Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management

Early rhythm control for patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib) improves cardiovascular outcomes regardless of an individual’s stroke risk, a large retrospective study finds.

These findings broaden support for early rhythm control, suggesting that physicians should be presenting the option to all patients diagnosed with AFib in routine clinical practice, lead author Daehoon Kim, MD, of Yonsei University, Seoul, South Korea, and colleagues reported.

In 2020, the EAST-AFNET 4 trial showed that early rhythm control was better than rate control for reducing adverse cardiovascular outcomes, but the trial only included patients at risk of stroke with a CHA2DS2-VASc score of at least 2, leaving it unclear whether healthier patients might benefit from the same approach.

“Although the primary indication for rhythm control is to alleviate AF[ib]-related symptoms and improve quality of life, the current guidelines suggest younger age and no or few comorbid conditions as factors favoring rhythm control,” the investigators wrote in Annals of Internal Medicine. “Thus, the effect of rhythm control on cardiovascular outcomes in this population requires elucidation.”
 

Methods and results

The present study aimed to address this knowledge gap by reviewing data from 54,216 patients with AFib who had rhythm control (ablation or medication) or rate control within one year of diagnosis. Among these patients, 69.3% would have qualified for the EAST-AFNET 4 trial based on higher stroke risk, while the remaining 30.7% of patients would not have been eligible because of lower stroke risk. Median age, consequently, was higher in the former group, at 70 years, versus 54 years in the latter group.

Evaluating the same primary composite outcome as the EAST-AFNET 4 trial (cardiovascular death, ischemic stroke, hospitalization for heart failure, or MI) showed that patients benefited from rhythm control over rate control regardless of risk group.

Those in the higher risk group had a 14% reduced risk of negative cardiovascular outcomes (weighted hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% confidence interval, 0.81-0.92), while those in the lower risk group had a 19% reduced risk of adverse cardiovascular outcomes (weighted HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.66-0.98). Safety profiles were similar across groups and management strategies.
 

Rhythm control well supported from statistical perspective

“We think that physicians should pursue early rhythm control in all patients diagnosed with AF[ib],” principal author Boyoung Joung, MD, PhD, of Yonsei University said in an interview. “Like catheter ablation, we support the idea that early rhythm control can be more effective and safely performed in younger and less frail populations.”

Xiaoxi Yao, PhD, MPH, associate professor of health services research at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., agreed that rhythm control is now well supported from a statistical perspective, but patients and physicians need to look beyond relative risk improvements, and remain pragmatic.

“There is a benefit, but the benefit is consistent in terms of hazard ratio, or relative risk,” Dr. Yao said in an interview. “You still find a smaller absolute risk difference.”

Patients in the United States – versus Korea where the investigators are based – also need to consider the out-of-pocket costs involved in rhythm control, Dr. Yao said, noting that unclear cost effectiveness may also prevent changes to American guidelines. Medication side effects and procedural risks should also be considered, she added, as well as time off from work needed for ablation.

Dr. Yao, who published a similar paper in June and previously evaluated the role of catheter ablation in routine practice, suggested that the youngest patients may have the most to gain from rhythm control. This is because even a small absolute benefit is magnified with time, she said.

“Since [younger patients] have another several decades to live ... then yes, there might be very significant long-term effects in terms of both symptom control and cardiovascular death and stroke,” Dr. Yao said.

For optimal patient selection, however, more advanced tools are needed, which is why Dr. Yao and her colleagues are exploring new technologies to improve risk-benefit analysis.

“We are not only interested in [a patient’s] baseline high or low risk, but also the extent of risk reduction [that rhythm control provides],” Dr. Yao said. “We are trying to see if there is an [artificial intelligence] or machine-learning approach that can help us provide each patient with a more accurate, individualized estimate to help them make their decision.”

Until then, Dr. Yao encouraged physicians to engage in shared decision-making with patients, making sure to discuss both statistical and practical considerations.

The study was funded by the Ministry of Health and Welfare and the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety of the Republic of Korea. The investigators and Dr. Yao reported no conflicts.

Early rhythm control for patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib) improves cardiovascular outcomes regardless of an individual’s stroke risk, a large retrospective study finds.

These findings broaden support for early rhythm control, suggesting that physicians should be presenting the option to all patients diagnosed with AFib in routine clinical practice, lead author Daehoon Kim, MD, of Yonsei University, Seoul, South Korea, and colleagues reported.

In 2020, the EAST-AFNET 4 trial showed that early rhythm control was better than rate control for reducing adverse cardiovascular outcomes, but the trial only included patients at risk of stroke with a CHA2DS2-VASc score of at least 2, leaving it unclear whether healthier patients might benefit from the same approach.

“Although the primary indication for rhythm control is to alleviate AF[ib]-related symptoms and improve quality of life, the current guidelines suggest younger age and no or few comorbid conditions as factors favoring rhythm control,” the investigators wrote in Annals of Internal Medicine. “Thus, the effect of rhythm control on cardiovascular outcomes in this population requires elucidation.”
 

Methods and results

The present study aimed to address this knowledge gap by reviewing data from 54,216 patients with AFib who had rhythm control (ablation or medication) or rate control within one year of diagnosis. Among these patients, 69.3% would have qualified for the EAST-AFNET 4 trial based on higher stroke risk, while the remaining 30.7% of patients would not have been eligible because of lower stroke risk. Median age, consequently, was higher in the former group, at 70 years, versus 54 years in the latter group.

Evaluating the same primary composite outcome as the EAST-AFNET 4 trial (cardiovascular death, ischemic stroke, hospitalization for heart failure, or MI) showed that patients benefited from rhythm control over rate control regardless of risk group.

Those in the higher risk group had a 14% reduced risk of negative cardiovascular outcomes (weighted hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% confidence interval, 0.81-0.92), while those in the lower risk group had a 19% reduced risk of adverse cardiovascular outcomes (weighted HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.66-0.98). Safety profiles were similar across groups and management strategies.
 

Rhythm control well supported from statistical perspective

“We think that physicians should pursue early rhythm control in all patients diagnosed with AF[ib],” principal author Boyoung Joung, MD, PhD, of Yonsei University said in an interview. “Like catheter ablation, we support the idea that early rhythm control can be more effective and safely performed in younger and less frail populations.”

Xiaoxi Yao, PhD, MPH, associate professor of health services research at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., agreed that rhythm control is now well supported from a statistical perspective, but patients and physicians need to look beyond relative risk improvements, and remain pragmatic.

“There is a benefit, but the benefit is consistent in terms of hazard ratio, or relative risk,” Dr. Yao said in an interview. “You still find a smaller absolute risk difference.”

Patients in the United States – versus Korea where the investigators are based – also need to consider the out-of-pocket costs involved in rhythm control, Dr. Yao said, noting that unclear cost effectiveness may also prevent changes to American guidelines. Medication side effects and procedural risks should also be considered, she added, as well as time off from work needed for ablation.

Dr. Yao, who published a similar paper in June and previously evaluated the role of catheter ablation in routine practice, suggested that the youngest patients may have the most to gain from rhythm control. This is because even a small absolute benefit is magnified with time, she said.

“Since [younger patients] have another several decades to live ... then yes, there might be very significant long-term effects in terms of both symptom control and cardiovascular death and stroke,” Dr. Yao said.

For optimal patient selection, however, more advanced tools are needed, which is why Dr. Yao and her colleagues are exploring new technologies to improve risk-benefit analysis.

“We are not only interested in [a patient’s] baseline high or low risk, but also the extent of risk reduction [that rhythm control provides],” Dr. Yao said. “We are trying to see if there is an [artificial intelligence] or machine-learning approach that can help us provide each patient with a more accurate, individualized estimate to help them make their decision.”

Until then, Dr. Yao encouraged physicians to engage in shared decision-making with patients, making sure to discuss both statistical and practical considerations.

The study was funded by the Ministry of Health and Welfare and the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety of the Republic of Korea. The investigators and Dr. Yao reported no conflicts.

Early rhythm control for patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib) improves cardiovascular outcomes regardless of an individual’s stroke risk, a large retrospective study finds.

These findings broaden support for early rhythm control, suggesting that physicians should be presenting the option to all patients diagnosed with AFib in routine clinical practice, lead author Daehoon Kim, MD, of Yonsei University, Seoul, South Korea, and colleagues reported.

In 2020, the EAST-AFNET 4 trial showed that early rhythm control was better than rate control for reducing adverse cardiovascular outcomes, but the trial only included patients at risk of stroke with a CHA2DS2-VASc score of at least 2, leaving it unclear whether healthier patients might benefit from the same approach.

“Although the primary indication for rhythm control is to alleviate AF[ib]-related symptoms and improve quality of life, the current guidelines suggest younger age and no or few comorbid conditions as factors favoring rhythm control,” the investigators wrote in Annals of Internal Medicine. “Thus, the effect of rhythm control on cardiovascular outcomes in this population requires elucidation.”
 

Methods and results

The present study aimed to address this knowledge gap by reviewing data from 54,216 patients with AFib who had rhythm control (ablation or medication) or rate control within one year of diagnosis. Among these patients, 69.3% would have qualified for the EAST-AFNET 4 trial based on higher stroke risk, while the remaining 30.7% of patients would not have been eligible because of lower stroke risk. Median age, consequently, was higher in the former group, at 70 years, versus 54 years in the latter group.

Evaluating the same primary composite outcome as the EAST-AFNET 4 trial (cardiovascular death, ischemic stroke, hospitalization for heart failure, or MI) showed that patients benefited from rhythm control over rate control regardless of risk group.

Those in the higher risk group had a 14% reduced risk of negative cardiovascular outcomes (weighted hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% confidence interval, 0.81-0.92), while those in the lower risk group had a 19% reduced risk of adverse cardiovascular outcomes (weighted HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.66-0.98). Safety profiles were similar across groups and management strategies.
 

Rhythm control well supported from statistical perspective

“We think that physicians should pursue early rhythm control in all patients diagnosed with AF[ib],” principal author Boyoung Joung, MD, PhD, of Yonsei University said in an interview. “Like catheter ablation, we support the idea that early rhythm control can be more effective and safely performed in younger and less frail populations.”

Xiaoxi Yao, PhD, MPH, associate professor of health services research at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., agreed that rhythm control is now well supported from a statistical perspective, but patients and physicians need to look beyond relative risk improvements, and remain pragmatic.

“There is a benefit, but the benefit is consistent in terms of hazard ratio, or relative risk,” Dr. Yao said in an interview. “You still find a smaller absolute risk difference.”

Patients in the United States – versus Korea where the investigators are based – also need to consider the out-of-pocket costs involved in rhythm control, Dr. Yao said, noting that unclear cost effectiveness may also prevent changes to American guidelines. Medication side effects and procedural risks should also be considered, she added, as well as time off from work needed for ablation.

Dr. Yao, who published a similar paper in June and previously evaluated the role of catheter ablation in routine practice, suggested that the youngest patients may have the most to gain from rhythm control. This is because even a small absolute benefit is magnified with time, she said.

“Since [younger patients] have another several decades to live ... then yes, there might be very significant long-term effects in terms of both symptom control and cardiovascular death and stroke,” Dr. Yao said.

For optimal patient selection, however, more advanced tools are needed, which is why Dr. Yao and her colleagues are exploring new technologies to improve risk-benefit analysis.

“We are not only interested in [a patient’s] baseline high or low risk, but also the extent of risk reduction [that rhythm control provides],” Dr. Yao said. “We are trying to see if there is an [artificial intelligence] or machine-learning approach that can help us provide each patient with a more accurate, individualized estimate to help them make their decision.”

Until then, Dr. Yao encouraged physicians to engage in shared decision-making with patients, making sure to discuss both statistical and practical considerations.

The study was funded by the Ministry of Health and Welfare and the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety of the Republic of Korea. The investigators and Dr. Yao reported no conflicts.

If you want your skin to show fewer signs of aging, like wrinkles, then you’d do well to put down the cell phone, a new study conducted in fruit flies suggests.

Blue light from screens on smartphones, computers, and other gadgets “may have detrimental effects on a wide range of cells in our body, from skin and fat cells to sensory neurons,” Oregon State University scientist Jadwiga Giebultowicz, PhD, said of the study, which was published in the journal Frontiers in Aging.

“Our study suggests that avoidance of excessive blue light exposure may be a good anti-aging strategy,” Dr. Giebultowicz added.

Ultraviolet rays from the sun harm skin appearance and health. Doctors are continuing to study the damage caused by the screens of devices that most people are exposed to throughout the day. These devices emit blue light.

“Aging occurs in various ways, but on a cellular level, we age when cells stop repairing and producing new healthy cells. And cells that aren’t functioning properly are more likely to self destruct – which has ramifications not only in terms of appearance but for the whole body,” the New York Post wrote. “It’s the reason why the elderly take longer to heal, and their bones and organs begin to deteriorate.”

Dr. Giebultowicz said the study shows that certain substances in the body, called metabolites, are essential indicators of how a cell functions. These metabolites are naturally occurring as the body converts food and drinks into energy. Research indicates that these substances are altered by blue light exposure.

More specifically, researchers found that levels of succinate, or succinic acid, in fruit flies increased under excessive blue light, while glutamate decreased, the newspaper wrote.

Researchers said the insects “make an appropriate analog for humans” because the same signaling devices are shared.

The flies were exposed with more blue light than people usually get. Dr. Giebultowicz said future research is needed on human cells.

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

If you want your skin to show fewer signs of aging, like wrinkles, then you’d do well to put down the cell phone, a new study conducted in fruit flies suggests.

Blue light from screens on smartphones, computers, and other gadgets “may have detrimental effects on a wide range of cells in our body, from skin and fat cells to sensory neurons,” Oregon State University scientist Jadwiga Giebultowicz, PhD, said of the study, which was published in the journal Frontiers in Aging.

“Our study suggests that avoidance of excessive blue light exposure may be a good anti-aging strategy,” Dr. Giebultowicz added.

Ultraviolet rays from the sun harm skin appearance and health. Doctors are continuing to study the damage caused by the screens of devices that most people are exposed to throughout the day. These devices emit blue light.

“Aging occurs in various ways, but on a cellular level, we age when cells stop repairing and producing new healthy cells. And cells that aren’t functioning properly are more likely to self destruct – which has ramifications not only in terms of appearance but for the whole body,” the New York Post wrote. “It’s the reason why the elderly take longer to heal, and their bones and organs begin to deteriorate.”

Dr. Giebultowicz said the study shows that certain substances in the body, called metabolites, are essential indicators of how a cell functions. These metabolites are naturally occurring as the body converts food and drinks into energy. Research indicates that these substances are altered by blue light exposure.

More specifically, researchers found that levels of succinate, or succinic acid, in fruit flies increased under excessive blue light, while glutamate decreased, the newspaper wrote.

Researchers said the insects “make an appropriate analog for humans” because the same signaling devices are shared.

The flies were exposed with more blue light than people usually get. Dr. Giebultowicz said future research is needed on human cells.

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

If you want your skin to show fewer signs of aging, like wrinkles, then you’d do well to put down the cell phone, a new study conducted in fruit flies suggests.

Blue light from screens on smartphones, computers, and other gadgets “may have detrimental effects on a wide range of cells in our body, from skin and fat cells to sensory neurons,” Oregon State University scientist Jadwiga Giebultowicz, PhD, said of the study, which was published in the journal Frontiers in Aging.

“Our study suggests that avoidance of excessive blue light exposure may be a good anti-aging strategy,” Dr. Giebultowicz added.

Ultraviolet rays from the sun harm skin appearance and health. Doctors are continuing to study the damage caused by the screens of devices that most people are exposed to throughout the day. These devices emit blue light.

“Aging occurs in various ways, but on a cellular level, we age when cells stop repairing and producing new healthy cells. And cells that aren’t functioning properly are more likely to self destruct – which has ramifications not only in terms of appearance but for the whole body,” the New York Post wrote. “It’s the reason why the elderly take longer to heal, and their bones and organs begin to deteriorate.”

Dr. Giebultowicz said the study shows that certain substances in the body, called metabolites, are essential indicators of how a cell functions. These metabolites are naturally occurring as the body converts food and drinks into energy. Research indicates that these substances are altered by blue light exposure.

More specifically, researchers found that levels of succinate, or succinic acid, in fruit flies increased under excessive blue light, while glutamate decreased, the newspaper wrote.

Researchers said the insects “make an appropriate analog for humans” because the same signaling devices are shared.

The flies were exposed with more blue light than people usually get. Dr. Giebultowicz said future research is needed on human cells.

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

Monkeypox, COVID, and polio: These three very different diseases have been dominating news cycles recently, but they share at least one common characteristic: some people can become infected – and in turn infect others – while showing no symptoms.

In 1883, the famous bacteriologist Friedrich Loeffler (1852-1915) recognized that an individual’s asymptomatic carriage of bacteria could lead to diphtheria in others. Now, as then, asymptomatically infected people present a conundrum: How do you fight the spread of a disease when you can’t identify some of the people who are spreading it?

“Typhoid Mary” is perhaps the quintessential example of asymptomatic transmission of infections leading to illness and death. At the turn of the 20th century, young Mary Mallon emigrated from Ireland to New York, where she soon became a cook for wealthy Manhattan families.

George Soper, a sanitary engineer, was hired by a stricken family to investigate. After epidemiologic study, he suspected that Mary was a carrier of Salmonella typhi, the bacterial cause of typhoid fever. He persuaded the New York Department of Health to test her – against her will – for infection. After her stool was found to test positive for Salmonella, Mary was forcibly moved to North Brother Island, where she remained largely isolated from others for the next 2 years. In 1910, she was released by a new commissioner after promising not to work as a cook.

However, working under an assumed name, Mary resumed cooking at the Sloane Hospital for Women in Manhattan. Over the next 3 months, at least 25 staff members became ill. Having been found out, Mary was again exiled to the island, where she spent the rest of her life. She died in 1938 after having infected at least 122 people, five of whom died.
 

COVID

Asymptomatic infections are primary drivers of COVID. Earlier in the pandemic, a meta-analysis suggested a 40% rate of asymptomatic infections, although some early reports arrived at lower estimates. A 2021 JAMA Network Open modeling study indicated a 60% rate.

Those rates are changing with the Omicron variants, of which even more cases are asymptomatic. Is this from a mutation in the virus? Some suggest that it is most likely attributable to prior vaccination resulting in boosted immunity and infections being milder. Of concern is that, although people may be asymptomatic, they still have the same viral load in their nose and can readily transmit infection.

Vincent Racaniello, PhD, a professor of virology at Columbia University in New York, told this news organization that “SARS-CoV-2 COVID is so effective at transmitting because it does this asymptomatic transmission. And so you’re out and about; you have no idea that you’re infected. You’re effectively doing what we call community transmission.”

This distinguishes SARS-CoV-2 from SARS-CoV-1. SARS-CoV-1 – which caused the SARS epidemic in 2002–2004 – had very little asymptomatic shedding. With COVID, on the other hand, “A lot of people are infected but never transmit,” Dr. Racaniello added. “I think 80% of transmissions are done by 20% of infected people because those are the ones who are shedding the most virus.”
 

Polio

The August case of paralytic polio in Rockland County, N.Y., is “the first case of polio reported in the United States in nearly 10 years, and only the second instance of community transmission identified in the U.S. since 1979,” a spokesperson for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said in an email. “Although no additional cases of polio have been reported at this time, recent wastewater findings elevate concerns that poliovirus is present in these communities, posing a risk to those who are unvaccinated.”

Poliovirus has now been found in the wastewater of New York City and three surrounding counties: Rockland, Orange, and Sullivan.

Unlike COVID, which is spread through air and respiratory secretions, polio has primarily fecal-oral transmission, meaning it is spread by people ingesting food or water contaminated with stool.

According to the World Health Organization, up to 90% of infections are unrecognized because the person has no to minimal symptoms. Symptoms are nonspecific in the remainder. Only a small proportion of those infected go on to develop paralysis.

Paul Offit, MD, a virologist and director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, told this news organization that before widespread immunization, polio “caused 25,000 – 30,000 children every year to be paralyzed and 1,500 to die. Roughly 1 of every 200 children who was infected was paralyzed. We had the inactivated vaccine followed by the oral polio vaccine (OPV). The price that we paid for the OPV was that rarely it could revert to the so-called neurovirulent type, a paralytic type.”

Use of the OPV was discontinued in 2000 in the United States but is still widely used worldwide because it is inexpensive and easier to administer than injections. It appeared that we were close to completely eradicating polio, as we had smallpox, but then vaccine-derived polio virus (VDPV) started cropping up in Africa, the Middle East, and Asia. They are mainly from the type 2 virus, as is the New York case. There have been three other cases of VDPV in the United States since 2000.

Now, Dr. Offit estimates that only 1 in 2,000 of those infected become paralyzed. This is why the CDC and epidemiologists are so concerned about the Rockland patient – that one case of paralysis could represent a large pool of people who are infected with polio and are asymptomatic, continuing to shed infectious virus into the sewage.

The CDC confirmed that it began conducting wastewater testing for polio in August 2022. In their interviews for this article, Dr. Offit and Dr. Racaniello were both critical of this, stressing that it is essential to do wastewater testing nationally, since asymptomatic polio can be expected to crop up from international travelers who have received OPV.

Many countries conduct that kind of wastewater surveillance. Dr. Racaniello was particularly critical of the CDC. “We’ve been telling CDC for years, at least a decade, Why don’t you check the wastewater?,” Dr. Racaniello said, “It’s been known for many years that we should be looking to monitor the circulation of these viruses. So we are using paralysis as a sentinel to say that this virus is in the wastewater, which is just not acceptable!”

Apparently there was some concern that the public would not understand. Dr. Offit viewed it as one more piece of necessary education: “You shouldn’t be alarmed about this as long as you’re vaccinated. If you’re not vaccinated, realize that this is a risk you’re taking.”
 

Monkeypox

Monkeypox cases have been skyrocketing in the United States in recent weeks. More than 18,000 cases have been reported since the first case in Boston on May 19, 2022.

“Monkeypox was such a rare zoonotic disease, and the disease always historically was introduced through animal contact,” Stuart Isaacs, MD, a pox virologist at the University of Pennsylvania, said in an interview. “And then the infected person would have potential spread within the household as the most common human-to-human spread, The sexual transmission is driving a lot of this infection and potentially allowing this to efficiently spread from person to person.”

A recent study from Belgium, available only as a preprint, created concerns about potential asymptomatic transmission of monkeypox Three men had undergone testing for anogenital chlamydia and gonorrhea but showed no clinical signs of monkeypox. The same samples were later tested by polymerase chain reaction (PCR), and their viral load in anorectal swabs was similar to or slightly lower than that of symptomatic patients. While no cultures were done, the patients seroconverted by later antibody testing, confirming infection.

Via email, a CDC spokesperson noted, “At this time, CDC does not have enough data to support transmission from aerosolized virus for the ongoing monkeypox outbreak, or to assess the risks for transmission from asymptomatic people. The data supports the main source of transmission currently as close contact with someone who is infected with monkeypox.”

Dr. Isaacs agreed, saying studies of smallpox, a related orthopox virus, also suggested this.

In the United Kingdom, the Institute of Tropical Medicine is offering PCR testing for monkeypox to all patients who come for gonorrhea/chlamydia screening. Dr. Racaniello said, “I think that would be great to get a sense of who is infected. Then you could look at the results and say what fraction of people go on to develop lesions, and they give you a sense of the asymptomatic rate, which we don’t know at this point.”

Unfortunately, to be tested for monkeypox in the United States requires that the patient have a lesion. “This is part of the dropped ball of public health in the U.S.,” Dr. Racaniello said. “We’re not thinking about this. .... We need to be doing [infectivity] experiments. So then the question is, how much infectious virus do you need to transmit?”
 

Conclusion

We’ve seen that asymptomatic carriage of bacteria and viruses occurs readily with typhoid, COVID, diphtheria, and polio (among many other organisms, such as methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus or group A strep) and is far less likely with monkeypox.

Two common denominators emerged from these interviews. The first and biggest hurdle is identifying asymptomatic carriers, which is hampered by the politicization of the CDC and funding cuts to public health. “It used to be the CDC was all about public health, and now it’s administrators, unfortunately,” said Dr. Racaniello, citing science writer Laurie Garrett, author of the influential 1994 book, “The Coming Plague”.

We don’t conduct proper surveillance, he pointed out. Wastewater surveillance has been neglected for more than a decade. It has been used for SARS-CoV-2 but is only now being initiated for polio and monkeypox. Norovirus testing would also be especially helpful in reducing foodborne outbreaks, Dr. Racaniello suggested.

The second common denominator is the need to increase the availability and uptake of vaccines. As Dr. Racaniello said about COVID, “The virus is here to stay. It’s never going to go away. It’s in humans. It’s in a lot of animals. So we’re stuck with it. We’re going to have outbreaks every year. So what do you do? Get vaccinated.” And he added, “Vaccination is the most important strategy to go on with our lives.”

Dr. Isaacs was a bit more tempered, not wanting to oversell the vaccine. He said, “The vaccine is just part of the toolkit,” which includes education, testing, isolation, and reducing risk, all of which decrease the transmission cycles.

Speaking of how antivaccine advocates had specifically targeted the Hasidic community in New York State’s Rockland County, Dr. Offit noted, “I don’t think it’s a knowledge deficit as much as a trust deficit.” He said officials should identify people in communities such as these who are trusted and have them become the influencers.

The final major hurdle to controlling these outbreaks remains global disparities in care. Monkeypox has been endemic in Nigeria for decades. It was only when it spread to Europe and America that it received attention. Polio has been actively circulating in Africa and the Middle East but is only getting attention because of the New York case.

Africa was unable to afford COVID vaccines until recently. While many in the United States are on their fourth booster, as of December 2021, more than 80% of people in Africa had not yet received a single dose, according to an article by Munyaradzi Makoni in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine.

Echoing Dr. Peter Hotez’s long-standing plea for “vaccine diplomacy,” Dr. Racaniello concluded, “My philosophy has always been we should give [vaccines] to them. I mean, we spend trillions on guns. Can’t we spend a few hundred million on vaccines? We should give away everything in terms of medicine to countries that need it, and people would like us a lot better than they do now. I think it would be such a great way of getting countries to like us. … So what if it costs a billion dollars a year? It’s a drop in the bucket for us.”

Given globalization, an infectious outbreak anywhere is a risk to all.

Dr. Racaniello and Dr. Offit report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Isaacs receives royalties from UpToDate.

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

Monkeypox, COVID, and polio: These three very different diseases have been dominating news cycles recently, but they share at least one common characteristic: some people can become infected – and in turn infect others – while showing no symptoms.

In 1883, the famous bacteriologist Friedrich Loeffler (1852-1915) recognized that an individual’s asymptomatic carriage of bacteria could lead to diphtheria in others. Now, as then, asymptomatically infected people present a conundrum: How do you fight the spread of a disease when you can’t identify some of the people who are spreading it?

“Typhoid Mary” is perhaps the quintessential example of asymptomatic transmission of infections leading to illness and death. At the turn of the 20th century, young Mary Mallon emigrated from Ireland to New York, where she soon became a cook for wealthy Manhattan families.

George Soper, a sanitary engineer, was hired by a stricken family to investigate. After epidemiologic study, he suspected that Mary was a carrier of Salmonella typhi, the bacterial cause of typhoid fever. He persuaded the New York Department of Health to test her – against her will – for infection. After her stool was found to test positive for Salmonella, Mary was forcibly moved to North Brother Island, where she remained largely isolated from others for the next 2 years. In 1910, she was released by a new commissioner after promising not to work as a cook.

However, working under an assumed name, Mary resumed cooking at the Sloane Hospital for Women in Manhattan. Over the next 3 months, at least 25 staff members became ill. Having been found out, Mary was again exiled to the island, where she spent the rest of her life. She died in 1938 after having infected at least 122 people, five of whom died.
 

COVID

Asymptomatic infections are primary drivers of COVID. Earlier in the pandemic, a meta-analysis suggested a 40% rate of asymptomatic infections, although some early reports arrived at lower estimates. A 2021 JAMA Network Open modeling study indicated a 60% rate.

Those rates are changing with the Omicron variants, of which even more cases are asymptomatic. Is this from a mutation in the virus? Some suggest that it is most likely attributable to prior vaccination resulting in boosted immunity and infections being milder. Of concern is that, although people may be asymptomatic, they still have the same viral load in their nose and can readily transmit infection.

Vincent Racaniello, PhD, a professor of virology at Columbia University in New York, told this news organization that “SARS-CoV-2 COVID is so effective at transmitting because it does this asymptomatic transmission. And so you’re out and about; you have no idea that you’re infected. You’re effectively doing what we call community transmission.”

This distinguishes SARS-CoV-2 from SARS-CoV-1. SARS-CoV-1 – which caused the SARS epidemic in 2002–2004 – had very little asymptomatic shedding. With COVID, on the other hand, “A lot of people are infected but never transmit,” Dr. Racaniello added. “I think 80% of transmissions are done by 20% of infected people because those are the ones who are shedding the most virus.”
 

Polio

The August case of paralytic polio in Rockland County, N.Y., is “the first case of polio reported in the United States in nearly 10 years, and only the second instance of community transmission identified in the U.S. since 1979,” a spokesperson for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said in an email. “Although no additional cases of polio have been reported at this time, recent wastewater findings elevate concerns that poliovirus is present in these communities, posing a risk to those who are unvaccinated.”

Poliovirus has now been found in the wastewater of New York City and three surrounding counties: Rockland, Orange, and Sullivan.

Unlike COVID, which is spread through air and respiratory secretions, polio has primarily fecal-oral transmission, meaning it is spread by people ingesting food or water contaminated with stool.

According to the World Health Organization, up to 90% of infections are unrecognized because the person has no to minimal symptoms. Symptoms are nonspecific in the remainder. Only a small proportion of those infected go on to develop paralysis.

Paul Offit, MD, a virologist and director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, told this news organization that before widespread immunization, polio “caused 25,000 – 30,000 children every year to be paralyzed and 1,500 to die. Roughly 1 of every 200 children who was infected was paralyzed. We had the inactivated vaccine followed by the oral polio vaccine (OPV). The price that we paid for the OPV was that rarely it could revert to the so-called neurovirulent type, a paralytic type.”

Use of the OPV was discontinued in 2000 in the United States but is still widely used worldwide because it is inexpensive and easier to administer than injections. It appeared that we were close to completely eradicating polio, as we had smallpox, but then vaccine-derived polio virus (VDPV) started cropping up in Africa, the Middle East, and Asia. They are mainly from the type 2 virus, as is the New York case. There have been three other cases of VDPV in the United States since 2000.

Now, Dr. Offit estimates that only 1 in 2,000 of those infected become paralyzed. This is why the CDC and epidemiologists are so concerned about the Rockland patient – that one case of paralysis could represent a large pool of people who are infected with polio and are asymptomatic, continuing to shed infectious virus into the sewage.

The CDC confirmed that it began conducting wastewater testing for polio in August 2022. In their interviews for this article, Dr. Offit and Dr. Racaniello were both critical of this, stressing that it is essential to do wastewater testing nationally, since asymptomatic polio can be expected to crop up from international travelers who have received OPV.

Many countries conduct that kind of wastewater surveillance. Dr. Racaniello was particularly critical of the CDC. “We’ve been telling CDC for years, at least a decade, Why don’t you check the wastewater?,” Dr. Racaniello said, “It’s been known for many years that we should be looking to monitor the circulation of these viruses. So we are using paralysis as a sentinel to say that this virus is in the wastewater, which is just not acceptable!”

Apparently there was some concern that the public would not understand. Dr. Offit viewed it as one more piece of necessary education: “You shouldn’t be alarmed about this as long as you’re vaccinated. If you’re not vaccinated, realize that this is a risk you’re taking.”
 

Monkeypox

Monkeypox cases have been skyrocketing in the United States in recent weeks. More than 18,000 cases have been reported since the first case in Boston on May 19, 2022.

“Monkeypox was such a rare zoonotic disease, and the disease always historically was introduced through animal contact,” Stuart Isaacs, MD, a pox virologist at the University of Pennsylvania, said in an interview. “And then the infected person would have potential spread within the household as the most common human-to-human spread, The sexual transmission is driving a lot of this infection and potentially allowing this to efficiently spread from person to person.”

A recent study from Belgium, available only as a preprint, created concerns about potential asymptomatic transmission of monkeypox Three men had undergone testing for anogenital chlamydia and gonorrhea but showed no clinical signs of monkeypox. The same samples were later tested by polymerase chain reaction (PCR), and their viral load in anorectal swabs was similar to or slightly lower than that of symptomatic patients. While no cultures were done, the patients seroconverted by later antibody testing, confirming infection.

Via email, a CDC spokesperson noted, “At this time, CDC does not have enough data to support transmission from aerosolized virus for the ongoing monkeypox outbreak, or to assess the risks for transmission from asymptomatic people. The data supports the main source of transmission currently as close contact with someone who is infected with monkeypox.”

Dr. Isaacs agreed, saying studies of smallpox, a related orthopox virus, also suggested this.

In the United Kingdom, the Institute of Tropical Medicine is offering PCR testing for monkeypox to all patients who come for gonorrhea/chlamydia screening. Dr. Racaniello said, “I think that would be great to get a sense of who is infected. Then you could look at the results and say what fraction of people go on to develop lesions, and they give you a sense of the asymptomatic rate, which we don’t know at this point.”

Unfortunately, to be tested for monkeypox in the United States requires that the patient have a lesion. “This is part of the dropped ball of public health in the U.S.,” Dr. Racaniello said. “We’re not thinking about this. .... We need to be doing [infectivity] experiments. So then the question is, how much infectious virus do you need to transmit?”
 

Conclusion

We’ve seen that asymptomatic carriage of bacteria and viruses occurs readily with typhoid, COVID, diphtheria, and polio (among many other organisms, such as methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus or group A strep) and is far less likely with monkeypox.

Two common denominators emerged from these interviews. The first and biggest hurdle is identifying asymptomatic carriers, which is hampered by the politicization of the CDC and funding cuts to public health. “It used to be the CDC was all about public health, and now it’s administrators, unfortunately,” said Dr. Racaniello, citing science writer Laurie Garrett, author of the influential 1994 book, “The Coming Plague”.

We don’t conduct proper surveillance, he pointed out. Wastewater surveillance has been neglected for more than a decade. It has been used for SARS-CoV-2 but is only now being initiated for polio and monkeypox. Norovirus testing would also be especially helpful in reducing foodborne outbreaks, Dr. Racaniello suggested.

The second common denominator is the need to increase the availability and uptake of vaccines. As Dr. Racaniello said about COVID, “The virus is here to stay. It’s never going to go away. It’s in humans. It’s in a lot of animals. So we’re stuck with it. We’re going to have outbreaks every year. So what do you do? Get vaccinated.” And he added, “Vaccination is the most important strategy to go on with our lives.”

Dr. Isaacs was a bit more tempered, not wanting to oversell the vaccine. He said, “The vaccine is just part of the toolkit,” which includes education, testing, isolation, and reducing risk, all of which decrease the transmission cycles.

Speaking of how antivaccine advocates had specifically targeted the Hasidic community in New York State’s Rockland County, Dr. Offit noted, “I don’t think it’s a knowledge deficit as much as a trust deficit.” He said officials should identify people in communities such as these who are trusted and have them become the influencers.

The final major hurdle to controlling these outbreaks remains global disparities in care. Monkeypox has been endemic in Nigeria for decades. It was only when it spread to Europe and America that it received attention. Polio has been actively circulating in Africa and the Middle East but is only getting attention because of the New York case.

Africa was unable to afford COVID vaccines until recently. While many in the United States are on their fourth booster, as of December 2021, more than 80% of people in Africa had not yet received a single dose, according to an article by Munyaradzi Makoni in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine.

Echoing Dr. Peter Hotez’s long-standing plea for “vaccine diplomacy,” Dr. Racaniello concluded, “My philosophy has always been we should give [vaccines] to them. I mean, we spend trillions on guns. Can’t we spend a few hundred million on vaccines? We should give away everything in terms of medicine to countries that need it, and people would like us a lot better than they do now. I think it would be such a great way of getting countries to like us. … So what if it costs a billion dollars a year? It’s a drop in the bucket for us.”

Given globalization, an infectious outbreak anywhere is a risk to all.

Dr. Racaniello and Dr. Offit report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Isaacs receives royalties from UpToDate.

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

Monkeypox, COVID, and polio: These three very different diseases have been dominating news cycles recently, but they share at least one common characteristic: some people can become infected – and in turn infect others – while showing no symptoms.

In 1883, the famous bacteriologist Friedrich Loeffler (1852-1915) recognized that an individual’s asymptomatic carriage of bacteria could lead to diphtheria in others. Now, as then, asymptomatically infected people present a conundrum: How do you fight the spread of a disease when you can’t identify some of the people who are spreading it?

“Typhoid Mary” is perhaps the quintessential example of asymptomatic transmission of infections leading to illness and death. At the turn of the 20th century, young Mary Mallon emigrated from Ireland to New York, where she soon became a cook for wealthy Manhattan families.

George Soper, a sanitary engineer, was hired by a stricken family to investigate. After epidemiologic study, he suspected that Mary was a carrier of Salmonella typhi, the bacterial cause of typhoid fever. He persuaded the New York Department of Health to test her – against her will – for infection. After her stool was found to test positive for Salmonella, Mary was forcibly moved to North Brother Island, where she remained largely isolated from others for the next 2 years. In 1910, she was released by a new commissioner after promising not to work as a cook.

However, working under an assumed name, Mary resumed cooking at the Sloane Hospital for Women in Manhattan. Over the next 3 months, at least 25 staff members became ill. Having been found out, Mary was again exiled to the island, where she spent the rest of her life. She died in 1938 after having infected at least 122 people, five of whom died.
 

COVID

Asymptomatic infections are primary drivers of COVID. Earlier in the pandemic, a meta-analysis suggested a 40% rate of asymptomatic infections, although some early reports arrived at lower estimates. A 2021 JAMA Network Open modeling study indicated a 60% rate.

Those rates are changing with the Omicron variants, of which even more cases are asymptomatic. Is this from a mutation in the virus? Some suggest that it is most likely attributable to prior vaccination resulting in boosted immunity and infections being milder. Of concern is that, although people may be asymptomatic, they still have the same viral load in their nose and can readily transmit infection.

Vincent Racaniello, PhD, a professor of virology at Columbia University in New York, told this news organization that “SARS-CoV-2 COVID is so effective at transmitting because it does this asymptomatic transmission. And so you’re out and about; you have no idea that you’re infected. You’re effectively doing what we call community transmission.”

This distinguishes SARS-CoV-2 from SARS-CoV-1. SARS-CoV-1 – which caused the SARS epidemic in 2002–2004 – had very little asymptomatic shedding. With COVID, on the other hand, “A lot of people are infected but never transmit,” Dr. Racaniello added. “I think 80% of transmissions are done by 20% of infected people because those are the ones who are shedding the most virus.”
 

Polio

The August case of paralytic polio in Rockland County, N.Y., is “the first case of polio reported in the United States in nearly 10 years, and only the second instance of community transmission identified in the U.S. since 1979,” a spokesperson for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said in an email. “Although no additional cases of polio have been reported at this time, recent wastewater findings elevate concerns that poliovirus is present in these communities, posing a risk to those who are unvaccinated.”

Poliovirus has now been found in the wastewater of New York City and three surrounding counties: Rockland, Orange, and Sullivan.

Unlike COVID, which is spread through air and respiratory secretions, polio has primarily fecal-oral transmission, meaning it is spread by people ingesting food or water contaminated with stool.

According to the World Health Organization, up to 90% of infections are unrecognized because the person has no to minimal symptoms. Symptoms are nonspecific in the remainder. Only a small proportion of those infected go on to develop paralysis.

Paul Offit, MD, a virologist and director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, told this news organization that before widespread immunization, polio “caused 25,000 – 30,000 children every year to be paralyzed and 1,500 to die. Roughly 1 of every 200 children who was infected was paralyzed. We had the inactivated vaccine followed by the oral polio vaccine (OPV). The price that we paid for the OPV was that rarely it could revert to the so-called neurovirulent type, a paralytic type.”

Use of the OPV was discontinued in 2000 in the United States but is still widely used worldwide because it is inexpensive and easier to administer than injections. It appeared that we were close to completely eradicating polio, as we had smallpox, but then vaccine-derived polio virus (VDPV) started cropping up in Africa, the Middle East, and Asia. They are mainly from the type 2 virus, as is the New York case. There have been three other cases of VDPV in the United States since 2000.

Now, Dr. Offit estimates that only 1 in 2,000 of those infected become paralyzed. This is why the CDC and epidemiologists are so concerned about the Rockland patient – that one case of paralysis could represent a large pool of people who are infected with polio and are asymptomatic, continuing to shed infectious virus into the sewage.

The CDC confirmed that it began conducting wastewater testing for polio in August 2022. In their interviews for this article, Dr. Offit and Dr. Racaniello were both critical of this, stressing that it is essential to do wastewater testing nationally, since asymptomatic polio can be expected to crop up from international travelers who have received OPV.

Many countries conduct that kind of wastewater surveillance. Dr. Racaniello was particularly critical of the CDC. “We’ve been telling CDC for years, at least a decade, Why don’t you check the wastewater?,” Dr. Racaniello said, “It’s been known for many years that we should be looking to monitor the circulation of these viruses. So we are using paralysis as a sentinel to say that this virus is in the wastewater, which is just not acceptable!”

Apparently there was some concern that the public would not understand. Dr. Offit viewed it as one more piece of necessary education: “You shouldn’t be alarmed about this as long as you’re vaccinated. If you’re not vaccinated, realize that this is a risk you’re taking.”
 

Monkeypox

Monkeypox cases have been skyrocketing in the United States in recent weeks. More than 18,000 cases have been reported since the first case in Boston on May 19, 2022.

“Monkeypox was such a rare zoonotic disease, and the disease always historically was introduced through animal contact,” Stuart Isaacs, MD, a pox virologist at the University of Pennsylvania, said in an interview. “And then the infected person would have potential spread within the household as the most common human-to-human spread, The sexual transmission is driving a lot of this infection and potentially allowing this to efficiently spread from person to person.”

A recent study from Belgium, available only as a preprint, created concerns about potential asymptomatic transmission of monkeypox Three men had undergone testing for anogenital chlamydia and gonorrhea but showed no clinical signs of monkeypox. The same samples were later tested by polymerase chain reaction (PCR), and their viral load in anorectal swabs was similar to or slightly lower than that of symptomatic patients. While no cultures were done, the patients seroconverted by later antibody testing, confirming infection.

Via email, a CDC spokesperson noted, “At this time, CDC does not have enough data to support transmission from aerosolized virus for the ongoing monkeypox outbreak, or to assess the risks for transmission from asymptomatic people. The data supports the main source of transmission currently as close contact with someone who is infected with monkeypox.”

Dr. Isaacs agreed, saying studies of smallpox, a related orthopox virus, also suggested this.

In the United Kingdom, the Institute of Tropical Medicine is offering PCR testing for monkeypox to all patients who come for gonorrhea/chlamydia screening. Dr. Racaniello said, “I think that would be great to get a sense of who is infected. Then you could look at the results and say what fraction of people go on to develop lesions, and they give you a sense of the asymptomatic rate, which we don’t know at this point.”

Unfortunately, to be tested for monkeypox in the United States requires that the patient have a lesion. “This is part of the dropped ball of public health in the U.S.,” Dr. Racaniello said. “We’re not thinking about this. .... We need to be doing [infectivity] experiments. So then the question is, how much infectious virus do you need to transmit?”
 

Conclusion

We’ve seen that asymptomatic carriage of bacteria and viruses occurs readily with typhoid, COVID, diphtheria, and polio (among many other organisms, such as methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus or group A strep) and is far less likely with monkeypox.

Two common denominators emerged from these interviews. The first and biggest hurdle is identifying asymptomatic carriers, which is hampered by the politicization of the CDC and funding cuts to public health. “It used to be the CDC was all about public health, and now it’s administrators, unfortunately,” said Dr. Racaniello, citing science writer Laurie Garrett, author of the influential 1994 book, “The Coming Plague”.

We don’t conduct proper surveillance, he pointed out. Wastewater surveillance has been neglected for more than a decade. It has been used for SARS-CoV-2 but is only now being initiated for polio and monkeypox. Norovirus testing would also be especially helpful in reducing foodborne outbreaks, Dr. Racaniello suggested.

The second common denominator is the need to increase the availability and uptake of vaccines. As Dr. Racaniello said about COVID, “The virus is here to stay. It’s never going to go away. It’s in humans. It’s in a lot of animals. So we’re stuck with it. We’re going to have outbreaks every year. So what do you do? Get vaccinated.” And he added, “Vaccination is the most important strategy to go on with our lives.”

Dr. Isaacs was a bit more tempered, not wanting to oversell the vaccine. He said, “The vaccine is just part of the toolkit,” which includes education, testing, isolation, and reducing risk, all of which decrease the transmission cycles.

Speaking of how antivaccine advocates had specifically targeted the Hasidic community in New York State’s Rockland County, Dr. Offit noted, “I don’t think it’s a knowledge deficit as much as a trust deficit.” He said officials should identify people in communities such as these who are trusted and have them become the influencers.

The final major hurdle to controlling these outbreaks remains global disparities in care. Monkeypox has been endemic in Nigeria for decades. It was only when it spread to Europe and America that it received attention. Polio has been actively circulating in Africa and the Middle East but is only getting attention because of the New York case.

Africa was unable to afford COVID vaccines until recently. While many in the United States are on their fourth booster, as of December 2021, more than 80% of people in Africa had not yet received a single dose, according to an article by Munyaradzi Makoni in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine.

Echoing Dr. Peter Hotez’s long-standing plea for “vaccine diplomacy,” Dr. Racaniello concluded, “My philosophy has always been we should give [vaccines] to them. I mean, we spend trillions on guns. Can’t we spend a few hundred million on vaccines? We should give away everything in terms of medicine to countries that need it, and people would like us a lot better than they do now. I think it would be such a great way of getting countries to like us. … So what if it costs a billion dollars a year? It’s a drop in the bucket for us.”

Given globalization, an infectious outbreak anywhere is a risk to all.

Dr. Racaniello and Dr. Offit report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Isaacs receives royalties from UpToDate.

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on Sept. 1 approved the use of vaccines designed to target both Omicron and the older variants of the coronavirus, a step that may aid a goal of a widespread immunization campaign before winter arrives in the United States.

The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted 13-1 on two separate questions. One sought the panel’s backing for the use of a single dose of a new version of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccines for people aged 12 and older. The second question dealt with a single dose of the reworked Moderna vaccine for people aged 18 and older.

The federal government wants to speed use of revamped COVID-19 shots, which the Food and Drug Administration on Sept. 1 cleared for use in the United States. Hours later, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, agreed with the panel’s recommendation. 

“The updated COVID-19 boosters are formulated to better protect against the most recently circulating COVID-19 variant,” Dr. Walensky said in a statement. “They can help restore protection that has waned since previous vaccination and were designed to provide broader protection against newer variants. This recommendation followed a comprehensive scientific evaluation and robust scientific discussion. If you are eligible, there is no bad time to get your COVID-19 booster and I strongly encourage you to receive it.”

The FDA vote on Aug. 31 expanded the emergency use authorization EUA for both Moderna and Pfizer’s original COVID-19 vaccines. The new products are also called “updated boosters.” Both contain two mRNA components of SARS-CoV-2 virus, one of the original strain  and another that is found in the BA.4 and BA.5 strains of the Omicron variant, the FDA said.

Basically, the FDA cleared the way for these new boosters after it relied heavily on results of certain blood tests that suggested an immune response boost from the new formulas, plus 18 months of mostly safe use of the original versions of the shots.

What neither the FDA nor the CDC has, however, is evidence from studies in humans on how well these new vaccines work or whether they are as safe as the originals. But the FDA did consider clinical evidence for the older shots and results from studies on the new boosters that were done in mice.

ACIP Committee member Pablo Sanchez, MD, of Ohio State University was the sole “no” vote on each question.  

“It’s a new vaccine, it’s a new platform. There’s a lot of hesitancy already. We need the human data,”  Dr. Sanchez said.

Dr. Sanchez did not doubt that the newer versions of the vaccine would prove safe.

“I personally am in the age group where I’m at high risk and I’m almost sure that I will receive it,” Dr. Sanchez said. “I just feel that this was a bit premature, and I wish that we had seen that data. Having said that, I am comfortable that the vaccine will likely be safe like the others.”

Dr. Sanchez was not alone in raising concerns about backing new COVID-19 shots for which there is not direct clinical evidence from human studies.

Committee member Sarah Long, MD, of Drexel University in Philadelphia, said during the discussion she would “reluctantly” vote in favor of the updated vaccines. She said she believes they will have the potential to reduce hospitalizations and even deaths, even with questions remaining about the data.

Dr. Long joined other committee members in pointing to the approach to updating flu vaccines as a model. In an attempt to keep ahead of influenza, companies seek to defeat new strains through tweaks to their FDA-approved vaccines. There is not much clinical information available about these revised products, Dr. Long said. She compared it to remodeling an existing home.

“It is the same scaffolding, part of the same roof, we’re just putting in some dormers and windows,” with the revisions to the flu vaccine, she said.

Earlier in the day, committee member Jamie Loehr, MD,  of Cayuga Family Medicine in Ithaca, N.Y., also used changes to the annual flu shots as the model for advancing COVID-19 shots.

“So after thinking about it, I am comfortable even though we don’t have human data,” he said.

There were several questions during the meeting about why the FDA had not convened a meeting of its Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (regarding these specific bivalent vaccines). Typically, the FDA committee of advisers considers new vaccines before the agency authorizes their use. In this case, however, the agency acted on its own.

The FDA said the committee considered the new, bivalent COVID-19 boosters in earlier meetings and that was enough outside feedback.

But holding a meeting of advisers on these specific products could have helped build public confidence in these medicines, Dorit Reiss, PhD, of the University of California Hastings College of Law, said during the public comment session of the CDC advisers’ meeting.

“We could wish the vaccines were more effective against infection, but they’re safe and they prevent hospitalization and death,” she said.

The Department of Health and Human Services anticipated the backing of ACIP. The Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response  on Aug. 31 began distributing “millions of doses of the updated booster to tens of thousands of sites nationwide,” Jason Roos, PhD,  chief operating officer for HHS Coordination Operations and Response Element, wrote in a blog.

“These boosters will be available at tens of thousands of vaccination sites ... including local pharmacies, their physicians’ offices, and vaccine centers operated by state and local health officials,”Dr. Roos wrote.

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on Sept. 1 approved the use of vaccines designed to target both Omicron and the older variants of the coronavirus, a step that may aid a goal of a widespread immunization campaign before winter arrives in the United States.

The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted 13-1 on two separate questions. One sought the panel’s backing for the use of a single dose of a new version of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccines for people aged 12 and older. The second question dealt with a single dose of the reworked Moderna vaccine for people aged 18 and older.

The federal government wants to speed use of revamped COVID-19 shots, which the Food and Drug Administration on Sept. 1 cleared for use in the United States. Hours later, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, agreed with the panel’s recommendation. 

“The updated COVID-19 boosters are formulated to better protect against the most recently circulating COVID-19 variant,” Dr. Walensky said in a statement. “They can help restore protection that has waned since previous vaccination and were designed to provide broader protection against newer variants. This recommendation followed a comprehensive scientific evaluation and robust scientific discussion. If you are eligible, there is no bad time to get your COVID-19 booster and I strongly encourage you to receive it.”

The FDA vote on Aug. 31 expanded the emergency use authorization EUA for both Moderna and Pfizer’s original COVID-19 vaccines. The new products are also called “updated boosters.” Both contain two mRNA components of SARS-CoV-2 virus, one of the original strain  and another that is found in the BA.4 and BA.5 strains of the Omicron variant, the FDA said.

Basically, the FDA cleared the way for these new boosters after it relied heavily on results of certain blood tests that suggested an immune response boost from the new formulas, plus 18 months of mostly safe use of the original versions of the shots.

What neither the FDA nor the CDC has, however, is evidence from studies in humans on how well these new vaccines work or whether they are as safe as the originals. But the FDA did consider clinical evidence for the older shots and results from studies on the new boosters that were done in mice.

ACIP Committee member Pablo Sanchez, MD, of Ohio State University was the sole “no” vote on each question.  

“It’s a new vaccine, it’s a new platform. There’s a lot of hesitancy already. We need the human data,”  Dr. Sanchez said.

Dr. Sanchez did not doubt that the newer versions of the vaccine would prove safe.

“I personally am in the age group where I’m at high risk and I’m almost sure that I will receive it,” Dr. Sanchez said. “I just feel that this was a bit premature, and I wish that we had seen that data. Having said that, I am comfortable that the vaccine will likely be safe like the others.”

Dr. Sanchez was not alone in raising concerns about backing new COVID-19 shots for which there is not direct clinical evidence from human studies.

Committee member Sarah Long, MD, of Drexel University in Philadelphia, said during the discussion she would “reluctantly” vote in favor of the updated vaccines. She said she believes they will have the potential to reduce hospitalizations and even deaths, even with questions remaining about the data.

Dr. Long joined other committee members in pointing to the approach to updating flu vaccines as a model. In an attempt to keep ahead of influenza, companies seek to defeat new strains through tweaks to their FDA-approved vaccines. There is not much clinical information available about these revised products, Dr. Long said. She compared it to remodeling an existing home.

“It is the same scaffolding, part of the same roof, we’re just putting in some dormers and windows,” with the revisions to the flu vaccine, she said.

Earlier in the day, committee member Jamie Loehr, MD,  of Cayuga Family Medicine in Ithaca, N.Y., also used changes to the annual flu shots as the model for advancing COVID-19 shots.

“So after thinking about it, I am comfortable even though we don’t have human data,” he said.

There were several questions during the meeting about why the FDA had not convened a meeting of its Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (regarding these specific bivalent vaccines). Typically, the FDA committee of advisers considers new vaccines before the agency authorizes their use. In this case, however, the agency acted on its own.

The FDA said the committee considered the new, bivalent COVID-19 boosters in earlier meetings and that was enough outside feedback.

But holding a meeting of advisers on these specific products could have helped build public confidence in these medicines, Dorit Reiss, PhD, of the University of California Hastings College of Law, said during the public comment session of the CDC advisers’ meeting.

“We could wish the vaccines were more effective against infection, but they’re safe and they prevent hospitalization and death,” she said.

The Department of Health and Human Services anticipated the backing of ACIP. The Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response  on Aug. 31 began distributing “millions of doses of the updated booster to tens of thousands of sites nationwide,” Jason Roos, PhD,  chief operating officer for HHS Coordination Operations and Response Element, wrote in a blog.

“These boosters will be available at tens of thousands of vaccination sites ... including local pharmacies, their physicians’ offices, and vaccine centers operated by state and local health officials,”Dr. Roos wrote.

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on Sept. 1 approved the use of vaccines designed to target both Omicron and the older variants of the coronavirus, a step that may aid a goal of a widespread immunization campaign before winter arrives in the United States.

The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted 13-1 on two separate questions. One sought the panel’s backing for the use of a single dose of a new version of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccines for people aged 12 and older. The second question dealt with a single dose of the reworked Moderna vaccine for people aged 18 and older.

The federal government wants to speed use of revamped COVID-19 shots, which the Food and Drug Administration on Sept. 1 cleared for use in the United States. Hours later, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, agreed with the panel’s recommendation. 

“The updated COVID-19 boosters are formulated to better protect against the most recently circulating COVID-19 variant,” Dr. Walensky said in a statement. “They can help restore protection that has waned since previous vaccination and were designed to provide broader protection against newer variants. This recommendation followed a comprehensive scientific evaluation and robust scientific discussion. If you are eligible, there is no bad time to get your COVID-19 booster and I strongly encourage you to receive it.”

The FDA vote on Aug. 31 expanded the emergency use authorization EUA for both Moderna and Pfizer’s original COVID-19 vaccines. The new products are also called “updated boosters.” Both contain two mRNA components of SARS-CoV-2 virus, one of the original strain  and another that is found in the BA.4 and BA.5 strains of the Omicron variant, the FDA said.

Basically, the FDA cleared the way for these new boosters after it relied heavily on results of certain blood tests that suggested an immune response boost from the new formulas, plus 18 months of mostly safe use of the original versions of the shots.

What neither the FDA nor the CDC has, however, is evidence from studies in humans on how well these new vaccines work or whether they are as safe as the originals. But the FDA did consider clinical evidence for the older shots and results from studies on the new boosters that were done in mice.

ACIP Committee member Pablo Sanchez, MD, of Ohio State University was the sole “no” vote on each question.  

“It’s a new vaccine, it’s a new platform. There’s a lot of hesitancy already. We need the human data,”  Dr. Sanchez said.

Dr. Sanchez did not doubt that the newer versions of the vaccine would prove safe.

“I personally am in the age group where I’m at high risk and I’m almost sure that I will receive it,” Dr. Sanchez said. “I just feel that this was a bit premature, and I wish that we had seen that data. Having said that, I am comfortable that the vaccine will likely be safe like the others.”

Dr. Sanchez was not alone in raising concerns about backing new COVID-19 shots for which there is not direct clinical evidence from human studies.

Committee member Sarah Long, MD, of Drexel University in Philadelphia, said during the discussion she would “reluctantly” vote in favor of the updated vaccines. She said she believes they will have the potential to reduce hospitalizations and even deaths, even with questions remaining about the data.

Dr. Long joined other committee members in pointing to the approach to updating flu vaccines as a model. In an attempt to keep ahead of influenza, companies seek to defeat new strains through tweaks to their FDA-approved vaccines. There is not much clinical information available about these revised products, Dr. Long said. She compared it to remodeling an existing home.

“It is the same scaffolding, part of the same roof, we’re just putting in some dormers and windows,” with the revisions to the flu vaccine, she said.

Earlier in the day, committee member Jamie Loehr, MD,  of Cayuga Family Medicine in Ithaca, N.Y., also used changes to the annual flu shots as the model for advancing COVID-19 shots.

“So after thinking about it, I am comfortable even though we don’t have human data,” he said.

There were several questions during the meeting about why the FDA had not convened a meeting of its Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (regarding these specific bivalent vaccines). Typically, the FDA committee of advisers considers new vaccines before the agency authorizes their use. In this case, however, the agency acted on its own.

The FDA said the committee considered the new, bivalent COVID-19 boosters in earlier meetings and that was enough outside feedback.

But holding a meeting of advisers on these specific products could have helped build public confidence in these medicines, Dorit Reiss, PhD, of the University of California Hastings College of Law, said during the public comment session of the CDC advisers’ meeting.

“We could wish the vaccines were more effective against infection, but they’re safe and they prevent hospitalization and death,” she said.

The Department of Health and Human Services anticipated the backing of ACIP. The Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response  on Aug. 31 began distributing “millions of doses of the updated booster to tens of thousands of sites nationwide,” Jason Roos, PhD,  chief operating officer for HHS Coordination Operations and Response Element, wrote in a blog.

“These boosters will be available at tens of thousands of vaccination sites ... including local pharmacies, their physicians’ offices, and vaccine centers operated by state and local health officials,”Dr. Roos wrote.

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

BARCELONA – Two noninvasive imaging methods for assessing coronary artery disease – cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) and positron emission tomography using rubidium stress (RbPET) – had nearly identical accuracy for ruling-in or ruling-out coronary disease, making them for at least the time being equally appropriate to use when assessing low- or intermediate-risk patients with symptoms suggestive of possible coronary disease in a prospective, multicenter study with 372 patients.

RbPET and CMR using a 3 Tesla device showed “absolutely similar performance,” in a head-to-head comparison that used fractional flow reserve assessment via invasive coronary angiography in each patient in the study as the arbiter of the true extent of coronary disease, reported Morten Bøttcher, MD, PhD, at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge

This result is good news for practice because clinicians can feel free to use whichever of the two assessment methods is most feasible for each patient, said Dr. Bøttcher, a researcher at Aarhus (Denmark) University Hospital. But the study was limited by its size, and he hopes to run a future study with many more patients to try to more definitively compare RbPET and CMR.

‘The techniques are probably interchangeable’

“There is a very clear result from the data: The performance of the two modalities is similar in the population studied,” commented Colin Berry, MBChB, PhD, professor of cardiology and imaging at the University of Glasgow (Scotland), and designated discussant for the report. “The techniques are probably interchangeable,” he said.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge

Dr. Bøttcher and his associates designed the Danish Study of Non-Invasive Diagnostic Testing in Coronary Artery Disease 2 (Dan-NICAD 2) to address a knowledge gap highlighted in the 2019 guidelines of the European Society of Cardiology for the management of patients with chronic coronary syndromes, specifically low- or intermediate-risk patients who present with symptoms of possible coronary disease who have been identified as having possibly stenotic coronary lesions using coronary CT angiography. The guidelines cite using noninvasive imaging at this point prior to invasive angiography, but note that the relative performance of the various imaging options available for this step in unknown, said Dr. Bøttcher.

The researchers enrolled 372 patients at any of four hospitals in Denmark who agreed to participate and had a positive result on a coronary CT examination performed to assess their symptoms of coronary disease. (These 372 patients came from an initial pool of people that was fourfold larger, but three-quarters had negative findings on their coronary CT examination.) Clinicians had referred all of these patients to invasive angiography with fractional flow reserve assessment, and prior to that procedure they each underwent both a RbPET and a CMR examination for the purpose of this study. The researchers used each patient’s eventual invasive angiography result as the definitive determinant of their coronary disease. These patients averaged 64 years old, and 71% were men.

This analysis showed that for all 372 patients RbPET had 63% sensitivity and 87% specificity for identifying hemodynamically obstructive coronary disease, with rates of 60% and 85%, respectively, for CMR. In the subgroup of 71 patients (19%) who had obstructive coronary disease when examined by invasive angiography the sensitivity and specificity of the RbPET examination was 90% and 78%, and for CMR the sensitivity and specificity was 83% and 76%, Dr. Bøttcher reported.

Negative imaging, positive FFR

He also noted that it remains unclear how to best manage patients who show no signs of ischemia when examined by RbPET or CMR, but have an apparently hemodynamically meaningful coronary lesion when assessed by invasive angiography and fractional flow reserve. “We don’t know whether we should be guided by the negative scan or by the positive FFR result,” Dr. Bøttcher said. “There is a challenge when you get different results.”

In addition, the two compared imaging methods both have logistical limitations. RbPET involved radiation exposure, and CMR performed with a 3-tesla device may not be as widely available and requires more expensive equipment.

Dr. Berry also noted that imaging methods continue to advance. For example, the CMR examinations used in the study involved qualitative assessments, but quantitative CMR is now becoming more widely available and may provide enhanced diagnostic capabilities. Dr. Berry added that patients with symptoms of coronary disease but without an identifiable coronary obstruction may have microvascular coronary disease, a disorder that he has been at the forefront of describing.

Dan-NICAD 2 received no commercial funding. Dr. Bøttcher has been an adviser to Acarix, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Berry had no disclosures.

BARCELONA – Two noninvasive imaging methods for assessing coronary artery disease – cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) and positron emission tomography using rubidium stress (RbPET) – had nearly identical accuracy for ruling-in or ruling-out coronary disease, making them for at least the time being equally appropriate to use when assessing low- or intermediate-risk patients with symptoms suggestive of possible coronary disease in a prospective, multicenter study with 372 patients.

RbPET and CMR using a 3 Tesla device showed “absolutely similar performance,” in a head-to-head comparison that used fractional flow reserve assessment via invasive coronary angiography in each patient in the study as the arbiter of the true extent of coronary disease, reported Morten Bøttcher, MD, PhD, at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge

This result is good news for practice because clinicians can feel free to use whichever of the two assessment methods is most feasible for each patient, said Dr. Bøttcher, a researcher at Aarhus (Denmark) University Hospital. But the study was limited by its size, and he hopes to run a future study with many more patients to try to more definitively compare RbPET and CMR.

‘The techniques are probably interchangeable’

“There is a very clear result from the data: The performance of the two modalities is similar in the population studied,” commented Colin Berry, MBChB, PhD, professor of cardiology and imaging at the University of Glasgow (Scotland), and designated discussant for the report. “The techniques are probably interchangeable,” he said.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge

Dr. Bøttcher and his associates designed the Danish Study of Non-Invasive Diagnostic Testing in Coronary Artery Disease 2 (Dan-NICAD 2) to address a knowledge gap highlighted in the 2019 guidelines of the European Society of Cardiology for the management of patients with chronic coronary syndromes, specifically low- or intermediate-risk patients who present with symptoms of possible coronary disease who have been identified as having possibly stenotic coronary lesions using coronary CT angiography. The guidelines cite using noninvasive imaging at this point prior to invasive angiography, but note that the relative performance of the various imaging options available for this step in unknown, said Dr. Bøttcher.

The researchers enrolled 372 patients at any of four hospitals in Denmark who agreed to participate and had a positive result on a coronary CT examination performed to assess their symptoms of coronary disease. (These 372 patients came from an initial pool of people that was fourfold larger, but three-quarters had negative findings on their coronary CT examination.) Clinicians had referred all of these patients to invasive angiography with fractional flow reserve assessment, and prior to that procedure they each underwent both a RbPET and a CMR examination for the purpose of this study. The researchers used each patient’s eventual invasive angiography result as the definitive determinant of their coronary disease. These patients averaged 64 years old, and 71% were men.

This analysis showed that for all 372 patients RbPET had 63% sensitivity and 87% specificity for identifying hemodynamically obstructive coronary disease, with rates of 60% and 85%, respectively, for CMR. In the subgroup of 71 patients (19%) who had obstructive coronary disease when examined by invasive angiography the sensitivity and specificity of the RbPET examination was 90% and 78%, and for CMR the sensitivity and specificity was 83% and 76%, Dr. Bøttcher reported.

Negative imaging, positive FFR

He also noted that it remains unclear how to best manage patients who show no signs of ischemia when examined by RbPET or CMR, but have an apparently hemodynamically meaningful coronary lesion when assessed by invasive angiography and fractional flow reserve. “We don’t know whether we should be guided by the negative scan or by the positive FFR result,” Dr. Bøttcher said. “There is a challenge when you get different results.”

In addition, the two compared imaging methods both have logistical limitations. RbPET involved radiation exposure, and CMR performed with a 3-tesla device may not be as widely available and requires more expensive equipment.

Dr. Berry also noted that imaging methods continue to advance. For example, the CMR examinations used in the study involved qualitative assessments, but quantitative CMR is now becoming more widely available and may provide enhanced diagnostic capabilities. Dr. Berry added that patients with symptoms of coronary disease but without an identifiable coronary obstruction may have microvascular coronary disease, a disorder that he has been at the forefront of describing.

Dan-NICAD 2 received no commercial funding. Dr. Bøttcher has been an adviser to Acarix, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Berry had no disclosures.

BARCELONA – Two noninvasive imaging methods for assessing coronary artery disease – cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) and positron emission tomography using rubidium stress (RbPET) – had nearly identical accuracy for ruling-in or ruling-out coronary disease, making them for at least the time being equally appropriate to use when assessing low- or intermediate-risk patients with symptoms suggestive of possible coronary disease in a prospective, multicenter study with 372 patients.

RbPET and CMR using a 3 Tesla device showed “absolutely similar performance,” in a head-to-head comparison that used fractional flow reserve assessment via invasive coronary angiography in each patient in the study as the arbiter of the true extent of coronary disease, reported Morten Bøttcher, MD, PhD, at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge

This result is good news for practice because clinicians can feel free to use whichever of the two assessment methods is most feasible for each patient, said Dr. Bøttcher, a researcher at Aarhus (Denmark) University Hospital. But the study was limited by its size, and he hopes to run a future study with many more patients to try to more definitively compare RbPET and CMR.

‘The techniques are probably interchangeable’

“There is a very clear result from the data: The performance of the two modalities is similar in the population studied,” commented Colin Berry, MBChB, PhD, professor of cardiology and imaging at the University of Glasgow (Scotland), and designated discussant for the report. “The techniques are probably interchangeable,” he said.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge

Dr. Bøttcher and his associates designed the Danish Study of Non-Invasive Diagnostic Testing in Coronary Artery Disease 2 (Dan-NICAD 2) to address a knowledge gap highlighted in the 2019 guidelines of the European Society of Cardiology for the management of patients with chronic coronary syndromes, specifically low- or intermediate-risk patients who present with symptoms of possible coronary disease who have been identified as having possibly stenotic coronary lesions using coronary CT angiography. The guidelines cite using noninvasive imaging at this point prior to invasive angiography, but note that the relative performance of the various imaging options available for this step in unknown, said Dr. Bøttcher.

The researchers enrolled 372 patients at any of four hospitals in Denmark who agreed to participate and had a positive result on a coronary CT examination performed to assess their symptoms of coronary disease. (These 372 patients came from an initial pool of people that was fourfold larger, but three-quarters had negative findings on their coronary CT examination.) Clinicians had referred all of these patients to invasive angiography with fractional flow reserve assessment, and prior to that procedure they each underwent both a RbPET and a CMR examination for the purpose of this study. The researchers used each patient’s eventual invasive angiography result as the definitive determinant of their coronary disease. These patients averaged 64 years old, and 71% were men.

This analysis showed that for all 372 patients RbPET had 63% sensitivity and 87% specificity for identifying hemodynamically obstructive coronary disease, with rates of 60% and 85%, respectively, for CMR. In the subgroup of 71 patients (19%) who had obstructive coronary disease when examined by invasive angiography the sensitivity and specificity of the RbPET examination was 90% and 78%, and for CMR the sensitivity and specificity was 83% and 76%, Dr. Bøttcher reported.

Negative imaging, positive FFR

He also noted that it remains unclear how to best manage patients who show no signs of ischemia when examined by RbPET or CMR, but have an apparently hemodynamically meaningful coronary lesion when assessed by invasive angiography and fractional flow reserve. “We don’t know whether we should be guided by the negative scan or by the positive FFR result,” Dr. Bøttcher said. “There is a challenge when you get different results.”

In addition, the two compared imaging methods both have logistical limitations. RbPET involved radiation exposure, and CMR performed with a 3-tesla device may not be as widely available and requires more expensive equipment.

Dr. Berry also noted that imaging methods continue to advance. For example, the CMR examinations used in the study involved qualitative assessments, but quantitative CMR is now becoming more widely available and may provide enhanced diagnostic capabilities. Dr. Berry added that patients with symptoms of coronary disease but without an identifiable coronary obstruction may have microvascular coronary disease, a disorder that he has been at the forefront of describing.

Dan-NICAD 2 received no commercial funding. Dr. Bøttcher has been an adviser to Acarix, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Berry had no disclosures.

Two large observational studies published in The BMJ this week highlight the dangers of a diet rich in ultraprocessed foods (UPFs).

The first links the diet to an increased risk for colorectal cancer; the second shows a heightened risk of death from heart disease or any cause over a 14-year period.

UPFs are highly manipulated and packed with added ingredients, including sugar, fat, and salt, and are low in protein and fiber. They include soft drinks, chips, chocolate, candy, ice cream, sweetened breakfast cereals, packaged soups, chicken nuggets, hot dogs, french fries, and many more.

Over the past 30 years, there’s been a steady increase in consumption of UPFs worldwide, coupled with mounting evidence that diets rich in UPFs raise the risk for several chronic diseases, including heart disease and cancer. Few studies, however, have focused specifically on the risk for colorectal cancer (CRC).  
 

Novel data

To investigate, researchers analyzed data on 206,248 American adults (46,341 men, 159,907 women) from the Nurses’ Health Study, Nurses’ Health Study II, and the Health Professionals Follow-up Study. Dietary intake was assessed every 4 years using detailed food frequency questionnaires.

During up to 28 years of follow-up, 1,294 men and 1,922 women developed CRC.

In Cox proportional models adjusted for confounding factors, men with the highest UPF intake had a 29% higher risk for CRC than men with the lowest UPF consumption. This association was limited to distal colon cancer, with a 72% increased risk.

Among subgroups of UPFs, a higher intake of meat/poultry/seafood-based, ready-to-eat products, and sugary drinks were associated with increased risk for CRC among men.

“These products include some processed meats like sausages, bacon, ham, and fish cakes. This is consistent with our hypothesis,” lead author Lu Wang, PhD, with Tufts University, Boston, said in a news release.

There was no association between overall UPF intake and risk for CRC in women, and the reasons for this are unclear, the researchers say.

However, among the subgroups of UPFs, there was a positive association between ready-to-eat/heat mixed dishes and CRC risk and an inverse association between yogurt and dairy desserts and CRC risk among women.

It’s possible that foods like yogurt help counteract the harmful impacts of other types of UPFs in women, the researchers say.  

“Further research will be needed to determine whether there is a true sex difference in the associations or if null findings in women in this study were merely due to chance or some uncontrolled confounding factors in women that mitigated the association,” co-senior author Mingyang Song, MD, with Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, says in the news release.
 

Hard on the heart too

The related study in The BMJ shows a joint association between a low-quality diet and high intake of UPFs and increased risk for death from heart disease or any cause.

In this study of 22,895 Italian adults (mean age, 55 years; 48% men), those with the least healthy diets had a 19% higher risk of dying from any cause and a 32% higher risk for death from cardiovascular disease, over 14 years, compared with peers with the healthiest diets.

Adults with the highest share of UPFs had similarly elevated risks for all-cause and heart disease mortality (19% and 27% higher risk, respectively).

When the two food dimensions (nutrients and food processing) were analyzed jointly, the association of poor diet quality with mortality was significantly attenuated, but UPF intake remained highly associated with mortality, even after accounting for poor nutritional diet quality.

“These findings suggest that highly processed foods are associated with poor health outcomes independently of their low nutritional composition,” Marialaura Bonaccio, PhD, with IRCCS NEUROMED, Pozzilli, Italy, and colleagues note in their paper.

The new studies linking UPFs to CRC and heart disease join a recent study that found high UPF intake is harmful for the aging brain, as reported by this news organization.
 

A call to action

Putting it bluntly, “everybody needs food, but nobody needs ultra-processed foods,” Carlos Monteiro, MD, PhD, and Geoffrey Cannon, with University of Sao Paulo, Brazil, write in an editorial in The BMJ.

They point out that most UPFs are made, sold, and promoted by corporations that make them to be convenient, affordable, and hyper-palatable, thus liable to displace other foods and also to be overconsumed.

“The rational solution is official public policies, including guidelines and publicity advising avoidance, and actions, including statutes, designed to reduce production and consumption of ultraprocessed foods and to restrict or preferably prohibit their promotion,” Dr. Monteiro and Mr. Cannon suggest.

What’s also needed, they say, are “available, attractive, and affordable” supplies of fresh and minimally processed foods, as well as national initiatives to promote and support freshly prepared meals made with fresh and minimally processed foods, using small amounts of processed culinary ingredients and processed foods.

“Enacted, this will promote public health. It will also nourish families, society, economies, and the environment,” the editorialists conclude.

The U.S. study was supported by the National Institutes of Health and the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University. The Italian study was supported by the Pfizer Foundation, Italian Ministry of University and Research, Instrumentation Laboratory, Milan, and the Italian Ministry of Health. Dr. Wang, Dr. Song, Dr. Bonaccio, Dr. Monteiro, and Mr. Cannon report no relevant financial relationships.

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

This article was updated 9/1/22.

Two large observational studies published in The BMJ this week highlight the dangers of a diet rich in ultraprocessed foods (UPFs).

The first links the diet to an increased risk for colorectal cancer; the second shows a heightened risk of death from heart disease or any cause over a 14-year period.

UPFs are highly manipulated and packed with added ingredients, including sugar, fat, and salt, and are low in protein and fiber. They include soft drinks, chips, chocolate, candy, ice cream, sweetened breakfast cereals, packaged soups, chicken nuggets, hot dogs, french fries, and many more.

Over the past 30 years, there’s been a steady increase in consumption of UPFs worldwide, coupled with mounting evidence that diets rich in UPFs raise the risk for several chronic diseases, including heart disease and cancer. Few studies, however, have focused specifically on the risk for colorectal cancer (CRC).  
 

Novel data

To investigate, researchers analyzed data on 206,248 American adults (46,341 men, 159,907 women) from the Nurses’ Health Study, Nurses’ Health Study II, and the Health Professionals Follow-up Study. Dietary intake was assessed every 4 years using detailed food frequency questionnaires.

During up to 28 years of follow-up, 1,294 men and 1,922 women developed CRC.

In Cox proportional models adjusted for confounding factors, men with the highest UPF intake had a 29% higher risk for CRC than men with the lowest UPF consumption. This association was limited to distal colon cancer, with a 72% increased risk.

Among subgroups of UPFs, a higher intake of meat/poultry/seafood-based, ready-to-eat products, and sugary drinks were associated with increased risk for CRC among men.

“These products include some processed meats like sausages, bacon, ham, and fish cakes. This is consistent with our hypothesis,” lead author Lu Wang, PhD, with Tufts University, Boston, said in a news release.

There was no association between overall UPF intake and risk for CRC in women, and the reasons for this are unclear, the researchers say.

However, among the subgroups of UPFs, there was a positive association between ready-to-eat/heat mixed dishes and CRC risk and an inverse association between yogurt and dairy desserts and CRC risk among women.

It’s possible that foods like yogurt help counteract the harmful impacts of other types of UPFs in women, the researchers say.  

“Further research will be needed to determine whether there is a true sex difference in the associations or if null findings in women in this study were merely due to chance or some uncontrolled confounding factors in women that mitigated the association,” co-senior author Mingyang Song, MD, with Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, says in the news release.
 

Hard on the heart too

The related study in The BMJ shows a joint association between a low-quality diet and high intake of UPFs and increased risk for death from heart disease or any cause.

In this study of 22,895 Italian adults (mean age, 55 years; 48% men), those with the least healthy diets had a 19% higher risk of dying from any cause and a 32% higher risk for death from cardiovascular disease, over 14 years, compared with peers with the healthiest diets.

Adults with the highest share of UPFs had similarly elevated risks for all-cause and heart disease mortality (19% and 27% higher risk, respectively).

When the two food dimensions (nutrients and food processing) were analyzed jointly, the association of poor diet quality with mortality was significantly attenuated, but UPF intake remained highly associated with mortality, even after accounting for poor nutritional diet quality.

“These findings suggest that highly processed foods are associated with poor health outcomes independently of their low nutritional composition,” Marialaura Bonaccio, PhD, with IRCCS NEUROMED, Pozzilli, Italy, and colleagues note in their paper.

The new studies linking UPFs to CRC and heart disease join a recent study that found high UPF intake is harmful for the aging brain, as reported by this news organization.
 

A call to action

Putting it bluntly, “everybody needs food, but nobody needs ultra-processed foods,” Carlos Monteiro, MD, PhD, and Geoffrey Cannon, with University of Sao Paulo, Brazil, write in an editorial in The BMJ.

They point out that most UPFs are made, sold, and promoted by corporations that make them to be convenient, affordable, and hyper-palatable, thus liable to displace other foods and also to be overconsumed.

“The rational solution is official public policies, including guidelines and publicity advising avoidance, and actions, including statutes, designed to reduce production and consumption of ultraprocessed foods and to restrict or preferably prohibit their promotion,” Dr. Monteiro and Mr. Cannon suggest.

What’s also needed, they say, are “available, attractive, and affordable” supplies of fresh and minimally processed foods, as well as national initiatives to promote and support freshly prepared meals made with fresh and minimally processed foods, using small amounts of processed culinary ingredients and processed foods.

“Enacted, this will promote public health. It will also nourish families, society, economies, and the environment,” the editorialists conclude.

The U.S. study was supported by the National Institutes of Health and the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University. The Italian study was supported by the Pfizer Foundation, Italian Ministry of University and Research, Instrumentation Laboratory, Milan, and the Italian Ministry of Health. Dr. Wang, Dr. Song, Dr. Bonaccio, Dr. Monteiro, and Mr. Cannon report no relevant financial relationships.

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

This article was updated 9/1/22.

Two large observational studies published in The BMJ this week highlight the dangers of a diet rich in ultraprocessed foods (UPFs).

The first links the diet to an increased risk for colorectal cancer; the second shows a heightened risk of death from heart disease or any cause over a 14-year period.

UPFs are highly manipulated and packed with added ingredients, including sugar, fat, and salt, and are low in protein and fiber. They include soft drinks, chips, chocolate, candy, ice cream, sweetened breakfast cereals, packaged soups, chicken nuggets, hot dogs, french fries, and many more.

Over the past 30 years, there’s been a steady increase in consumption of UPFs worldwide, coupled with mounting evidence that diets rich in UPFs raise the risk for several chronic diseases, including heart disease and cancer. Few studies, however, have focused specifically on the risk for colorectal cancer (CRC).  
 

Novel data

To investigate, researchers analyzed data on 206,248 American adults (46,341 men, 159,907 women) from the Nurses’ Health Study, Nurses’ Health Study II, and the Health Professionals Follow-up Study. Dietary intake was assessed every 4 years using detailed food frequency questionnaires.

During up to 28 years of follow-up, 1,294 men and 1,922 women developed CRC.

In Cox proportional models adjusted for confounding factors, men with the highest UPF intake had a 29% higher risk for CRC than men with the lowest UPF consumption. This association was limited to distal colon cancer, with a 72% increased risk.

Among subgroups of UPFs, a higher intake of meat/poultry/seafood-based, ready-to-eat products, and sugary drinks were associated with increased risk for CRC among men.

“These products include some processed meats like sausages, bacon, ham, and fish cakes. This is consistent with our hypothesis,” lead author Lu Wang, PhD, with Tufts University, Boston, said in a news release.

There was no association between overall UPF intake and risk for CRC in women, and the reasons for this are unclear, the researchers say.

However, among the subgroups of UPFs, there was a positive association between ready-to-eat/heat mixed dishes and CRC risk and an inverse association between yogurt and dairy desserts and CRC risk among women.

It’s possible that foods like yogurt help counteract the harmful impacts of other types of UPFs in women, the researchers say.  

“Further research will be needed to determine whether there is a true sex difference in the associations or if null findings in women in this study were merely due to chance or some uncontrolled confounding factors in women that mitigated the association,” co-senior author Mingyang Song, MD, with Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, says in the news release.
 

Hard on the heart too

The related study in The BMJ shows a joint association between a low-quality diet and high intake of UPFs and increased risk for death from heart disease or any cause.

In this study of 22,895 Italian adults (mean age, 55 years; 48% men), those with the least healthy diets had a 19% higher risk of dying from any cause and a 32% higher risk for death from cardiovascular disease, over 14 years, compared with peers with the healthiest diets.

Adults with the highest share of UPFs had similarly elevated risks for all-cause and heart disease mortality (19% and 27% higher risk, respectively).

When the two food dimensions (nutrients and food processing) were analyzed jointly, the association of poor diet quality with mortality was significantly attenuated, but UPF intake remained highly associated with mortality, even after accounting for poor nutritional diet quality.

“These findings suggest that highly processed foods are associated with poor health outcomes independently of their low nutritional composition,” Marialaura Bonaccio, PhD, with IRCCS NEUROMED, Pozzilli, Italy, and colleagues note in their paper.

The new studies linking UPFs to CRC and heart disease join a recent study that found high UPF intake is harmful for the aging brain, as reported by this news organization.
 

A call to action

Putting it bluntly, “everybody needs food, but nobody needs ultra-processed foods,” Carlos Monteiro, MD, PhD, and Geoffrey Cannon, with University of Sao Paulo, Brazil, write in an editorial in The BMJ.

They point out that most UPFs are made, sold, and promoted by corporations that make them to be convenient, affordable, and hyper-palatable, thus liable to displace other foods and also to be overconsumed.

“The rational solution is official public policies, including guidelines and publicity advising avoidance, and actions, including statutes, designed to reduce production and consumption of ultraprocessed foods and to restrict or preferably prohibit their promotion,” Dr. Monteiro and Mr. Cannon suggest.

What’s also needed, they say, are “available, attractive, and affordable” supplies of fresh and minimally processed foods, as well as national initiatives to promote and support freshly prepared meals made with fresh and minimally processed foods, using small amounts of processed culinary ingredients and processed foods.

“Enacted, this will promote public health. It will also nourish families, society, economies, and the environment,” the editorialists conclude.

The U.S. study was supported by the National Institutes of Health and the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University. The Italian study was supported by the Pfizer Foundation, Italian Ministry of University and Research, Instrumentation Laboratory, Milan, and the Italian Ministry of Health. Dr. Wang, Dr. Song, Dr. Bonaccio, Dr. Monteiro, and Mr. Cannon report no relevant financial relationships.

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

This article was updated 9/1/22.

Life expectancy in the United States declined again in 2021, after a historic drop in 2020, to reach the lowest point in decades, according to new CDC data.

In 2021, the average American could expect to live until age 76, which fell from 77 in 2020 and 79 in 2019. That marks the lowest age since 1996 and the largest 2-year decline since 1923.

“Even small declines in life expectancy of a tenth or two-tenths of a year mean that on a population level, a lot more people are dying prematurely,” Robert Anderson, PhD, chief of mortality statistics at the National Center for Health Statistics, which produced the report, told The New York Times.

“This signals a huge impact on the population in terms of increased mortality,” he said.

COVID-19 played a major role, with excess death from the coronavirus contributing to half of the decline during the past 2 years. Drug overdose deaths also reached a record high in 2021, rising to about 109,000 people. Unintentional injuries, with about half due to drug overdose, were a leading cause of the decline in life expectancy, along with deaths from heart disease, chronic liver disease, cirrhosis, and suicide.

The decrease has been particularly devastating among Native Americans and Alaska Natives. Average life expectancy dropped by 4 years in 2020 alone and more than 6.5 years since the beginning of the pandemic. Now their life expectancy is 65, which was the average for all Americans in 1944.

“When I saw that in the report, I just – my jaw dropped,” Dr. Anderson told CNN.

“It was hard enough to fathom a 2.7-year decline over 2 years overall,” he said. “But then to see a 6.6-year decline for the American Indian population, it just shows the substantial impact that the pandemic has had on that population.”

Longstanding health issues and systemic problems, such as poverty, discrimination, and poor access to health care, led to the major declines among Native Americans and Alaska Natives, CNN reported.

“A lot of the talk is going to be around the pandemic, but we need to think about what has driven the conditions that have allowed certain communities to be more vulnerable,” Ruben Cantu, an associate program director with Prevention Institute, a nonprofit focused on health equity, told CNN.

The gap in life expectancy between women and men also became wider in 2021, growing to 5.9 years and marking the largest gap since 1996. The life expectancy for men in 2021 was 73.2, as compared with 79.1 for women.

The decline in overall U.S. life expectancy would have been even greater if there weren’t “offsetting effects,” the researchers wrote, such as declines in death due to the flu, pneumonia, chronic lower respiratory diseases, and Alzheimer’s disease.

The drop in U.S. life expectancy is “historic,” Steven Woolf, MD, retired director of the Center on Society and Health and Virginia Commonwealth University, told the Times.

Other high-income countries also saw a drop in life expectancy in 2020 due to the pandemic, but most began to recover last year due to major vaccine campaigns and behavior changes such as wearing masks, he said.

“None of them experienced a continuing fall in life expectancy like the U.S. did, and a good number of them saw life expectancy start inching back to normal,” he said. “The U.S. is clearly an outlier.”

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

Life expectancy in the United States declined again in 2021, after a historic drop in 2020, to reach the lowest point in decades, according to new CDC data.

In 2021, the average American could expect to live until age 76, which fell from 77 in 2020 and 79 in 2019. That marks the lowest age since 1996 and the largest 2-year decline since 1923.

“Even small declines in life expectancy of a tenth or two-tenths of a year mean that on a population level, a lot more people are dying prematurely,” Robert Anderson, PhD, chief of mortality statistics at the National Center for Health Statistics, which produced the report, told The New York Times.

“This signals a huge impact on the population in terms of increased mortality,” he said.

COVID-19 played a major role, with excess death from the coronavirus contributing to half of the decline during the past 2 years. Drug overdose deaths also reached a record high in 2021, rising to about 109,000 people. Unintentional injuries, with about half due to drug overdose, were a leading cause of the decline in life expectancy, along with deaths from heart disease, chronic liver disease, cirrhosis, and suicide.

The decrease has been particularly devastating among Native Americans and Alaska Natives. Average life expectancy dropped by 4 years in 2020 alone and more than 6.5 years since the beginning of the pandemic. Now their life expectancy is 65, which was the average for all Americans in 1944.

“When I saw that in the report, I just – my jaw dropped,” Dr. Anderson told CNN.

“It was hard enough to fathom a 2.7-year decline over 2 years overall,” he said. “But then to see a 6.6-year decline for the American Indian population, it just shows the substantial impact that the pandemic has had on that population.”

Longstanding health issues and systemic problems, such as poverty, discrimination, and poor access to health care, led to the major declines among Native Americans and Alaska Natives, CNN reported.

“A lot of the talk is going to be around the pandemic, but we need to think about what has driven the conditions that have allowed certain communities to be more vulnerable,” Ruben Cantu, an associate program director with Prevention Institute, a nonprofit focused on health equity, told CNN.

The gap in life expectancy between women and men also became wider in 2021, growing to 5.9 years and marking the largest gap since 1996. The life expectancy for men in 2021 was 73.2, as compared with 79.1 for women.

The decline in overall U.S. life expectancy would have been even greater if there weren’t “offsetting effects,” the researchers wrote, such as declines in death due to the flu, pneumonia, chronic lower respiratory diseases, and Alzheimer’s disease.

The drop in U.S. life expectancy is “historic,” Steven Woolf, MD, retired director of the Center on Society and Health and Virginia Commonwealth University, told the Times.

Other high-income countries also saw a drop in life expectancy in 2020 due to the pandemic, but most began to recover last year due to major vaccine campaigns and behavior changes such as wearing masks, he said.

“None of them experienced a continuing fall in life expectancy like the U.S. did, and a good number of them saw life expectancy start inching back to normal,” he said. “The U.S. is clearly an outlier.”

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

Life expectancy in the United States declined again in 2021, after a historic drop in 2020, to reach the lowest point in decades, according to new CDC data.

In 2021, the average American could expect to live until age 76, which fell from 77 in 2020 and 79 in 2019. That marks the lowest age since 1996 and the largest 2-year decline since 1923.

“Even small declines in life expectancy of a tenth or two-tenths of a year mean that on a population level, a lot more people are dying prematurely,” Robert Anderson, PhD, chief of mortality statistics at the National Center for Health Statistics, which produced the report, told The New York Times.

“This signals a huge impact on the population in terms of increased mortality,” he said.

COVID-19 played a major role, with excess death from the coronavirus contributing to half of the decline during the past 2 years. Drug overdose deaths also reached a record high in 2021, rising to about 109,000 people. Unintentional injuries, with about half due to drug overdose, were a leading cause of the decline in life expectancy, along with deaths from heart disease, chronic liver disease, cirrhosis, and suicide.

The decrease has been particularly devastating among Native Americans and Alaska Natives. Average life expectancy dropped by 4 years in 2020 alone and more than 6.5 years since the beginning of the pandemic. Now their life expectancy is 65, which was the average for all Americans in 1944.

“When I saw that in the report, I just – my jaw dropped,” Dr. Anderson told CNN.

“It was hard enough to fathom a 2.7-year decline over 2 years overall,” he said. “But then to see a 6.6-year decline for the American Indian population, it just shows the substantial impact that the pandemic has had on that population.”

Longstanding health issues and systemic problems, such as poverty, discrimination, and poor access to health care, led to the major declines among Native Americans and Alaska Natives, CNN reported.

“A lot of the talk is going to be around the pandemic, but we need to think about what has driven the conditions that have allowed certain communities to be more vulnerable,” Ruben Cantu, an associate program director with Prevention Institute, a nonprofit focused on health equity, told CNN.

The gap in life expectancy between women and men also became wider in 2021, growing to 5.9 years and marking the largest gap since 1996. The life expectancy for men in 2021 was 73.2, as compared with 79.1 for women.

The decline in overall U.S. life expectancy would have been even greater if there weren’t “offsetting effects,” the researchers wrote, such as declines in death due to the flu, pneumonia, chronic lower respiratory diseases, and Alzheimer’s disease.

The drop in U.S. life expectancy is “historic,” Steven Woolf, MD, retired director of the Center on Society and Health and Virginia Commonwealth University, told the Times.

Other high-income countries also saw a drop in life expectancy in 2020 due to the pandemic, but most began to recover last year due to major vaccine campaigns and behavior changes such as wearing masks, he said.

“None of them experienced a continuing fall in life expectancy like the U.S. did, and a good number of them saw life expectancy start inching back to normal,” he said. “The U.S. is clearly an outlier.”

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

Individuals with type A blood have a 16% higher risk for early onset stroke (EOS) than those with other blood types, new research shows.

Conversely, results from a meta-analysis of nearly 17,000 cases of ischemic stroke in adults younger than 60 years showed that having type O blood reduced the risk for EOS by 12%.

In addition, the associations with risk were significantly stronger in EOS than in those with late-onset stroke (LOS), pointing to a stronger role for prothrombotic factors in younger patients, the researchers noted.

“What this is telling us is that maybe what makes you susceptible to stroke as a young adult is the blood type, which is really giving you a much higher risk of clotting and stroke compared to later onset,” coinvestigator Braxton Mitchell, PhD, professor of medicine and epidemiology and public health at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, said in an interview.

The findings were published online in Neurology.
 

Strong association

The genome-wide association study (GWAS) was done as part of the Genetics of Early Onset Ischemic Stroke Consortium, a collaboration of 48 different studies across North America, Europe, Japan, Pakistan, and Australia. It assessed early onset ischemic stroke in patients aged 18-59 years.

Researchers included data from 16,927 patients with stroke. Of these, 5,825 had a stroke before age 60, defined as early onset. GWAS results were also examined for nearly 600,000 individuals without stroke.

Results showed two genetic variants tied to blood types A and O emerged as highly associated with risk for early stroke.

Researchers found that the protective effects of type O were significantly stronger with EOS vs. LOS (odds ratio [OR], 0.88 vs. 0.96, respectively; P = .001). Likewise, the association between type A and increased EOS risk was significantly stronger than that found in LOS (OR, 1.16 vs. 1.05; P = .005).

Using polygenic risk scores, the investigators also found that the greater genetic risk for venous thromboembolism, another prothrombotic condition, was more strongly associated with EOS compared with LOS (P = .008).

Previous studies have shown a link between stroke risk and variants of the ABO gene, which determines blood type. The new analysis suggests that type A and O gene variants represent nearly all of those genetically linked with early stroke, the researchers noted.

While the findings point to blood type as a risk factor for stroke in younger people, Dr. Mitchell cautions that “at the moment, blood group does not have implications for preventive care.”

“The risk of stroke due to blood type is smaller than other risk factors that we know about, like smoking and hypertension,” he said. “I would be much more worried about these other risk factors, especially because those may be modifiable.”

He noted the next step in the study is to assess how blood type interacts with other known risk factors to raise stroke risk.

“There may be a subset of people where, if you have blood type A and you have some of these other risk factors, it’s possible that you may be at particularly high risk,” Dr. Mitchell said.
 

More research needed on younger patients

In an accompanying editorial, Jennifer Juhl Majersik, MD, associate professor of neurology at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, and Paul Lacaze, PhD, associate professor and head of the public health genomics program at Monash University, Australia, noted that the study fills a gap in stroke research, which often focuses mostly on older individuals.

“In approximately 40% of people with EOS, the stroke is cryptogenic, and there is scant data from clinical trials to guide the selection of preventative strategies in this population, as people with EOS are often excluded from trials,” Dr. Majersik and Dr. Lacaze wrote.

“This work has deepened our understanding of EOS pathophysiology,” they added.

The editorialists noted that future research can build on the results from this analysis, “with the goal of a more precise understanding of stroke pathophysiology, leading to targeted preventative treatments for EOS and a reduction in disability in patients’ most productive years.”

Dr. Mitchell echoed the call for greater inclusion of young patients with stroke in clinical trials.

“As we’re learning, stroke in older folks isn’t the same as stroke in younger people,” he said. “There are many shared risk factors but there are also some that are different ... so there really is a need to include younger people.”

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

Individuals with type A blood have a 16% higher risk for early onset stroke (EOS) than those with other blood types, new research shows.

Conversely, results from a meta-analysis of nearly 17,000 cases of ischemic stroke in adults younger than 60 years showed that having type O blood reduced the risk for EOS by 12%.

In addition, the associations with risk were significantly stronger in EOS than in those with late-onset stroke (LOS), pointing to a stronger role for prothrombotic factors in younger patients, the researchers noted.

“What this is telling us is that maybe what makes you susceptible to stroke as a young adult is the blood type, which is really giving you a much higher risk of clotting and stroke compared to later onset,” coinvestigator Braxton Mitchell, PhD, professor of medicine and epidemiology and public health at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, said in an interview.

The findings were published online in Neurology.
 

Strong association

The genome-wide association study (GWAS) was done as part of the Genetics of Early Onset Ischemic Stroke Consortium, a collaboration of 48 different studies across North America, Europe, Japan, Pakistan, and Australia. It assessed early onset ischemic stroke in patients aged 18-59 years.

Researchers included data from 16,927 patients with stroke. Of these, 5,825 had a stroke before age 60, defined as early onset. GWAS results were also examined for nearly 600,000 individuals without stroke.

Results showed two genetic variants tied to blood types A and O emerged as highly associated with risk for early stroke.

Researchers found that the protective effects of type O were significantly stronger with EOS vs. LOS (odds ratio [OR], 0.88 vs. 0.96, respectively; P = .001). Likewise, the association between type A and increased EOS risk was significantly stronger than that found in LOS (OR, 1.16 vs. 1.05; P = .005).

Using polygenic risk scores, the investigators also found that the greater genetic risk for venous thromboembolism, another prothrombotic condition, was more strongly associated with EOS compared with LOS (P = .008).

Previous studies have shown a link between stroke risk and variants of the ABO gene, which determines blood type. The new analysis suggests that type A and O gene variants represent nearly all of those genetically linked with early stroke, the researchers noted.

While the findings point to blood type as a risk factor for stroke in younger people, Dr. Mitchell cautions that “at the moment, blood group does not have implications for preventive care.”

“The risk of stroke due to blood type is smaller than other risk factors that we know about, like smoking and hypertension,” he said. “I would be much more worried about these other risk factors, especially because those may be modifiable.”

He noted the next step in the study is to assess how blood type interacts with other known risk factors to raise stroke risk.

“There may be a subset of people where, if you have blood type A and you have some of these other risk factors, it’s possible that you may be at particularly high risk,” Dr. Mitchell said.
 

More research needed on younger patients

In an accompanying editorial, Jennifer Juhl Majersik, MD, associate professor of neurology at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, and Paul Lacaze, PhD, associate professor and head of the public health genomics program at Monash University, Australia, noted that the study fills a gap in stroke research, which often focuses mostly on older individuals.

“In approximately 40% of people with EOS, the stroke is cryptogenic, and there is scant data from clinical trials to guide the selection of preventative strategies in this population, as people with EOS are often excluded from trials,” Dr. Majersik and Dr. Lacaze wrote.

“This work has deepened our understanding of EOS pathophysiology,” they added.

The editorialists noted that future research can build on the results from this analysis, “with the goal of a more precise understanding of stroke pathophysiology, leading to targeted preventative treatments for EOS and a reduction in disability in patients’ most productive years.”

Dr. Mitchell echoed the call for greater inclusion of young patients with stroke in clinical trials.

“As we’re learning, stroke in older folks isn’t the same as stroke in younger people,” he said. “There are many shared risk factors but there are also some that are different ... so there really is a need to include younger people.”

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

Individuals with type A blood have a 16% higher risk for early onset stroke (EOS) than those with other blood types, new research shows.

Conversely, results from a meta-analysis of nearly 17,000 cases of ischemic stroke in adults younger than 60 years showed that having type O blood reduced the risk for EOS by 12%.

In addition, the associations with risk were significantly stronger in EOS than in those with late-onset stroke (LOS), pointing to a stronger role for prothrombotic factors in younger patients, the researchers noted.

“What this is telling us is that maybe what makes you susceptible to stroke as a young adult is the blood type, which is really giving you a much higher risk of clotting and stroke compared to later onset,” coinvestigator Braxton Mitchell, PhD, professor of medicine and epidemiology and public health at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, said in an interview.

The findings were published online in Neurology.
 

Strong association

The genome-wide association study (GWAS) was done as part of the Genetics of Early Onset Ischemic Stroke Consortium, a collaboration of 48 different studies across North America, Europe, Japan, Pakistan, and Australia. It assessed early onset ischemic stroke in patients aged 18-59 years.

Researchers included data from 16,927 patients with stroke. Of these, 5,825 had a stroke before age 60, defined as early onset. GWAS results were also examined for nearly 600,000 individuals without stroke.

Results showed two genetic variants tied to blood types A and O emerged as highly associated with risk for early stroke.

Researchers found that the protective effects of type O were significantly stronger with EOS vs. LOS (odds ratio [OR], 0.88 vs. 0.96, respectively; P = .001). Likewise, the association between type A and increased EOS risk was significantly stronger than that found in LOS (OR, 1.16 vs. 1.05; P = .005).

Using polygenic risk scores, the investigators also found that the greater genetic risk for venous thromboembolism, another prothrombotic condition, was more strongly associated with EOS compared with LOS (P = .008).

Previous studies have shown a link between stroke risk and variants of the ABO gene, which determines blood type. The new analysis suggests that type A and O gene variants represent nearly all of those genetically linked with early stroke, the researchers noted.

While the findings point to blood type as a risk factor for stroke in younger people, Dr. Mitchell cautions that “at the moment, blood group does not have implications for preventive care.”

“The risk of stroke due to blood type is smaller than other risk factors that we know about, like smoking and hypertension,” he said. “I would be much more worried about these other risk factors, especially because those may be modifiable.”

He noted the next step in the study is to assess how blood type interacts with other known risk factors to raise stroke risk.

“There may be a subset of people where, if you have blood type A and you have some of these other risk factors, it’s possible that you may be at particularly high risk,” Dr. Mitchell said.
 

More research needed on younger patients

In an accompanying editorial, Jennifer Juhl Majersik, MD, associate professor of neurology at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, and Paul Lacaze, PhD, associate professor and head of the public health genomics program at Monash University, Australia, noted that the study fills a gap in stroke research, which often focuses mostly on older individuals.

“In approximately 40% of people with EOS, the stroke is cryptogenic, and there is scant data from clinical trials to guide the selection of preventative strategies in this population, as people with EOS are often excluded from trials,” Dr. Majersik and Dr. Lacaze wrote.

“This work has deepened our understanding of EOS pathophysiology,” they added.

The editorialists noted that future research can build on the results from this analysis, “with the goal of a more precise understanding of stroke pathophysiology, leading to targeted preventative treatments for EOS and a reduction in disability in patients’ most productive years.”

Dr. Mitchell echoed the call for greater inclusion of young patients with stroke in clinical trials.

“As we’re learning, stroke in older folks isn’t the same as stroke in younger people,” he said. “There are many shared risk factors but there are also some that are different ... so there really is a need to include younger people.”

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

BARCELONA – Cardiovascular disease risk factors, as well as established disease, in patients undergoing cancer therapy can be safely managed to minimize cancer therapy–related cardiovascular toxicity (CVR-CVT), conclude the first cardio-oncology guidelines from the European Society of Cardiology.

The guidelines were presented at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology and published simultaneously in the European Heart Journal.

Guideline cochair Alexander R. Lyon, MD, PhD, told this news organization that the aim of the guideline was to “personalize the decision-making of a patient with cancer who has cardiovascular disease or is at risk of developing it from their treatment ... because it’s not one size fits all.”

A “very strong theme throughout the guideline is risk assessment, and the fact that that risk is dynamic, it can change ... because how you manage someone who’s at high risk is going to be different” than managing someone who is at moderate or low risk, he said.

“We’re doing a lot of surveillance because one of the big advantages of cardio-oncology is we know when someone is about to get treated,” Dr. Lyon, from the National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, and Cardio-Oncology Service, Royal Brompton Hospital, London, said.

“You don’t know in nature when someone’s going to have an acute myocardial infarction or acute viral myocarditis, but we do know when they’re coming into an oncology clinic to get an infusion of chemotherapy or tablets,” he noted.

The guidelines offer recommendations so that patients can “have their treatment safely and minimize interruptions.”

“We know these cancer therapies work; we’re here to get the best of both worlds” by minimizing cardiotoxicity, Dr. Lyon said.
 

Steady decline in cancer-related mortality

The guidelines note that since the 1990s there has been a “steady decline in cancer-related mortality, mirrored by a steady increase in cancer survival,” and the result is that “treatment-related side effects have gained more significance.”

Dr. Lyon said that between 2011 and 2021, there was a fivefold increase in the number of new referrals of cancer patients with cardiological consequences to his institution.

He said that one of main drivers is modifiable factors, such as smoking, obesity, and inactivity, which increase the risk for both cancer and cardiovascular disease.

“Allied to that, there’s been an improvement in treating cardiovascular diseases in people in their 40s, 50s, and 60s, so they’re surviving their heart failure, myocardial infarction, atrial fibrillation to develop cancers in later life.”

Combined with the aging population, the result is that “not only are many more people being diagnosed with cancer, because they’re living longer, but they have all these pre-existing heart risk factors, whether as confirmed disease or just the risk factors associated with that,” he said.

Another aspect is that many of the newer, targeted cancer therapies confer a cardiovascular risk.

Dr. Lyon said that the “most famous one” is trastuzumab, a monoclonal antibody that is used to treat HER2-positive breast cancer but that also causes left ventricular impairment “in about 15%-20% of the women taking it and can cause severe heart failure if it is missed.”

That, he continued, was the “forerunner of designer, targeted therapies,” and the subsequent “explosion” in the availability of modern cancer therapies has included many that confer cardiac issues.

The final reason for the greater interest in cardio-oncology, Dr. Lyon added, is the increasing awareness in oncology and hematology teams of the potential for cardiac problems among their patients.

“We have been reaching out to our oncology and hematology colleagues over the last 5-10 years to explain we’re here to help. We’re not here to stop their treatments, we’re here to support them.”

Presenting the guidelines, cochair Teresa López-Fernández, MD, cardiology department, La Paz University Hospital, IdiPAZ Research Institute, Madrid, said that the “spectrum of CVR-CVT presentations” includes arterial hypertension, cardiac arrhythmias, coronary artery disease, heart failure, and myocarditis.

She explained that cytotoxic cancer therapies are associated with an increased risk for cardiac toxicity that is most acute during the treatment phase but is not entirely diminished once it is over, then typically accumulates during long-term follow-up.

Crucially, the impact of cancer therapy on cardiovascular risk is dependent on several factors, such as patient age, cancer history, pre-existing cardiovascular risk factors or cardiovascular disease, and previous cardiotoxic cancer therapy.

There are nevertheless a number of potential strategies to reduce the risk for cardiac toxicity, including primary and secondary prevention prior to the start of cancer therapy and early CVR-CVT management during treatment, as well as cardiovascular risk assessment in the first year after treatment completion and cancer-survivorship programs.

To those ends, Dr. López-Fernández said the guidelines incorporate 272 new recommendations that cover the entire cardio-oncology care pathway, beginning with cardiovascular risk stratification before anticancer therapy.

They offer a risk-assessment checklist and make a series of recommendations for patients to be treated with potentially cardiotoxic drugs, such as anthracyclines, as well as recommendations on cardiac imaging.

The guidelines provide a range of recommendations for primary and secondary cancer therapy–related cardiovascular toxicity prevention, including minimization of the use of cardiotoxic drugs and the use of angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin-receptor blockers, beta blockers, and statins for primary prevention.

They establish CVR-CVT monitoring protocols across the gamut of cancer therapies, from HER-targeted therapies, through immune checkpoint inhibitors, Bruton tyrosine kinase, CDK4/6, EGFR, VEGF, and ALK inhibitors, and androgen-deprivation and endocrine therapies, to the more novel CAR-T-cell therapies.

A section on radiotherapy-induced cardiovascular toxicity has its own protocol for the establishment of an individual’s mean heart dose of radiation or the amount of radiation exposure to the heart during treatment.

Next, Dr. Lyon looked at recommendations for the management of cardiovascular disease and cancer therapy–related cardiovascular toxicity in patients receiving anticancer treatment.

He underlined that treatment decisions should consider the cancer and cardiovascular symptom burden, the cancer prognosis, the requirements for cancer treatment, including alternative options, drug-drug interactions, and patient preferences.

Dr. Lyon highlighted the algorithms designed to aid the management of cardiac dysfunction related to anthracycline chemotherapy, HER2-targeted therapy, and immune checkpoint inhibitors, as well as QTc-prolonging anticancer drugs.

In the first 12 months after the completions of therapy, there are a number of risk factors for future cardiovascular disease, he continued.

These include high and very high baseline cardiovascular toxicity risk, anticancer treatments known to have a high risk for long-term cardiovascular complications, such as doxorubicin and radiotherapy, and moderate or severe CTR-CVT during anticancer treatment.

Over the long term, the guidelines recommend that surveillance in asymptomatic cancer survivors range from an annual cardiovascular risk assessment in low-risk patients to patient education and cardiovascular risk factor optimization, alongside regular transthoracic echocardiography in high-risk groups.

Finally, Dr. Lyon said the guidelines turn their attention to special populations, such as patients with cardiac masses and tumors, those with carcinoid heart disease, pregnant women receiving cancer therapy, as well as those with cardiac implantable electronic devices undergoing radiotherapy.

The guidelines were developed by the task force on cardio-oncology of the ESC, in collaboration with the European Hematology Association, the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology, and the International Cardio-Oncology Society. Dr. Lyon declares relationships with Akcea, Takeda Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Heartfelt Technologies, Brainstorm, and Myocardial Solutions. Dr. López-Fernández declares relationships with Daiichi Sankyo, Almirall Spain, Janssen-Cilag, Bayer, Roche, Philips, and Incyte.

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

BARCELONA – Cardiovascular disease risk factors, as well as established disease, in patients undergoing cancer therapy can be safely managed to minimize cancer therapy–related cardiovascular toxicity (CVR-CVT), conclude the first cardio-oncology guidelines from the European Society of Cardiology.

The guidelines were presented at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology and published simultaneously in the European Heart Journal.

Guideline cochair Alexander R. Lyon, MD, PhD, told this news organization that the aim of the guideline was to “personalize the decision-making of a patient with cancer who has cardiovascular disease or is at risk of developing it from their treatment ... because it’s not one size fits all.”

A “very strong theme throughout the guideline is risk assessment, and the fact that that risk is dynamic, it can change ... because how you manage someone who’s at high risk is going to be different” than managing someone who is at moderate or low risk, he said.

“We’re doing a lot of surveillance because one of the big advantages of cardio-oncology is we know when someone is about to get treated,” Dr. Lyon, from the National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, and Cardio-Oncology Service, Royal Brompton Hospital, London, said.

“You don’t know in nature when someone’s going to have an acute myocardial infarction or acute viral myocarditis, but we do know when they’re coming into an oncology clinic to get an infusion of chemotherapy or tablets,” he noted.

The guidelines offer recommendations so that patients can “have their treatment safely and minimize interruptions.”

“We know these cancer therapies work; we’re here to get the best of both worlds” by minimizing cardiotoxicity, Dr. Lyon said.
 

Steady decline in cancer-related mortality

The guidelines note that since the 1990s there has been a “steady decline in cancer-related mortality, mirrored by a steady increase in cancer survival,” and the result is that “treatment-related side effects have gained more significance.”

Dr. Lyon said that between 2011 and 2021, there was a fivefold increase in the number of new referrals of cancer patients with cardiological consequences to his institution.

He said that one of main drivers is modifiable factors, such as smoking, obesity, and inactivity, which increase the risk for both cancer and cardiovascular disease.

“Allied to that, there’s been an improvement in treating cardiovascular diseases in people in their 40s, 50s, and 60s, so they’re surviving their heart failure, myocardial infarction, atrial fibrillation to develop cancers in later life.”

Combined with the aging population, the result is that “not only are many more people being diagnosed with cancer, because they’re living longer, but they have all these pre-existing heart risk factors, whether as confirmed disease or just the risk factors associated with that,” he said.

Another aspect is that many of the newer, targeted cancer therapies confer a cardiovascular risk.

Dr. Lyon said that the “most famous one” is trastuzumab, a monoclonal antibody that is used to treat HER2-positive breast cancer but that also causes left ventricular impairment “in about 15%-20% of the women taking it and can cause severe heart failure if it is missed.”

That, he continued, was the “forerunner of designer, targeted therapies,” and the subsequent “explosion” in the availability of modern cancer therapies has included many that confer cardiac issues.

The final reason for the greater interest in cardio-oncology, Dr. Lyon added, is the increasing awareness in oncology and hematology teams of the potential for cardiac problems among their patients.

“We have been reaching out to our oncology and hematology colleagues over the last 5-10 years to explain we’re here to help. We’re not here to stop their treatments, we’re here to support them.”

Presenting the guidelines, cochair Teresa López-Fernández, MD, cardiology department, La Paz University Hospital, IdiPAZ Research Institute, Madrid, said that the “spectrum of CVR-CVT presentations” includes arterial hypertension, cardiac arrhythmias, coronary artery disease, heart failure, and myocarditis.

She explained that cytotoxic cancer therapies are associated with an increased risk for cardiac toxicity that is most acute during the treatment phase but is not entirely diminished once it is over, then typically accumulates during long-term follow-up.

Crucially, the impact of cancer therapy on cardiovascular risk is dependent on several factors, such as patient age, cancer history, pre-existing cardiovascular risk factors or cardiovascular disease, and previous cardiotoxic cancer therapy.

There are nevertheless a number of potential strategies to reduce the risk for cardiac toxicity, including primary and secondary prevention prior to the start of cancer therapy and early CVR-CVT management during treatment, as well as cardiovascular risk assessment in the first year after treatment completion and cancer-survivorship programs.

To those ends, Dr. López-Fernández said the guidelines incorporate 272 new recommendations that cover the entire cardio-oncology care pathway, beginning with cardiovascular risk stratification before anticancer therapy.

They offer a risk-assessment checklist and make a series of recommendations for patients to be treated with potentially cardiotoxic drugs, such as anthracyclines, as well as recommendations on cardiac imaging.

The guidelines provide a range of recommendations for primary and secondary cancer therapy–related cardiovascular toxicity prevention, including minimization of the use of cardiotoxic drugs and the use of angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin-receptor blockers, beta blockers, and statins for primary prevention.

They establish CVR-CVT monitoring protocols across the gamut of cancer therapies, from HER-targeted therapies, through immune checkpoint inhibitors, Bruton tyrosine kinase, CDK4/6, EGFR, VEGF, and ALK inhibitors, and androgen-deprivation and endocrine therapies, to the more novel CAR-T-cell therapies.

A section on radiotherapy-induced cardiovascular toxicity has its own protocol for the establishment of an individual’s mean heart dose of radiation or the amount of radiation exposure to the heart during treatment.

Next, Dr. Lyon looked at recommendations for the management of cardiovascular disease and cancer therapy–related cardiovascular toxicity in patients receiving anticancer treatment.

He underlined that treatment decisions should consider the cancer and cardiovascular symptom burden, the cancer prognosis, the requirements for cancer treatment, including alternative options, drug-drug interactions, and patient preferences.

Dr. Lyon highlighted the algorithms designed to aid the management of cardiac dysfunction related to anthracycline chemotherapy, HER2-targeted therapy, and immune checkpoint inhibitors, as well as QTc-prolonging anticancer drugs.

In the first 12 months after the completions of therapy, there are a number of risk factors for future cardiovascular disease, he continued.

These include high and very high baseline cardiovascular toxicity risk, anticancer treatments known to have a high risk for long-term cardiovascular complications, such as doxorubicin and radiotherapy, and moderate or severe CTR-CVT during anticancer treatment.

Over the long term, the guidelines recommend that surveillance in asymptomatic cancer survivors range from an annual cardiovascular risk assessment in low-risk patients to patient education and cardiovascular risk factor optimization, alongside regular transthoracic echocardiography in high-risk groups.

Finally, Dr. Lyon said the guidelines turn their attention to special populations, such as patients with cardiac masses and tumors, those with carcinoid heart disease, pregnant women receiving cancer therapy, as well as those with cardiac implantable electronic devices undergoing radiotherapy.

The guidelines were developed by the task force on cardio-oncology of the ESC, in collaboration with the European Hematology Association, the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology, and the International Cardio-Oncology Society. Dr. Lyon declares relationships with Akcea, Takeda Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Heartfelt Technologies, Brainstorm, and Myocardial Solutions. Dr. López-Fernández declares relationships with Daiichi Sankyo, Almirall Spain, Janssen-Cilag, Bayer, Roche, Philips, and Incyte.

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

BARCELONA – Cardiovascular disease risk factors, as well as established disease, in patients undergoing cancer therapy can be safely managed to minimize cancer therapy–related cardiovascular toxicity (CVR-CVT), conclude the first cardio-oncology guidelines from the European Society of Cardiology.

The guidelines were presented at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology and published simultaneously in the European Heart Journal.

Guideline cochair Alexander R. Lyon, MD, PhD, told this news organization that the aim of the guideline was to “personalize the decision-making of a patient with cancer who has cardiovascular disease or is at risk of developing it from their treatment ... because it’s not one size fits all.”

A “very strong theme throughout the guideline is risk assessment, and the fact that that risk is dynamic, it can change ... because how you manage someone who’s at high risk is going to be different” than managing someone who is at moderate or low risk, he said.

“We’re doing a lot of surveillance because one of the big advantages of cardio-oncology is we know when someone is about to get treated,” Dr. Lyon, from the National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, and Cardio-Oncology Service, Royal Brompton Hospital, London, said.

“You don’t know in nature when someone’s going to have an acute myocardial infarction or acute viral myocarditis, but we do know when they’re coming into an oncology clinic to get an infusion of chemotherapy or tablets,” he noted.

The guidelines offer recommendations so that patients can “have their treatment safely and minimize interruptions.”

“We know these cancer therapies work; we’re here to get the best of both worlds” by minimizing cardiotoxicity, Dr. Lyon said.
 

Steady decline in cancer-related mortality

The guidelines note that since the 1990s there has been a “steady decline in cancer-related mortality, mirrored by a steady increase in cancer survival,” and the result is that “treatment-related side effects have gained more significance.”

Dr. Lyon said that between 2011 and 2021, there was a fivefold increase in the number of new referrals of cancer patients with cardiological consequences to his institution.

He said that one of main drivers is modifiable factors, such as smoking, obesity, and inactivity, which increase the risk for both cancer and cardiovascular disease.

“Allied to that, there’s been an improvement in treating cardiovascular diseases in people in their 40s, 50s, and 60s, so they’re surviving their heart failure, myocardial infarction, atrial fibrillation to develop cancers in later life.”

Combined with the aging population, the result is that “not only are many more people being diagnosed with cancer, because they’re living longer, but they have all these pre-existing heart risk factors, whether as confirmed disease or just the risk factors associated with that,” he said.

Another aspect is that many of the newer, targeted cancer therapies confer a cardiovascular risk.

Dr. Lyon said that the “most famous one” is trastuzumab, a monoclonal antibody that is used to treat HER2-positive breast cancer but that also causes left ventricular impairment “in about 15%-20% of the women taking it and can cause severe heart failure if it is missed.”

That, he continued, was the “forerunner of designer, targeted therapies,” and the subsequent “explosion” in the availability of modern cancer therapies has included many that confer cardiac issues.

The final reason for the greater interest in cardio-oncology, Dr. Lyon added, is the increasing awareness in oncology and hematology teams of the potential for cardiac problems among their patients.

“We have been reaching out to our oncology and hematology colleagues over the last 5-10 years to explain we’re here to help. We’re not here to stop their treatments, we’re here to support them.”

Presenting the guidelines, cochair Teresa López-Fernández, MD, cardiology department, La Paz University Hospital, IdiPAZ Research Institute, Madrid, said that the “spectrum of CVR-CVT presentations” includes arterial hypertension, cardiac arrhythmias, coronary artery disease, heart failure, and myocarditis.

She explained that cytotoxic cancer therapies are associated with an increased risk for cardiac toxicity that is most acute during the treatment phase but is not entirely diminished once it is over, then typically accumulates during long-term follow-up.

Crucially, the impact of cancer therapy on cardiovascular risk is dependent on several factors, such as patient age, cancer history, pre-existing cardiovascular risk factors or cardiovascular disease, and previous cardiotoxic cancer therapy.

There are nevertheless a number of potential strategies to reduce the risk for cardiac toxicity, including primary and secondary prevention prior to the start of cancer therapy and early CVR-CVT management during treatment, as well as cardiovascular risk assessment in the first year after treatment completion and cancer-survivorship programs.

To those ends, Dr. López-Fernández said the guidelines incorporate 272 new recommendations that cover the entire cardio-oncology care pathway, beginning with cardiovascular risk stratification before anticancer therapy.

They offer a risk-assessment checklist and make a series of recommendations for patients to be treated with potentially cardiotoxic drugs, such as anthracyclines, as well as recommendations on cardiac imaging.

The guidelines provide a range of recommendations for primary and secondary cancer therapy–related cardiovascular toxicity prevention, including minimization of the use of cardiotoxic drugs and the use of angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin-receptor blockers, beta blockers, and statins for primary prevention.

They establish CVR-CVT monitoring protocols across the gamut of cancer therapies, from HER-targeted therapies, through immune checkpoint inhibitors, Bruton tyrosine kinase, CDK4/6, EGFR, VEGF, and ALK inhibitors, and androgen-deprivation and endocrine therapies, to the more novel CAR-T-cell therapies.

A section on radiotherapy-induced cardiovascular toxicity has its own protocol for the establishment of an individual’s mean heart dose of radiation or the amount of radiation exposure to the heart during treatment.

Next, Dr. Lyon looked at recommendations for the management of cardiovascular disease and cancer therapy–related cardiovascular toxicity in patients receiving anticancer treatment.

He underlined that treatment decisions should consider the cancer and cardiovascular symptom burden, the cancer prognosis, the requirements for cancer treatment, including alternative options, drug-drug interactions, and patient preferences.

Dr. Lyon highlighted the algorithms designed to aid the management of cardiac dysfunction related to anthracycline chemotherapy, HER2-targeted therapy, and immune checkpoint inhibitors, as well as QTc-prolonging anticancer drugs.

In the first 12 months after the completions of therapy, there are a number of risk factors for future cardiovascular disease, he continued.

These include high and very high baseline cardiovascular toxicity risk, anticancer treatments known to have a high risk for long-term cardiovascular complications, such as doxorubicin and radiotherapy, and moderate or severe CTR-CVT during anticancer treatment.

Over the long term, the guidelines recommend that surveillance in asymptomatic cancer survivors range from an annual cardiovascular risk assessment in low-risk patients to patient education and cardiovascular risk factor optimization, alongside regular transthoracic echocardiography in high-risk groups.

Finally, Dr. Lyon said the guidelines turn their attention to special populations, such as patients with cardiac masses and tumors, those with carcinoid heart disease, pregnant women receiving cancer therapy, as well as those with cardiac implantable electronic devices undergoing radiotherapy.

The guidelines were developed by the task force on cardio-oncology of the ESC, in collaboration with the European Hematology Association, the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology, and the International Cardio-Oncology Society. Dr. Lyon declares relationships with Akcea, Takeda Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Heartfelt Technologies, Brainstorm, and Myocardial Solutions. Dr. López-Fernández declares relationships with Daiichi Sankyo, Almirall Spain, Janssen-Cilag, Bayer, Roche, Philips, and Incyte.

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

Difficulty achieving regular restorative sleep is a common symptom of many psychiatric illnesses and can pose a pharmaceutical challenge, particularly for patients who have contra­indications to benzodiazepines or sedative-hypnotics. Melatonin is commonly used to treat insomnia and circadian rhythm disorders in hospitalized patients because it is largely considered safe, nonhabit forming, unlikely to interact with other medications, and possibly protective against delirium.¹ We support its short-term use in patients with sleep disruption, even if they do not meet the diagnostic criteria for insomnia or a circadian rhythm sleep-wake disorder. However, this use should be guided by consideration of the known physiological actions of melatonin, and not by an assumption that it acts as a simple sedative-hypnotic.

How melatonin works

Melatonin is an endogenous neurohormone involved in circadian rhythm regulation (sleep/wake regulation), a fundamental process in the functioning of the CNS and in the development of psychiatric disorders.² Melatonin is commonly described as a sleep-promoting neurotransmitter, but it is more accurately described as a “darkness hormone.”³ With an onset at dusk and offset at sunrise, melatonin is the signal for biological night, not the signal for sleep. Melanopsin-containing retina neurons sensitive to blue light sense the diminishing light of the evening and communicate this cue to the brain’s master clock in the suprachiasmatic nucleus (SCN) of the hypothalamus (via the retinohypothalamic pathway). The SCN then releases its inhibition on the pineal gland, allowing it to release melatonin into the bloodstream and CSF. The timing of this release is known as the dim-light melatonin onset (DLMO).

Selecting the optimal timing and dose

Studies in laboratory and home settings have consistently shown that the DLMO precedes the onset of sleep by approximately 2 to 4 hours.⁴ Thus, we recommend scheduling melatonin administration for 2 to 4 hours before the intended bedtime.

Lower doses better replicate physiological levels of melatonin. A lower dose is also less likely to lead to a compromise of the entrainment process and the induction of a delayed sleep phase due to the lingering presence of melatonin, or the phase-delaying effects of a strong melatonin signal much later than the ideal DLMO. Giving higher doses at bedtime will induce sleep but may cause a circadian phase delay, effectively “jet lagging” the patient. We recommend prescribing low-dose melatonin (LDM; 0.5 to 1 mg) 2 to 4 hours before the intended bedtime rather than higher doses (≥5 mg) given at bedtime as is common practice and recommended by many melatonin manufacturers. LDM better simulates the natural release and function of melatonin and avoids potential adverse circadian phase delays. The successful use of melatonin in hospitalized patients suggests there is a unique opportunity to use this safe and effective medication with a relatively well-understood mechanism of action for nonhospitalized patients who are having difficulty sleeping. Considering the known physiological actions of melatonin can help guide the optimal timing and dosage of melatonin for this purpose.

Difficulty achieving regular restorative sleep is a common symptom of many psychiatric illnesses and can pose a pharmaceutical challenge, particularly for patients who have contra­indications to benzodiazepines or sedative-hypnotics. Melatonin is commonly used to treat insomnia and circadian rhythm disorders in hospitalized patients because it is largely considered safe, nonhabit forming, unlikely to interact with other medications, and possibly protective against delirium.¹ We support its short-term use in patients with sleep disruption, even if they do not meet the diagnostic criteria for insomnia or a circadian rhythm sleep-wake disorder. However, this use should be guided by consideration of the known physiological actions of melatonin, and not by an assumption that it acts as a simple sedative-hypnotic.

How melatonin works

Melatonin is an endogenous neurohormone involved in circadian rhythm regulation (sleep/wake regulation), a fundamental process in the functioning of the CNS and in the development of psychiatric disorders.² Melatonin is commonly described as a sleep-promoting neurotransmitter, but it is more accurately described as a “darkness hormone.”³ With an onset at dusk and offset at sunrise, melatonin is the signal for biological night, not the signal for sleep. Melanopsin-containing retina neurons sensitive to blue light sense the diminishing light of the evening and communicate this cue to the brain’s master clock in the suprachiasmatic nucleus (SCN) of the hypothalamus (via the retinohypothalamic pathway). The SCN then releases its inhibition on the pineal gland, allowing it to release melatonin into the bloodstream and CSF. The timing of this release is known as the dim-light melatonin onset (DLMO).

Selecting the optimal timing and dose

Studies in laboratory and home settings have consistently shown that the DLMO precedes the onset of sleep by approximately 2 to 4 hours.⁴ Thus, we recommend scheduling melatonin administration for 2 to 4 hours before the intended bedtime.

Lower doses better replicate physiological levels of melatonin. A lower dose is also less likely to lead to a compromise of the entrainment process and the induction of a delayed sleep phase due to the lingering presence of melatonin, or the phase-delaying effects of a strong melatonin signal much later than the ideal DLMO. Giving higher doses at bedtime will induce sleep but may cause a circadian phase delay, effectively “jet lagging” the patient. We recommend prescribing low-dose melatonin (LDM; 0.5 to 1 mg) 2 to 4 hours before the intended bedtime rather than higher doses (≥5 mg) given at bedtime as is common practice and recommended by many melatonin manufacturers. LDM better simulates the natural release and function of melatonin and avoids potential adverse circadian phase delays. The successful use of melatonin in hospitalized patients suggests there is a unique opportunity to use this safe and effective medication with a relatively well-understood mechanism of action for nonhospitalized patients who are having difficulty sleeping. Considering the known physiological actions of melatonin can help guide the optimal timing and dosage of melatonin for this purpose.

Difficulty achieving regular restorative sleep is a common symptom of many psychiatric illnesses and can pose a pharmaceutical challenge, particularly for patients who have contra­indications to benzodiazepines or sedative-hypnotics. Melatonin is commonly used to treat insomnia and circadian rhythm disorders in hospitalized patients because it is largely considered safe, nonhabit forming, unlikely to interact with other medications, and possibly protective against delirium.¹ We support its short-term use in patients with sleep disruption, even if they do not meet the diagnostic criteria for insomnia or a circadian rhythm sleep-wake disorder. However, this use should be guided by consideration of the known physiological actions of melatonin, and not by an assumption that it acts as a simple sedative-hypnotic.

How melatonin works

Melatonin is an endogenous neurohormone involved in circadian rhythm regulation (sleep/wake regulation), a fundamental process in the functioning of the CNS and in the development of psychiatric disorders.² Melatonin is commonly described as a sleep-promoting neurotransmitter, but it is more accurately described as a “darkness hormone.”³ With an onset at dusk and offset at sunrise, melatonin is the signal for biological night, not the signal for sleep. Melanopsin-containing retina neurons sensitive to blue light sense the diminishing light of the evening and communicate this cue to the brain’s master clock in the suprachiasmatic nucleus (SCN) of the hypothalamus (via the retinohypothalamic pathway). The SCN then releases its inhibition on the pineal gland, allowing it to release melatonin into the bloodstream and CSF. The timing of this release is known as the dim-light melatonin onset (DLMO).

Selecting the optimal timing and dose

Studies in laboratory and home settings have consistently shown that the DLMO precedes the onset of sleep by approximately 2 to 4 hours.⁴ Thus, we recommend scheduling melatonin administration for 2 to 4 hours before the intended bedtime.

Lower doses better replicate physiological levels of melatonin. A lower dose is also less likely to lead to a compromise of the entrainment process and the induction of a delayed sleep phase due to the lingering presence of melatonin, or the phase-delaying effects of a strong melatonin signal much later than the ideal DLMO. Giving higher doses at bedtime will induce sleep but may cause a circadian phase delay, effectively “jet lagging” the patient. We recommend prescribing low-dose melatonin (LDM; 0.5 to 1 mg) 2 to 4 hours before the intended bedtime rather than higher doses (≥5 mg) given at bedtime as is common practice and recommended by many melatonin manufacturers. LDM better simulates the natural release and function of melatonin and avoids potential adverse circadian phase delays. The successful use of melatonin in hospitalized patients suggests there is a unique opportunity to use this safe and effective medication with a relatively well-understood mechanism of action for nonhospitalized patients who are having difficulty sleeping. Considering the known physiological actions of melatonin can help guide the optimal timing and dosage of melatonin for this purpose.