be used in the NHS so GPs can refer patients for Parkinson’s tests.

The findings, which have been published in the Journal of the American Chemical Society, detail how sebum can be analyzed with mass spectrometry – a method which weighs molecules – to identify the disease.

Some molecules are present only in people who have Parkinson’s disease.

Researchers compared swabs from 79 people with Parkinson’s with a healthy control group of 71 people.

Dr. Barran told the PA news agency: “At the moment, there are no cures for Parkinson’s, but a confirmatory diagnostic would allow them to get the right treatment and get the drugs that will help to alleviate their symptoms.

“There would also be nonpharmaceutical interventions, including movement and also nutritional classes, which can really help.

“And I think most critically, it will allow them to have a confirmed diagnosis to actually know what’s wrong with them.”

She added: “What we are now doing is seeing if [hospital laboratories] can do what we’ve done in a research lab in a hospital lab. Once that’s happened then we want to see if we can make this a confirmatory diagnostic that could be used along with the referral process from a GP to a consultant. At the moment in Greater Manchester there are about 18,000 people waiting for a neurological consult and just to clear that list, without any new people joining it, will take up to 2 years. Of those 10%-15% are suspect Parkinson’s. Our test would be able to tell them whether they did or whether they didn’t [have Parkinson’s] and allow them to be referred to the right specialist. So at the moment, we’re talking about being able to refer people in a timely manner to the right specialism and that will be transformative.”
 

Mrs. Milne may be able to smell other diseases

Mrs. Milne is now working with scientists around the world to see if she can smell other diseases like cancer and tuberculosis.

“I have to go shopping very early or very late because of people’s perfumes, I can’t go into the chemical aisle in the supermarket,” she told the PA news agency. “So yes, a curse sometimes but I have also been out to Tanzania and have done research on TB, and research on cancer in the U.S. – just preliminary work. So it is a curse and a benefit.”

She said that she can sometimes smell people who have Parkinson’s while in the supermarket or walking down the street but has been told by medical ethicists she cannot tell them. “Which GP would accept a man or a woman walking in saying ‘the woman who smells Parkinson’s has told me I have it?’ Maybe in the future but not now.”

Mrs. Milne said that her husband, who died 7 years ago, was like a “changed man” after researchers found the link between Parkinson’s and odor.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

Almost half the people who were hospitalized with COVID-19 last spring had been fully vaccinated and received a third dose or booster shot, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says.

Unvaccinated adults were 3.4 times more likely to be hospitalized with COVID than those who were vaccinated, the CDC said.

The CDC report considered hospitalization numbers from March 20 to May 31, when the omicron subvariant BA.2 was the dominant strain. Researchers found 39.1% of patients had received a primary vaccination series and at least one booster or additional dose; 5% were fully vaccinated with two boosters.

“Adults should stay up to date with COVID-19 vaccination, including booster doses,” the CDC said. “Multiple nonpharmaceutical and medical prevention measures should be used to protect persons at high risk for severe SARS-CoV-2, regardless of vaccination status.”

Older adults and people with underlying medical conditions who become infected with the coronavirus are more likely to be hospitalized.

The study also found that hospitalization rates among people over 65 increased threefold over the study period. Rates among people under 65 rose 1.7 times.

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

Almost half the people who were hospitalized with COVID-19 last spring had been fully vaccinated and received a third dose or booster shot, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says.

Unvaccinated adults were 3.4 times more likely to be hospitalized with COVID than those who were vaccinated, the CDC said.

The CDC report considered hospitalization numbers from March 20 to May 31, when the omicron subvariant BA.2 was the dominant strain. Researchers found 39.1% of patients had received a primary vaccination series and at least one booster or additional dose; 5% were fully vaccinated with two boosters.

“Adults should stay up to date with COVID-19 vaccination, including booster doses,” the CDC said. “Multiple nonpharmaceutical and medical prevention measures should be used to protect persons at high risk for severe SARS-CoV-2, regardless of vaccination status.”

Older adults and people with underlying medical conditions who become infected with the coronavirus are more likely to be hospitalized.

The study also found that hospitalization rates among people over 65 increased threefold over the study period. Rates among people under 65 rose 1.7 times.

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

Almost half the people who were hospitalized with COVID-19 last spring had been fully vaccinated and received a third dose or booster shot, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says.

Unvaccinated adults were 3.4 times more likely to be hospitalized with COVID than those who were vaccinated, the CDC said.

The CDC report considered hospitalization numbers from March 20 to May 31, when the omicron subvariant BA.2 was the dominant strain. Researchers found 39.1% of patients had received a primary vaccination series and at least one booster or additional dose; 5% were fully vaccinated with two boosters.

“Adults should stay up to date with COVID-19 vaccination, including booster doses,” the CDC said. “Multiple nonpharmaceutical and medical prevention measures should be used to protect persons at high risk for severe SARS-CoV-2, regardless of vaccination status.”

Older adults and people with underlying medical conditions who become infected with the coronavirus are more likely to be hospitalized.

The study also found that hospitalization rates among people over 65 increased threefold over the study period. Rates among people under 65 rose 1.7 times.

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