Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management

Radiating chest pain, shortness of breath, nausea, lightheadedness. Everyone knows the telltale signs of a myocardial infarction. Yet a new study shows that despite this widespread recognition, heart attacks aren’t attended to quickly across the board. Historically, the study says, women and people of color wait longer to access emergency care for a heart attack.

Researchers from the University of California, San Francisco published these findings in the Annals of Emergency Medicine. The study used the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development dataset to gather information on 453,136 cases of heart attack in California between 2005 and 2015. They found that over time, differences in timely treatment between the demographics narrowed, but the gap still existed.

Rawpixel/iStock/Getty Images

By 2015, timely treatment increased across the board, but there were still discrepancies, with 76.7% of men and 66.8% of women with STEMI undergoing timely angiography and 56.3% of men and 45.9% of women with NSTEMI undergoing timely angiography. Also in 2015, 75.2% of White patients and 69.2% of Black patients underwent timely angiography for STEMI.

Although differences in care decreased between the demographics, the gap still exists. Whereas this dataset only extends to 2015, this trend may still persist today, says Robert Glatter, MD, an emergency medicine physician at Lenox Hill Hospital, New York, who was not involved in the study. Therefore, physicians need to consider this bias when treating patients. “The bottom line is that we continue to have much work to do to achieve equality in managing not only medical conditions but treating people who have them equally,” Dr. Glatter said.

“Raising awareness of ongoing inequality in care related to gender and ethnic disparities is critical to drive change in our institutions,” he emphasized. “We simply cannot accept the status quo.”

The study was funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Glatter and the authors declared no relevant financial relationships.

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

Radiating chest pain, shortness of breath, nausea, lightheadedness. Everyone knows the telltale signs of a myocardial infarction. Yet a new study shows that despite this widespread recognition, heart attacks aren’t attended to quickly across the board. Historically, the study says, women and people of color wait longer to access emergency care for a heart attack.

Researchers from the University of California, San Francisco published these findings in the Annals of Emergency Medicine. The study used the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development dataset to gather information on 453,136 cases of heart attack in California between 2005 and 2015. They found that over time, differences in timely treatment between the demographics narrowed, but the gap still existed.

Rawpixel/iStock/Getty Images

By 2015, timely treatment increased across the board, but there were still discrepancies, with 76.7% of men and 66.8% of women with STEMI undergoing timely angiography and 56.3% of men and 45.9% of women with NSTEMI undergoing timely angiography. Also in 2015, 75.2% of White patients and 69.2% of Black patients underwent timely angiography for STEMI.

Although differences in care decreased between the demographics, the gap still exists. Whereas this dataset only extends to 2015, this trend may still persist today, says Robert Glatter, MD, an emergency medicine physician at Lenox Hill Hospital, New York, who was not involved in the study. Therefore, physicians need to consider this bias when treating patients. “The bottom line is that we continue to have much work to do to achieve equality in managing not only medical conditions but treating people who have them equally,” Dr. Glatter said.

“Raising awareness of ongoing inequality in care related to gender and ethnic disparities is critical to drive change in our institutions,” he emphasized. “We simply cannot accept the status quo.”

The study was funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Glatter and the authors declared no relevant financial relationships.

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

Radiating chest pain, shortness of breath, nausea, lightheadedness. Everyone knows the telltale signs of a myocardial infarction. Yet a new study shows that despite this widespread recognition, heart attacks aren’t attended to quickly across the board. Historically, the study says, women and people of color wait longer to access emergency care for a heart attack.

Researchers from the University of California, San Francisco published these findings in the Annals of Emergency Medicine. The study used the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development dataset to gather information on 453,136 cases of heart attack in California between 2005 and 2015. They found that over time, differences in timely treatment between the demographics narrowed, but the gap still existed.

Rawpixel/iStock/Getty Images

By 2015, timely treatment increased across the board, but there were still discrepancies, with 76.7% of men and 66.8% of women with STEMI undergoing timely angiography and 56.3% of men and 45.9% of women with NSTEMI undergoing timely angiography. Also in 2015, 75.2% of White patients and 69.2% of Black patients underwent timely angiography for STEMI.

Although differences in care decreased between the demographics, the gap still exists. Whereas this dataset only extends to 2015, this trend may still persist today, says Robert Glatter, MD, an emergency medicine physician at Lenox Hill Hospital, New York, who was not involved in the study. Therefore, physicians need to consider this bias when treating patients. “The bottom line is that we continue to have much work to do to achieve equality in managing not only medical conditions but treating people who have them equally,” Dr. Glatter said.

“Raising awareness of ongoing inequality in care related to gender and ethnic disparities is critical to drive change in our institutions,” he emphasized. “We simply cannot accept the status quo.”

The study was funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Glatter and the authors declared no relevant financial relationships.

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

Consumers, employers, and just about everyone else interested in health care prices will soon get an unprecedented look at what insurers pay for care, perhaps helping answer a question that has long dogged those who buy insurance: Are we getting the best deal we can?

As of July 1, health insurers and self-insured employers must post on websites just about every price they’ve negotiated with providers for health care services, item by item. About the only thing excluded are the prices paid for prescription drugs, except those administered in hospitals or doctors’ offices.

The federally required data release could affect future prices or even how employers contract for health care. Many will see for the first time how well their insurers are doing, compared with others.

The new rules are far broader than those that went into effect in 2021 requiring hospitals to post their negotiated rates for the public to see. Now insurers must post the amounts paid for “every physician in network, every hospital, every surgery center, every nursing facility,” said Jeffrey Leibach, a partner at the consulting firm Guidehouse.

“When you start doing the math, you’re talking trillions of records,” he said. The fines the federal government could impose for noncompliance are also heftier than the penalties that hospitals face.

Federal officials learned from the hospital experience and gave insurers more direction on what was expected, said Mr. Leibach. Insurers or self-insured employers could be fined as much as $100 a day for each violation, for each affected enrollee if they fail to provide the data.

“Get your calculator out: All of a sudden you are in the millions pretty fast,” Mr. Leibach said.

Determined consumers, especially those with high-deductible health plans, may try to dig in right away and use the data to try comparing what they will have to pay at different hospitals, clinics, or doctor offices for specific services.

But each database’s enormous size may mean that most people “will find it very hard to use the data in a nuanced way,” said Katherine Baicker, dean of the University of Chicago Harris School of Public Policy.

At least at first.

Entrepreneurs are expected to quickly translate the information into more user-friendly formats so it can be incorporated into new or existing services that estimate costs for patients. And starting Jan. 1, the rules require insurers to provide online tools that will help people get up-front cost estimates for about 500 so-called “shoppable” services, meaning medical care they can schedule ahead of time.

Once those things happen, “you’ll at least have the options in front of you,” said Chris Severn, CEO of Turquoise Health, an online company that has posted price information made available under the rules for hospitals, although many hospitals have yet to comply.

With the addition of the insurers’ data, sites like his will be able to drill down further into cost variation from one place to another or among insurers.

“If you’re going to get an x-ray, you will be able to see that you can do it for $250 at this hospital, $75 at the imaging center down the road, or your specialist can do it in office for $25,” he said.

Everyone will know everyone else’s business: for example, how much insurers Aetna and Humana pay the same surgery center for a knee replacement.

The requirements stem from the Affordable Care Act and a 2019 executive order by then-President Donald Trump.

“These plans are supposed to be acting on behalf of employers in negotiating good rates, and the little insight we have on that shows it has not happened,” said Elizabeth Mitchell, president and CEO of the Purchaser Business Group on Health, an affiliation of employers who offer job-based health benefits to workers. “I do believe the dynamics are going to change.”

Other observers are more circumspect.

“Maybe at best this will reduce the wide variance of prices out there,” said Zack Cooper, director of health policy at the Yale University Institution for Social and Policy Studies, New Haven, Conn. “But it won’t be unleashing a consumer revolution.”

Still, the biggest value of the July data release may well be to shed light on how successful insurers have been at negotiating prices. It comes on the heels of research that has shown tremendous variation in what is paid for health care. A recent study by Rand, for example, shows that employers that offer job-based insurance plans paid, on average, 224% more than Medicare for the same services.

Tens of thousands of employers who buy insurance coverage for their workers will get this more-complete pricing picture – and may not like what they see.

“What we’re learning from the hospital data is that insurers are really bad at negotiating,” said Gerard Anderson, a professor in the department of health policy at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg, Baltimore, citing research that found that negotiated rates for hospital care can be higher than what the facilities accept from patients who are not using insurance and are paying cash.

That could add to the frustration that Ms. Mitchell and others say employers have with the current health insurance system. More might try to contract with providers directly, only using insurance companies for claims processing.

Other employers may bring their insurers back to the bargaining table.

“For the first time, an employer will be able to go to an insurance company and say: ‘You have not negotiated a good-enough deal, and we know that because we can see the same provider has negotiated a better deal with another company,’ ” said James Gelfand, president of the ERISA Industry Committee, a trade group of self-insured employers.

If that happens, he added, “patients will be able to save money.”

That’s not necessarily a given, however.

Because this kind of public release of pricing data hasn’t been tried widely in health care before, how it will affect future spending remains uncertain. If insurers are pushed back to the bargaining table or providers see where they stand relative to their peers, prices could drop. However, some providers could raise their prices if they see they are charging less than their peers.

“Downward pressure may not be a given,” said Kelley Schultz, vice president of commercial policy for AHIP, the industry’s trade lobby.

Ms. Baicker said that, even after the data is out, rates will continue to be heavily influenced by local conditions, such as the size of an insurer or employer – providers often give bigger discounts, for example, to the insurers or self-insured employers that can send them the most patients. The number of hospitals in a region also matters – if an area has only one, for instance, that usually means the facility can demand higher rates.

Another unknown: Will insurers meet the deadline and provide usable data?

Ms. Schultz, at AHIP, said the industry is well on the way, partly because the original deadline was extended by 6 months. She expects insurers to do better than the hospital industry. “We saw a lot of hospitals that just decided not to post files or make them difficult to find,” she said.

So far, more than 300 noncompliant hospitals received warning letters from the government. But they could face fines of $300 a day fines for failing to comply, which is less than what insurers potentially face, although the federal government has recently upped the ante to up to $5,500 a day for the largest facilities.

Even after the pricing data is public, “I don’t think things will change overnight,” said Mr. Leibach. “Patients are still going to make care decisions based on their doctors and referrals, a lot of reasons other than price.”

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

Consumers, employers, and just about everyone else interested in health care prices will soon get an unprecedented look at what insurers pay for care, perhaps helping answer a question that has long dogged those who buy insurance: Are we getting the best deal we can?

As of July 1, health insurers and self-insured employers must post on websites just about every price they’ve negotiated with providers for health care services, item by item. About the only thing excluded are the prices paid for prescription drugs, except those administered in hospitals or doctors’ offices.

The federally required data release could affect future prices or even how employers contract for health care. Many will see for the first time how well their insurers are doing, compared with others.

The new rules are far broader than those that went into effect in 2021 requiring hospitals to post their negotiated rates for the public to see. Now insurers must post the amounts paid for “every physician in network, every hospital, every surgery center, every nursing facility,” said Jeffrey Leibach, a partner at the consulting firm Guidehouse.

“When you start doing the math, you’re talking trillions of records,” he said. The fines the federal government could impose for noncompliance are also heftier than the penalties that hospitals face.

Federal officials learned from the hospital experience and gave insurers more direction on what was expected, said Mr. Leibach. Insurers or self-insured employers could be fined as much as $100 a day for each violation, for each affected enrollee if they fail to provide the data.

“Get your calculator out: All of a sudden you are in the millions pretty fast,” Mr. Leibach said.

Determined consumers, especially those with high-deductible health plans, may try to dig in right away and use the data to try comparing what they will have to pay at different hospitals, clinics, or doctor offices for specific services.

But each database’s enormous size may mean that most people “will find it very hard to use the data in a nuanced way,” said Katherine Baicker, dean of the University of Chicago Harris School of Public Policy.

At least at first.

Entrepreneurs are expected to quickly translate the information into more user-friendly formats so it can be incorporated into new or existing services that estimate costs for patients. And starting Jan. 1, the rules require insurers to provide online tools that will help people get up-front cost estimates for about 500 so-called “shoppable” services, meaning medical care they can schedule ahead of time.

Once those things happen, “you’ll at least have the options in front of you,” said Chris Severn, CEO of Turquoise Health, an online company that has posted price information made available under the rules for hospitals, although many hospitals have yet to comply.

With the addition of the insurers’ data, sites like his will be able to drill down further into cost variation from one place to another or among insurers.

“If you’re going to get an x-ray, you will be able to see that you can do it for $250 at this hospital, $75 at the imaging center down the road, or your specialist can do it in office for $25,” he said.

Everyone will know everyone else’s business: for example, how much insurers Aetna and Humana pay the same surgery center for a knee replacement.

The requirements stem from the Affordable Care Act and a 2019 executive order by then-President Donald Trump.

“These plans are supposed to be acting on behalf of employers in negotiating good rates, and the little insight we have on that shows it has not happened,” said Elizabeth Mitchell, president and CEO of the Purchaser Business Group on Health, an affiliation of employers who offer job-based health benefits to workers. “I do believe the dynamics are going to change.”

Other observers are more circumspect.

“Maybe at best this will reduce the wide variance of prices out there,” said Zack Cooper, director of health policy at the Yale University Institution for Social and Policy Studies, New Haven, Conn. “But it won’t be unleashing a consumer revolution.”

Still, the biggest value of the July data release may well be to shed light on how successful insurers have been at negotiating prices. It comes on the heels of research that has shown tremendous variation in what is paid for health care. A recent study by Rand, for example, shows that employers that offer job-based insurance plans paid, on average, 224% more than Medicare for the same services.

Tens of thousands of employers who buy insurance coverage for their workers will get this more-complete pricing picture – and may not like what they see.

“What we’re learning from the hospital data is that insurers are really bad at negotiating,” said Gerard Anderson, a professor in the department of health policy at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg, Baltimore, citing research that found that negotiated rates for hospital care can be higher than what the facilities accept from patients who are not using insurance and are paying cash.

That could add to the frustration that Ms. Mitchell and others say employers have with the current health insurance system. More might try to contract with providers directly, only using insurance companies for claims processing.

Other employers may bring their insurers back to the bargaining table.

“For the first time, an employer will be able to go to an insurance company and say: ‘You have not negotiated a good-enough deal, and we know that because we can see the same provider has negotiated a better deal with another company,’ ” said James Gelfand, president of the ERISA Industry Committee, a trade group of self-insured employers.

If that happens, he added, “patients will be able to save money.”

That’s not necessarily a given, however.

Because this kind of public release of pricing data hasn’t been tried widely in health care before, how it will affect future spending remains uncertain. If insurers are pushed back to the bargaining table or providers see where they stand relative to their peers, prices could drop. However, some providers could raise their prices if they see they are charging less than their peers.

“Downward pressure may not be a given,” said Kelley Schultz, vice president of commercial policy for AHIP, the industry’s trade lobby.

Ms. Baicker said that, even after the data is out, rates will continue to be heavily influenced by local conditions, such as the size of an insurer or employer – providers often give bigger discounts, for example, to the insurers or self-insured employers that can send them the most patients. The number of hospitals in a region also matters – if an area has only one, for instance, that usually means the facility can demand higher rates.

Another unknown: Will insurers meet the deadline and provide usable data?

Ms. Schultz, at AHIP, said the industry is well on the way, partly because the original deadline was extended by 6 months. She expects insurers to do better than the hospital industry. “We saw a lot of hospitals that just decided not to post files or make them difficult to find,” she said.

So far, more than 300 noncompliant hospitals received warning letters from the government. But they could face fines of $300 a day fines for failing to comply, which is less than what insurers potentially face, although the federal government has recently upped the ante to up to $5,500 a day for the largest facilities.

Even after the pricing data is public, “I don’t think things will change overnight,” said Mr. Leibach. “Patients are still going to make care decisions based on their doctors and referrals, a lot of reasons other than price.”

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

Consumers, employers, and just about everyone else interested in health care prices will soon get an unprecedented look at what insurers pay for care, perhaps helping answer a question that has long dogged those who buy insurance: Are we getting the best deal we can?

As of July 1, health insurers and self-insured employers must post on websites just about every price they’ve negotiated with providers for health care services, item by item. About the only thing excluded are the prices paid for prescription drugs, except those administered in hospitals or doctors’ offices.

The federally required data release could affect future prices or even how employers contract for health care. Many will see for the first time how well their insurers are doing, compared with others.

The new rules are far broader than those that went into effect in 2021 requiring hospitals to post their negotiated rates for the public to see. Now insurers must post the amounts paid for “every physician in network, every hospital, every surgery center, every nursing facility,” said Jeffrey Leibach, a partner at the consulting firm Guidehouse.

“When you start doing the math, you’re talking trillions of records,” he said. The fines the federal government could impose for noncompliance are also heftier than the penalties that hospitals face.

Federal officials learned from the hospital experience and gave insurers more direction on what was expected, said Mr. Leibach. Insurers or self-insured employers could be fined as much as $100 a day for each violation, for each affected enrollee if they fail to provide the data.

“Get your calculator out: All of a sudden you are in the millions pretty fast,” Mr. Leibach said.

Determined consumers, especially those with high-deductible health plans, may try to dig in right away and use the data to try comparing what they will have to pay at different hospitals, clinics, or doctor offices for specific services.

But each database’s enormous size may mean that most people “will find it very hard to use the data in a nuanced way,” said Katherine Baicker, dean of the University of Chicago Harris School of Public Policy.

At least at first.

Entrepreneurs are expected to quickly translate the information into more user-friendly formats so it can be incorporated into new or existing services that estimate costs for patients. And starting Jan. 1, the rules require insurers to provide online tools that will help people get up-front cost estimates for about 500 so-called “shoppable” services, meaning medical care they can schedule ahead of time.

Once those things happen, “you’ll at least have the options in front of you,” said Chris Severn, CEO of Turquoise Health, an online company that has posted price information made available under the rules for hospitals, although many hospitals have yet to comply.

With the addition of the insurers’ data, sites like his will be able to drill down further into cost variation from one place to another or among insurers.

“If you’re going to get an x-ray, you will be able to see that you can do it for $250 at this hospital, $75 at the imaging center down the road, or your specialist can do it in office for $25,” he said.

Everyone will know everyone else’s business: for example, how much insurers Aetna and Humana pay the same surgery center for a knee replacement.

The requirements stem from the Affordable Care Act and a 2019 executive order by then-President Donald Trump.

“These plans are supposed to be acting on behalf of employers in negotiating good rates, and the little insight we have on that shows it has not happened,” said Elizabeth Mitchell, president and CEO of the Purchaser Business Group on Health, an affiliation of employers who offer job-based health benefits to workers. “I do believe the dynamics are going to change.”

Other observers are more circumspect.

“Maybe at best this will reduce the wide variance of prices out there,” said Zack Cooper, director of health policy at the Yale University Institution for Social and Policy Studies, New Haven, Conn. “But it won’t be unleashing a consumer revolution.”

Still, the biggest value of the July data release may well be to shed light on how successful insurers have been at negotiating prices. It comes on the heels of research that has shown tremendous variation in what is paid for health care. A recent study by Rand, for example, shows that employers that offer job-based insurance plans paid, on average, 224% more than Medicare for the same services.

Tens of thousands of employers who buy insurance coverage for their workers will get this more-complete pricing picture – and may not like what they see.

“What we’re learning from the hospital data is that insurers are really bad at negotiating,” said Gerard Anderson, a professor in the department of health policy at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg, Baltimore, citing research that found that negotiated rates for hospital care can be higher than what the facilities accept from patients who are not using insurance and are paying cash.

That could add to the frustration that Ms. Mitchell and others say employers have with the current health insurance system. More might try to contract with providers directly, only using insurance companies for claims processing.

Other employers may bring their insurers back to the bargaining table.

“For the first time, an employer will be able to go to an insurance company and say: ‘You have not negotiated a good-enough deal, and we know that because we can see the same provider has negotiated a better deal with another company,’ ” said James Gelfand, president of the ERISA Industry Committee, a trade group of self-insured employers.

If that happens, he added, “patients will be able to save money.”

That’s not necessarily a given, however.

Because this kind of public release of pricing data hasn’t been tried widely in health care before, how it will affect future spending remains uncertain. If insurers are pushed back to the bargaining table or providers see where they stand relative to their peers, prices could drop. However, some providers could raise their prices if they see they are charging less than their peers.

“Downward pressure may not be a given,” said Kelley Schultz, vice president of commercial policy for AHIP, the industry’s trade lobby.

Ms. Baicker said that, even after the data is out, rates will continue to be heavily influenced by local conditions, such as the size of an insurer or employer – providers often give bigger discounts, for example, to the insurers or self-insured employers that can send them the most patients. The number of hospitals in a region also matters – if an area has only one, for instance, that usually means the facility can demand higher rates.

Another unknown: Will insurers meet the deadline and provide usable data?

Ms. Schultz, at AHIP, said the industry is well on the way, partly because the original deadline was extended by 6 months. She expects insurers to do better than the hospital industry. “We saw a lot of hospitals that just decided not to post files or make them difficult to find,” she said.

So far, more than 300 noncompliant hospitals received warning letters from the government. But they could face fines of $300 a day fines for failing to comply, which is less than what insurers potentially face, although the federal government has recently upped the ante to up to $5,500 a day for the largest facilities.

Even after the pricing data is public, “I don’t think things will change overnight,” said Mr. Leibach. “Patients are still going to make care decisions based on their doctors and referrals, a lot of reasons other than price.”

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

The fourth vaccination against COVID-19 is the subject of intense discussion. Immunity against new Omicron variants (currently BA.4 and BA.5) is getting weaker and weaker. Is another vaccination with the available vaccines worth it?

For Leif Erik Sander, MD, director of infectious diseases and pneumology at Charité University Medicine, Berlin, the latest data send a clear message. “The COVID-19 vaccination is still effective against Omicron. After three doses of the vaccine, it continues to prevent severe diseases, respiratory failures, and death,” he reported at the 62nd Congress of the German Pneumology and Respiratory Medicine Society in Leipzig.

The most recent data from the United Kingdom show that the vaccine’s effectiveness against Omicron decreases after just a few months, which speaks in favor of a fourth vaccination. “Omicron is a development that we did not anticipate occurring so early on,” said Dr. Sander.

In terms of phylogenetics, Omicron is far removed from the previous variants of concern. More than 30 mutations to the spike protein (the antigen that is vaccinated against) foster the loss of immunity.
 

Boosters broaden immunity

“The booster makes all the difference here,” emphasized Dr. Sander. Experiments at Charité Berlin show that after double vaccination, the vaccination sera from healthy young people no longer neutralizes Omicron. But a third vaccination confers a very good neutralizing titer, even against Omicron.

“The third vaccination broadens the humoral immune response against the spike protein so that conserved epitopes that are unchanged, even in Omicron, are addressed, with the result that you have neutralization capacity again,” the infectious diseases specialist explained.
 

Continued protection

However, data from the United Kingdom on vaccine effectiveness show where the limit lies. Initially, after three doses, vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic disease after Omicron infection is very good. This effectiveness decreases significantly over the course of the next few months. “Lots of people experience an Omicron infection despite the booster,” said Mr. Sander.

Nonetheless, the high incidence of Omicron infections in the recent past has not overwhelmed the health care system. “This is because the vaccine’s effectiveness against severe diseases that require hospitalization and against respiratory failure is still good in the at-risk population over the age of 65, once they have had their three vaccinations,” said Dr. Sander. The data also show that there is good protection of over 90%, even against mortality.
 

Waning observed

It could be said that currently, vaccination even continues to work against Omicron, says Dr. Sander. It prevents severe disease, respiratory failure, and death. Nonetheless, after just 3 months, a slight waning of immune protection can be observed in all three endpoints.

Therefore, the question arises as to whether a fourth vaccination is worthwhile. In Israel, “Delta was successfully eradicated with the third vaccination,” and now they are trying this again for Omicron with a fourth vaccination, reported Dr. Sander.
 

Fourth vaccination protective

The first investigations show that protection against severe disease can be increased once more. “For the over-60s, protection is almost quadrupled through the fourth vaccination,” says Dr. Sander. “However, this is still plagued with a lot of uncertainty; it is still not known how stable it is.”

There is hope on the basis of results of an as yet non–peer-reviewed study from Sweden, which is currently available only as a preprint. That study shows that a fourth vaccination in a high-risk population of care-home residents and people older than 80 years can halve overall mortality. “If this can be confirmed and replicated, it must be recommended quite extensively for this high-risk group,” said Dr. Sander. The Standing Committee on Vaccination in Germany is currently recommending that high-risk groups be vaccinated against COVID-19 for the fourth time. To date, though, this has only been implemented halfheartedly.
 

Propensity for mutation

Omicron keeps developing. Following BA.1 and the more infectious subvariant BA.2, BA.4 and BA.5 are spreading in Germany. “To date, there is no evidence that vaccine protection against severe diseases has changed as a result of BA.2 emerging,” said Dr. Sander.

However, the loss of immunity against BA.4 and BA.5 is more strongly pronounced. “If you were infected with BA.1, you are not immune to BA.5,” says Dr. Sander. Lessened immunity from BA.4 and BA.5 is even more pronounced. “Anyone who was infected with BA.1 is not immune to BA.5,” says Dr. Sander. The two clades not only have spike protein mutations shared by BA.2 but also additional spike protein mutations. According to the expert, it could well be that these strains will prevail because they are best able to avoid the immunity of the population.
 

Adapted vaccines feasible?

“Vaccines adapted to BA.1 were developed very early on and were also part of clinical research,” said Dr. Sander. The initial data indicate that additional antibody responses are being mobilized that may neutralize the new variants.

It was deduced from trials on monkeys that the available vaccines were so good that only small improvements were to be expected, said Dr. Sander.
 

Moderna’s adapted vaccine

The U.S. pharmaceutical company Moderna recently submitted the first results regarding its bivalent Omicron vaccine mRNA-1273.214, which is adapted to Omicron BA.1. Data from BioNTech are expected soon.

Moderna tested a booster that contains both the spike mRNA from the original vaccine and a new mRNA adapted to the Omicron variant BA.1. The experimental vaccine mRNA-1273.214 exhibited an eightfold increase in geometric mean neutralization titer against Omicron in study participants who were seronegative at the start, compared with the already-approved vaccine.

In its latest notice, Moderna did not publish any data on how effective the updated vaccine is against the virus variants BA.4 or BA.5. Data on clinical endpoints, such as hospitalization or mortality, are also not available.
 

Conservative epitopes

Should it be assumed that the development of vaccines will always lag the emergence of new subvariants? In this respect, Dr. Sander appears optimistic. “The immunological mechanism is clear, that various B cells and antibodies will be formed that are directed against conservative epitopes that have various variants. This is good news, since we do not want to protect against BA.1 now, just for BA.8 to emerge when the vaccine goes to market. We want to protect ourselves as broadly as possible, and it seems like it may be possible to do so with this vaccine.”

Double vaccination?

Dr. Sander anticipates that a fourth vaccination against COVID-19 will occur with the next wave of the coronavirus in September or October. He remarked that coupling it with the influenza vaccination should be considered.

The coronavirus pandemic has led to shifts in other seasonal waves of pathogens. In the summer, pediatric departments were unexpectedly inundated with children suffering from RSV infections. And while the flu season over the past 2 years has been almost absent, the influenza wave may occur significantly earlier than usual this year.

“In Australia, the influenza wave arrived much earlier this year than usual, which may of course also be fruitful for us,” said Dr. Sander. “Perhaps we will also get influenza as early as in September or October. I would then plead for vaccine centers to be allowed to vaccinate against both influenza and COVID-19 at the same time. Maybe then we will also have a reasonable influenza vaccination rate,” he added.

This article was translated from the Medscape German edition.

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

The fourth vaccination against COVID-19 is the subject of intense discussion. Immunity against new Omicron variants (currently BA.4 and BA.5) is getting weaker and weaker. Is another vaccination with the available vaccines worth it?

For Leif Erik Sander, MD, director of infectious diseases and pneumology at Charité University Medicine, Berlin, the latest data send a clear message. “The COVID-19 vaccination is still effective against Omicron. After three doses of the vaccine, it continues to prevent severe diseases, respiratory failures, and death,” he reported at the 62nd Congress of the German Pneumology and Respiratory Medicine Society in Leipzig.

The most recent data from the United Kingdom show that the vaccine’s effectiveness against Omicron decreases after just a few months, which speaks in favor of a fourth vaccination. “Omicron is a development that we did not anticipate occurring so early on,” said Dr. Sander.

In terms of phylogenetics, Omicron is far removed from the previous variants of concern. More than 30 mutations to the spike protein (the antigen that is vaccinated against) foster the loss of immunity.
 

Boosters broaden immunity

“The booster makes all the difference here,” emphasized Dr. Sander. Experiments at Charité Berlin show that after double vaccination, the vaccination sera from healthy young people no longer neutralizes Omicron. But a third vaccination confers a very good neutralizing titer, even against Omicron.

“The third vaccination broadens the humoral immune response against the spike protein so that conserved epitopes that are unchanged, even in Omicron, are addressed, with the result that you have neutralization capacity again,” the infectious diseases specialist explained.
 

Continued protection

However, data from the United Kingdom on vaccine effectiveness show where the limit lies. Initially, after three doses, vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic disease after Omicron infection is very good. This effectiveness decreases significantly over the course of the next few months. “Lots of people experience an Omicron infection despite the booster,” said Mr. Sander.

Nonetheless, the high incidence of Omicron infections in the recent past has not overwhelmed the health care system. “This is because the vaccine’s effectiveness against severe diseases that require hospitalization and against respiratory failure is still good in the at-risk population over the age of 65, once they have had their three vaccinations,” said Dr. Sander. The data also show that there is good protection of over 90%, even against mortality.
 

Waning observed

It could be said that currently, vaccination even continues to work against Omicron, says Dr. Sander. It prevents severe disease, respiratory failure, and death. Nonetheless, after just 3 months, a slight waning of immune protection can be observed in all three endpoints.

Therefore, the question arises as to whether a fourth vaccination is worthwhile. In Israel, “Delta was successfully eradicated with the third vaccination,” and now they are trying this again for Omicron with a fourth vaccination, reported Dr. Sander.
 

Fourth vaccination protective

The first investigations show that protection against severe disease can be increased once more. “For the over-60s, protection is almost quadrupled through the fourth vaccination,” says Dr. Sander. “However, this is still plagued with a lot of uncertainty; it is still not known how stable it is.”

There is hope on the basis of results of an as yet non–peer-reviewed study from Sweden, which is currently available only as a preprint. That study shows that a fourth vaccination in a high-risk population of care-home residents and people older than 80 years can halve overall mortality. “If this can be confirmed and replicated, it must be recommended quite extensively for this high-risk group,” said Dr. Sander. The Standing Committee on Vaccination in Germany is currently recommending that high-risk groups be vaccinated against COVID-19 for the fourth time. To date, though, this has only been implemented halfheartedly.
 

Propensity for mutation

Omicron keeps developing. Following BA.1 and the more infectious subvariant BA.2, BA.4 and BA.5 are spreading in Germany. “To date, there is no evidence that vaccine protection against severe diseases has changed as a result of BA.2 emerging,” said Dr. Sander.

However, the loss of immunity against BA.4 and BA.5 is more strongly pronounced. “If you were infected with BA.1, you are not immune to BA.5,” says Dr. Sander. Lessened immunity from BA.4 and BA.5 is even more pronounced. “Anyone who was infected with BA.1 is not immune to BA.5,” says Dr. Sander. The two clades not only have spike protein mutations shared by BA.2 but also additional spike protein mutations. According to the expert, it could well be that these strains will prevail because they are best able to avoid the immunity of the population.
 

Adapted vaccines feasible?

“Vaccines adapted to BA.1 were developed very early on and were also part of clinical research,” said Dr. Sander. The initial data indicate that additional antibody responses are being mobilized that may neutralize the new variants.

It was deduced from trials on monkeys that the available vaccines were so good that only small improvements were to be expected, said Dr. Sander.
 

Moderna’s adapted vaccine

The U.S. pharmaceutical company Moderna recently submitted the first results regarding its bivalent Omicron vaccine mRNA-1273.214, which is adapted to Omicron BA.1. Data from BioNTech are expected soon.

Moderna tested a booster that contains both the spike mRNA from the original vaccine and a new mRNA adapted to the Omicron variant BA.1. The experimental vaccine mRNA-1273.214 exhibited an eightfold increase in geometric mean neutralization titer against Omicron in study participants who were seronegative at the start, compared with the already-approved vaccine.

In its latest notice, Moderna did not publish any data on how effective the updated vaccine is against the virus variants BA.4 or BA.5. Data on clinical endpoints, such as hospitalization or mortality, are also not available.
 

Conservative epitopes

Should it be assumed that the development of vaccines will always lag the emergence of new subvariants? In this respect, Dr. Sander appears optimistic. “The immunological mechanism is clear, that various B cells and antibodies will be formed that are directed against conservative epitopes that have various variants. This is good news, since we do not want to protect against BA.1 now, just for BA.8 to emerge when the vaccine goes to market. We want to protect ourselves as broadly as possible, and it seems like it may be possible to do so with this vaccine.”

Double vaccination?

Dr. Sander anticipates that a fourth vaccination against COVID-19 will occur with the next wave of the coronavirus in September or October. He remarked that coupling it with the influenza vaccination should be considered.

The coronavirus pandemic has led to shifts in other seasonal waves of pathogens. In the summer, pediatric departments were unexpectedly inundated with children suffering from RSV infections. And while the flu season over the past 2 years has been almost absent, the influenza wave may occur significantly earlier than usual this year.

“In Australia, the influenza wave arrived much earlier this year than usual, which may of course also be fruitful for us,” said Dr. Sander. “Perhaps we will also get influenza as early as in September or October. I would then plead for vaccine centers to be allowed to vaccinate against both influenza and COVID-19 at the same time. Maybe then we will also have a reasonable influenza vaccination rate,” he added.

This article was translated from the Medscape German edition.

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

The fourth vaccination against COVID-19 is the subject of intense discussion. Immunity against new Omicron variants (currently BA.4 and BA.5) is getting weaker and weaker. Is another vaccination with the available vaccines worth it?

For Leif Erik Sander, MD, director of infectious diseases and pneumology at Charité University Medicine, Berlin, the latest data send a clear message. “The COVID-19 vaccination is still effective against Omicron. After three doses of the vaccine, it continues to prevent severe diseases, respiratory failures, and death,” he reported at the 62nd Congress of the German Pneumology and Respiratory Medicine Society in Leipzig.

The most recent data from the United Kingdom show that the vaccine’s effectiveness against Omicron decreases after just a few months, which speaks in favor of a fourth vaccination. “Omicron is a development that we did not anticipate occurring so early on,” said Dr. Sander.

In terms of phylogenetics, Omicron is far removed from the previous variants of concern. More than 30 mutations to the spike protein (the antigen that is vaccinated against) foster the loss of immunity.
 

Boosters broaden immunity

“The booster makes all the difference here,” emphasized Dr. Sander. Experiments at Charité Berlin show that after double vaccination, the vaccination sera from healthy young people no longer neutralizes Omicron. But a third vaccination confers a very good neutralizing titer, even against Omicron.

“The third vaccination broadens the humoral immune response against the spike protein so that conserved epitopes that are unchanged, even in Omicron, are addressed, with the result that you have neutralization capacity again,” the infectious diseases specialist explained.
 

Continued protection

However, data from the United Kingdom on vaccine effectiveness show where the limit lies. Initially, after three doses, vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic disease after Omicron infection is very good. This effectiveness decreases significantly over the course of the next few months. “Lots of people experience an Omicron infection despite the booster,” said Mr. Sander.

Nonetheless, the high incidence of Omicron infections in the recent past has not overwhelmed the health care system. “This is because the vaccine’s effectiveness against severe diseases that require hospitalization and against respiratory failure is still good in the at-risk population over the age of 65, once they have had their three vaccinations,” said Dr. Sander. The data also show that there is good protection of over 90%, even against mortality.
 

Waning observed

It could be said that currently, vaccination even continues to work against Omicron, says Dr. Sander. It prevents severe disease, respiratory failure, and death. Nonetheless, after just 3 months, a slight waning of immune protection can be observed in all three endpoints.

Therefore, the question arises as to whether a fourth vaccination is worthwhile. In Israel, “Delta was successfully eradicated with the third vaccination,” and now they are trying this again for Omicron with a fourth vaccination, reported Dr. Sander.
 

Fourth vaccination protective

The first investigations show that protection against severe disease can be increased once more. “For the over-60s, protection is almost quadrupled through the fourth vaccination,” says Dr. Sander. “However, this is still plagued with a lot of uncertainty; it is still not known how stable it is.”

There is hope on the basis of results of an as yet non–peer-reviewed study from Sweden, which is currently available only as a preprint. That study shows that a fourth vaccination in a high-risk population of care-home residents and people older than 80 years can halve overall mortality. “If this can be confirmed and replicated, it must be recommended quite extensively for this high-risk group,” said Dr. Sander. The Standing Committee on Vaccination in Germany is currently recommending that high-risk groups be vaccinated against COVID-19 for the fourth time. To date, though, this has only been implemented halfheartedly.
 

Propensity for mutation

Omicron keeps developing. Following BA.1 and the more infectious subvariant BA.2, BA.4 and BA.5 are spreading in Germany. “To date, there is no evidence that vaccine protection against severe diseases has changed as a result of BA.2 emerging,” said Dr. Sander.

However, the loss of immunity against BA.4 and BA.5 is more strongly pronounced. “If you were infected with BA.1, you are not immune to BA.5,” says Dr. Sander. Lessened immunity from BA.4 and BA.5 is even more pronounced. “Anyone who was infected with BA.1 is not immune to BA.5,” says Dr. Sander. The two clades not only have spike protein mutations shared by BA.2 but also additional spike protein mutations. According to the expert, it could well be that these strains will prevail because they are best able to avoid the immunity of the population.
 

Adapted vaccines feasible?

“Vaccines adapted to BA.1 were developed very early on and were also part of clinical research,” said Dr. Sander. The initial data indicate that additional antibody responses are being mobilized that may neutralize the new variants.

It was deduced from trials on monkeys that the available vaccines were so good that only small improvements were to be expected, said Dr. Sander.
 

Moderna’s adapted vaccine

The U.S. pharmaceutical company Moderna recently submitted the first results regarding its bivalent Omicron vaccine mRNA-1273.214, which is adapted to Omicron BA.1. Data from BioNTech are expected soon.

Moderna tested a booster that contains both the spike mRNA from the original vaccine and a new mRNA adapted to the Omicron variant BA.1. The experimental vaccine mRNA-1273.214 exhibited an eightfold increase in geometric mean neutralization titer against Omicron in study participants who were seronegative at the start, compared with the already-approved vaccine.

In its latest notice, Moderna did not publish any data on how effective the updated vaccine is against the virus variants BA.4 or BA.5. Data on clinical endpoints, such as hospitalization or mortality, are also not available.
 

Conservative epitopes

Should it be assumed that the development of vaccines will always lag the emergence of new subvariants? In this respect, Dr. Sander appears optimistic. “The immunological mechanism is clear, that various B cells and antibodies will be formed that are directed against conservative epitopes that have various variants. This is good news, since we do not want to protect against BA.1 now, just for BA.8 to emerge when the vaccine goes to market. We want to protect ourselves as broadly as possible, and it seems like it may be possible to do so with this vaccine.”

Double vaccination?

Dr. Sander anticipates that a fourth vaccination against COVID-19 will occur with the next wave of the coronavirus in September or October. He remarked that coupling it with the influenza vaccination should be considered.

The coronavirus pandemic has led to shifts in other seasonal waves of pathogens. In the summer, pediatric departments were unexpectedly inundated with children suffering from RSV infections. And while the flu season over the past 2 years has been almost absent, the influenza wave may occur significantly earlier than usual this year.

“In Australia, the influenza wave arrived much earlier this year than usual, which may of course also be fruitful for us,” said Dr. Sander. “Perhaps we will also get influenza as early as in September or October. I would then plead for vaccine centers to be allowed to vaccinate against both influenza and COVID-19 at the same time. Maybe then we will also have a reasonable influenza vaccination rate,” he added.

This article was translated from the Medscape German edition.

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

A new Scandinavian study has confirmed previous data showing increased rates of cerebral venous thrombosis and thrombocytopenia after the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine.

The study also showed higher rates of several thromboembolic and thrombocytopenic outcomes after the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines, although these increases were less than the rates observed after the AstraZeneca vaccine, and sensitivity analyses were not consistent.

The researchers conclude that confirmatory analysis on the two mRNA vaccines by other methods are warranted.

The study was published in the June issue of JAMA Network Open.

“This study confirms what we know from other studies: that the AstraZeneca vaccine is associated with the rare but serious side effect of vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia,” lead author Jacob Dag Berild, MD, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, told this news organization.

“Reassuringly, no consistent association was observed between the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines and these rare complications,” he added.

Dr. Dag Berild noted that in the current study there was an excess of 1.6 events of cerebral venous thrombosis per 100,000 AstraZeneca vaccine doses, which is similar to what has been previously reported.

Asked how he saw these results affecting continued use of these vaccines, Dr. Dag Berild pointed out that the risk-benefit ratio of the vaccine depends on the risk of contracting COVID-19 and the risk for a severe outcome from COVID-19 weighed against the risk for an adverse event after vaccination.

“The European Medicines Agency has concluded that the overall risk-benefit ratio remains positive for the AstraZeneca vaccine, but Norway, Finland, and Denmark no longer use the AstraZeneca vaccine in their vaccination programs because of adequate availability of alternative vaccines. I think this is a reasonable decision,” he said.

For the current study, the researchers linked individual-level data separately from national population, patient, and vaccination registers in Norway, Finland, and Denmark. Patient registers were used to identify hospital visits and admissions related to thromboembolic and thrombocytopenic disease in all three countries.

The main outcomes were relative rates of coronary artery disease, coagulation disorders, and cerebrovascular disease in the 28-day period after vaccination, compared with the control period prior to vaccination.

The authors note that a strength of this study is the use of registers with full population coverage in three countries with universal health care, ensuring equal access to care for all permanent residents. At the end of the study period, from Jan. 1, 2020 to May 16, 2021, more than 5.3 million people in the three countries were vaccinated with one or two doses.

Another strength is the inherent adjustment for time-invariant confounders in the self-controlled case series design and the resulting control of confounders that can affect the more traditional observational studies when complete data for confounders are not available, they add.

Of the 265,339 hospital contacts, 43% were made by female patients and 93% by patients born in or before 1971, and 44% were for coronary artery disease, 21% for coagulation disorders, and 35% for cerebrovascular disease.

In the 28-day period after vaccination, there was an elevated rate of coronary artery disease after the Moderna vaccine (relative rate, 1.13) but not after the AstraZeneca (RR, 0.92) or Pfizer (RR, 0.96) vaccines.

There was an observed increase in the rate of coagulation disorders after all three vaccines (AstraZeneca RR, 2.01; Pfizer RR, 1.12; and Moderna RR, 1.26).

There was also an increase in the rate of cerebrovascular disease after all three vaccines (AstraZeneca RR, 1.32; Pfizer RR, 1.09; and Moderna RR, 1.21).

For individual diseases in the main outcomes, two notably high rates were observed after the AstraZeneca vaccine, with relative rates of 12.04 for cerebral venous thrombosis and 4.29 for thrombocytopenia, corresponding to 1.6 and 4.9 excess events per 100,000 doses, respectively.

The elevated risk after the AstraZeneca vaccine was consistent across all three countries and robust in sensitivity analyses.

The researchers report that they also observed statistically significant increases in hospital contacts for thrombocytopenic and thromboembolic events after the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. However, the risk was smaller than after the AstraZeneca vaccine.

“Additionally, the national estimates varied, increased risk [was] observed only in the oldest cohorts, and sensitivity analysis checking underlying assumptions of the analyses were not consistent. Therefore, the overall and combined increased relative risks following the Pfizer and Moderna vaccinations should be interpreted with caution,” they say.

They note that their results with the AstraZeneca vaccine are in line with a comparison of observed and historic rates performed on partly the same population in Norway and Denmark and also with a Scottish national case-control study.

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

A new Scandinavian study has confirmed previous data showing increased rates of cerebral venous thrombosis and thrombocytopenia after the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine.

The study also showed higher rates of several thromboembolic and thrombocytopenic outcomes after the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines, although these increases were less than the rates observed after the AstraZeneca vaccine, and sensitivity analyses were not consistent.

The researchers conclude that confirmatory analysis on the two mRNA vaccines by other methods are warranted.

The study was published in the June issue of JAMA Network Open.

“This study confirms what we know from other studies: that the AstraZeneca vaccine is associated with the rare but serious side effect of vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia,” lead author Jacob Dag Berild, MD, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, told this news organization.

“Reassuringly, no consistent association was observed between the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines and these rare complications,” he added.

Dr. Dag Berild noted that in the current study there was an excess of 1.6 events of cerebral venous thrombosis per 100,000 AstraZeneca vaccine doses, which is similar to what has been previously reported.

Asked how he saw these results affecting continued use of these vaccines, Dr. Dag Berild pointed out that the risk-benefit ratio of the vaccine depends on the risk of contracting COVID-19 and the risk for a severe outcome from COVID-19 weighed against the risk for an adverse event after vaccination.

“The European Medicines Agency has concluded that the overall risk-benefit ratio remains positive for the AstraZeneca vaccine, but Norway, Finland, and Denmark no longer use the AstraZeneca vaccine in their vaccination programs because of adequate availability of alternative vaccines. I think this is a reasonable decision,” he said.

For the current study, the researchers linked individual-level data separately from national population, patient, and vaccination registers in Norway, Finland, and Denmark. Patient registers were used to identify hospital visits and admissions related to thromboembolic and thrombocytopenic disease in all three countries.

The main outcomes were relative rates of coronary artery disease, coagulation disorders, and cerebrovascular disease in the 28-day period after vaccination, compared with the control period prior to vaccination.

The authors note that a strength of this study is the use of registers with full population coverage in three countries with universal health care, ensuring equal access to care for all permanent residents. At the end of the study period, from Jan. 1, 2020 to May 16, 2021, more than 5.3 million people in the three countries were vaccinated with one or two doses.

Another strength is the inherent adjustment for time-invariant confounders in the self-controlled case series design and the resulting control of confounders that can affect the more traditional observational studies when complete data for confounders are not available, they add.

Of the 265,339 hospital contacts, 43% were made by female patients and 93% by patients born in or before 1971, and 44% were for coronary artery disease, 21% for coagulation disorders, and 35% for cerebrovascular disease.

In the 28-day period after vaccination, there was an elevated rate of coronary artery disease after the Moderna vaccine (relative rate, 1.13) but not after the AstraZeneca (RR, 0.92) or Pfizer (RR, 0.96) vaccines.

There was an observed increase in the rate of coagulation disorders after all three vaccines (AstraZeneca RR, 2.01; Pfizer RR, 1.12; and Moderna RR, 1.26).

There was also an increase in the rate of cerebrovascular disease after all three vaccines (AstraZeneca RR, 1.32; Pfizer RR, 1.09; and Moderna RR, 1.21).

For individual diseases in the main outcomes, two notably high rates were observed after the AstraZeneca vaccine, with relative rates of 12.04 for cerebral venous thrombosis and 4.29 for thrombocytopenia, corresponding to 1.6 and 4.9 excess events per 100,000 doses, respectively.

The elevated risk after the AstraZeneca vaccine was consistent across all three countries and robust in sensitivity analyses.

The researchers report that they also observed statistically significant increases in hospital contacts for thrombocytopenic and thromboembolic events after the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. However, the risk was smaller than after the AstraZeneca vaccine.

“Additionally, the national estimates varied, increased risk [was] observed only in the oldest cohorts, and sensitivity analysis checking underlying assumptions of the analyses were not consistent. Therefore, the overall and combined increased relative risks following the Pfizer and Moderna vaccinations should be interpreted with caution,” they say.

They note that their results with the AstraZeneca vaccine are in line with a comparison of observed and historic rates performed on partly the same population in Norway and Denmark and also with a Scottish national case-control study.

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

A new Scandinavian study has confirmed previous data showing increased rates of cerebral venous thrombosis and thrombocytopenia after the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine.

The study also showed higher rates of several thromboembolic and thrombocytopenic outcomes after the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines, although these increases were less than the rates observed after the AstraZeneca vaccine, and sensitivity analyses were not consistent.

The researchers conclude that confirmatory analysis on the two mRNA vaccines by other methods are warranted.

The study was published in the June issue of JAMA Network Open.

“This study confirms what we know from other studies: that the AstraZeneca vaccine is associated with the rare but serious side effect of vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia,” lead author Jacob Dag Berild, MD, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, told this news organization.

“Reassuringly, no consistent association was observed between the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines and these rare complications,” he added.

Dr. Dag Berild noted that in the current study there was an excess of 1.6 events of cerebral venous thrombosis per 100,000 AstraZeneca vaccine doses, which is similar to what has been previously reported.

Asked how he saw these results affecting continued use of these vaccines, Dr. Dag Berild pointed out that the risk-benefit ratio of the vaccine depends on the risk of contracting COVID-19 and the risk for a severe outcome from COVID-19 weighed against the risk for an adverse event after vaccination.

“The European Medicines Agency has concluded that the overall risk-benefit ratio remains positive for the AstraZeneca vaccine, but Norway, Finland, and Denmark no longer use the AstraZeneca vaccine in their vaccination programs because of adequate availability of alternative vaccines. I think this is a reasonable decision,” he said.

For the current study, the researchers linked individual-level data separately from national population, patient, and vaccination registers in Norway, Finland, and Denmark. Patient registers were used to identify hospital visits and admissions related to thromboembolic and thrombocytopenic disease in all three countries.

The main outcomes were relative rates of coronary artery disease, coagulation disorders, and cerebrovascular disease in the 28-day period after vaccination, compared with the control period prior to vaccination.

The authors note that a strength of this study is the use of registers with full population coverage in three countries with universal health care, ensuring equal access to care for all permanent residents. At the end of the study period, from Jan. 1, 2020 to May 16, 2021, more than 5.3 million people in the three countries were vaccinated with one or two doses.

Another strength is the inherent adjustment for time-invariant confounders in the self-controlled case series design and the resulting control of confounders that can affect the more traditional observational studies when complete data for confounders are not available, they add.

Of the 265,339 hospital contacts, 43% were made by female patients and 93% by patients born in or before 1971, and 44% were for coronary artery disease, 21% for coagulation disorders, and 35% for cerebrovascular disease.

In the 28-day period after vaccination, there was an elevated rate of coronary artery disease after the Moderna vaccine (relative rate, 1.13) but not after the AstraZeneca (RR, 0.92) or Pfizer (RR, 0.96) vaccines.

There was an observed increase in the rate of coagulation disorders after all three vaccines (AstraZeneca RR, 2.01; Pfizer RR, 1.12; and Moderna RR, 1.26).

There was also an increase in the rate of cerebrovascular disease after all three vaccines (AstraZeneca RR, 1.32; Pfizer RR, 1.09; and Moderna RR, 1.21).

For individual diseases in the main outcomes, two notably high rates were observed after the AstraZeneca vaccine, with relative rates of 12.04 for cerebral venous thrombosis and 4.29 for thrombocytopenia, corresponding to 1.6 and 4.9 excess events per 100,000 doses, respectively.

The elevated risk after the AstraZeneca vaccine was consistent across all three countries and robust in sensitivity analyses.

The researchers report that they also observed statistically significant increases in hospital contacts for thrombocytopenic and thromboembolic events after the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. However, the risk was smaller than after the AstraZeneca vaccine.

“Additionally, the national estimates varied, increased risk [was] observed only in the oldest cohorts, and sensitivity analysis checking underlying assumptions of the analyses were not consistent. Therefore, the overall and combined increased relative risks following the Pfizer and Moderna vaccinations should be interpreted with caution,” they say.

They note that their results with the AstraZeneca vaccine are in line with a comparison of observed and historic rates performed on partly the same population in Norway and Denmark and also with a Scottish national case-control study.

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

LONDON – Substantial reductions in liver fat and fibrosis can be achieved with statin therapy, according to research presented at the annual International Liver Congress sponsored by the European Association for the Study of the Liver.

Statins are thought to have multiple beneficial actions in people with fatty liver disease, but there has been little insight into how they may be exerting such effects.

Now, data from the Rotterdam Study and others suggest that statins may be reducing the formation of lipid droplets as well as influencing the expression of important inflammatory genes.

The results “require further confirmation,” the team behind the work said, which was done at Erasmus Medical Center in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, in collaboration with researchers at The First Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou (China) Medical University.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

“Statins are inversely associated with multiple components of the NAFLD [nonalcoholic fatty liver disease] spectrum,” said Ibrahim Ayada, a PhD student in the department of gastroenterology and hepatology at Erasmus MC.

“Statins can inhibit lipid synthesis in organoids and statins also exhibit healthy inflammatory effects, which might contribute to the hepatoprotective effects that we observe in our population studies,” Mr. Ayada said.
 

A rising problem that needs addressing

Together NAFLD and NASH constitute a significant and increasing health burden, Mr. Ayada observed, noting that there were an estimated 64 million people in the United States and 52 million people in Europe, at least, with the rise mirroring the obesity pandemic.

“The number of patients visiting outpatient clinics has nearly doubled within a study period of 5 years,” he said.

“There is no pharmacologic therapy,” he reminded his audience, observing that fatty liver disease was a major indication for liver transplantation.

Statins are a long-standing staple of cardiovascular disease management and are known to have pleiotropic effects, Mr. Ayada explained. Their use in NAFLD and non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) has been purported but is supported by inconclusive evidence.

Indeed, a prior Cochrane review performed in 2013 found only two studies that were eligible for analysis and had “high risk of bias and a small numbers of participants,” according to the review’s authors.
 

Examining the connection

To look at the possible benefits of statins in people with NASH and examine how these effects might be occurring, Mr. Ayada and collaborators first took data from the Rotterdam Study, a large population-based prospective cohort that has been collecting data on its participants since the early 90s.

Data on over 4,500 participants were examined and of these, just over 1,000 had NAFLD. Statin versus no statin use was found to be associated with around a 30% reduction in fatty liver disease, with an odds ratio or 0.72 for NAFLD.

Then, looking only at a subset of patients with biopsy-proven NAFLD, statin use was associated with a 45% reduction in NASH (OR, 0.55) and a 24% reduction in fibrosis, although only the NASH reduction was significant (P = .031). The purpose of this cohort is to look at potential biomarkers and all participants had donated blood, urine, and stool samples; all were of Chinese descent, Mr. Ayada said.

“We then pooled our results with existing evidence in a meta-analysis,” said Mr. Ayada, including 16 studies. While results showed an overall inverse association, only the findings for a reduction in NAFLD and fibrosis were significant; the relationship between statins and NASH was not significant.
 

Investigating mechanistic effects

Then, for the second part of their work, Mr. Ayada and associates looked at potential mechanistic effects of statins.

“We did part two because we knew part one was going to be cross-sectional and we could only show the association and not causality, so we tried to shed some light on possible pathways,” he said.

To do this they used a novel model of liver organoids developed to study fatty liver disease and test potential therapeutics. In this model human liver organoids are exposed to sodium lactate, sodium pyruvate, and octanoic acid, which induce the formation of lipid droplets. Exposing the organoids to statins – simvastatin and lovastatin were used in the experiments – resulted in a reduced number of the induced lipid droplets.

“Although all concentrations of statins significantly inhibited the lipid size versus the control, the major effect was quite modest,” observed Mr. Ayada. The effect was most noticeable at the highest dose used (10 micromolar), and what they think might be happening is that the statins are clearing the smaller droplets first, leaving the larger ones behind.

Next, they looked at the effect of statin treatment on inflammatory gene expression in liver-derived monocytes. These will turn into macrophages and play a key role in chronic inflammation, Mr. Ayada explained. Initial results suggest that several proinflammatory cytokines such as interleukin-1 beta, IL-6, and IL-8 may be downplayed by statin therapy.

An anti-inflammatory effect of statins was also reported in unrelated poster presentations at the congress. While researchers Seul Ki Han and associated from South Korea showed an anti-inflammatory effect of a combination of simvastatin and ezetimibe (SAT083), a Dutch team found that atorvastatin reduced the infiltration of hepatic macrophages, neutrophils, and monocytes, as well as lowering levels of proinflammatory cytokines (SAT033).
 

Statins for NASH – a missed opportunity?

“As far as I am aware there is no robust evidence from large, randomized trials to suggest statins lessen chances of NAFLD, or improve its surrogate markers such as ALT or GGT [gamma-glutamyltransferase] levels,” Naveed Sattar, PhD, FRCP, FRCPath, FRSE, FMedSci, commented in an interview.

“The Rotterdam study is merely cross-sectional and cannot answer the question of causality,” added Dr. Sattar, who is professor of metabolic medicine and Honorary Consultant in Cardiovascular & Medical Science at the University of Glasgow. “It may be people who have less NAFLD are more likely to be prescribed statins, perhaps because doctors are wary of prescribing statins to those with slightly deranged liver tests,” he qualified.

Moreover, said Dr. Sattar, “prior evidence shows statins are underused in people with heart disease but who have NAFLD, which represents a missed opportunity to prevent heart disease.

“If statins had positive effects for preventing conversion of NAFLD to NASH or lessening fibrosis, I believe we would have known that by now.”

As for use of statins in future treatments of fatty liver disease, Dr. Sattar said: “I would not pin my hopes on statins to improve liver health, but doctors need to remember statins are safe in people with NAFLD or NASH and they should not be withheld in those who have existing cardiovascular disease or at elevated risk.” 

The study received no commercial funding. Mr. Ayada and Dr. Sattar had no relevant conflicts of interest.
 

LONDON – Substantial reductions in liver fat and fibrosis can be achieved with statin therapy, according to research presented at the annual International Liver Congress sponsored by the European Association for the Study of the Liver.

Statins are thought to have multiple beneficial actions in people with fatty liver disease, but there has been little insight into how they may be exerting such effects.

Now, data from the Rotterdam Study and others suggest that statins may be reducing the formation of lipid droplets as well as influencing the expression of important inflammatory genes.

The results “require further confirmation,” the team behind the work said, which was done at Erasmus Medical Center in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, in collaboration with researchers at The First Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou (China) Medical University.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

“Statins are inversely associated with multiple components of the NAFLD [nonalcoholic fatty liver disease] spectrum,” said Ibrahim Ayada, a PhD student in the department of gastroenterology and hepatology at Erasmus MC.

“Statins can inhibit lipid synthesis in organoids and statins also exhibit healthy inflammatory effects, which might contribute to the hepatoprotective effects that we observe in our population studies,” Mr. Ayada said.
 

A rising problem that needs addressing

Together NAFLD and NASH constitute a significant and increasing health burden, Mr. Ayada observed, noting that there were an estimated 64 million people in the United States and 52 million people in Europe, at least, with the rise mirroring the obesity pandemic.

“The number of patients visiting outpatient clinics has nearly doubled within a study period of 5 years,” he said.

“There is no pharmacologic therapy,” he reminded his audience, observing that fatty liver disease was a major indication for liver transplantation.

Statins are a long-standing staple of cardiovascular disease management and are known to have pleiotropic effects, Mr. Ayada explained. Their use in NAFLD and non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) has been purported but is supported by inconclusive evidence.

Indeed, a prior Cochrane review performed in 2013 found only two studies that were eligible for analysis and had “high risk of bias and a small numbers of participants,” according to the review’s authors.
 

Examining the connection

To look at the possible benefits of statins in people with NASH and examine how these effects might be occurring, Mr. Ayada and collaborators first took data from the Rotterdam Study, a large population-based prospective cohort that has been collecting data on its participants since the early 90s.

Data on over 4,500 participants were examined and of these, just over 1,000 had NAFLD. Statin versus no statin use was found to be associated with around a 30% reduction in fatty liver disease, with an odds ratio or 0.72 for NAFLD.

Then, looking only at a subset of patients with biopsy-proven NAFLD, statin use was associated with a 45% reduction in NASH (OR, 0.55) and a 24% reduction in fibrosis, although only the NASH reduction was significant (P = .031). The purpose of this cohort is to look at potential biomarkers and all participants had donated blood, urine, and stool samples; all were of Chinese descent, Mr. Ayada said.

“We then pooled our results with existing evidence in a meta-analysis,” said Mr. Ayada, including 16 studies. While results showed an overall inverse association, only the findings for a reduction in NAFLD and fibrosis were significant; the relationship between statins and NASH was not significant.
 

Investigating mechanistic effects

Then, for the second part of their work, Mr. Ayada and associates looked at potential mechanistic effects of statins.

“We did part two because we knew part one was going to be cross-sectional and we could only show the association and not causality, so we tried to shed some light on possible pathways,” he said.

To do this they used a novel model of liver organoids developed to study fatty liver disease and test potential therapeutics. In this model human liver organoids are exposed to sodium lactate, sodium pyruvate, and octanoic acid, which induce the formation of lipid droplets. Exposing the organoids to statins – simvastatin and lovastatin were used in the experiments – resulted in a reduced number of the induced lipid droplets.

“Although all concentrations of statins significantly inhibited the lipid size versus the control, the major effect was quite modest,” observed Mr. Ayada. The effect was most noticeable at the highest dose used (10 micromolar), and what they think might be happening is that the statins are clearing the smaller droplets first, leaving the larger ones behind.

Next, they looked at the effect of statin treatment on inflammatory gene expression in liver-derived monocytes. These will turn into macrophages and play a key role in chronic inflammation, Mr. Ayada explained. Initial results suggest that several proinflammatory cytokines such as interleukin-1 beta, IL-6, and IL-8 may be downplayed by statin therapy.

An anti-inflammatory effect of statins was also reported in unrelated poster presentations at the congress. While researchers Seul Ki Han and associated from South Korea showed an anti-inflammatory effect of a combination of simvastatin and ezetimibe (SAT083), a Dutch team found that atorvastatin reduced the infiltration of hepatic macrophages, neutrophils, and monocytes, as well as lowering levels of proinflammatory cytokines (SAT033).
 

Statins for NASH – a missed opportunity?

“As far as I am aware there is no robust evidence from large, randomized trials to suggest statins lessen chances of NAFLD, or improve its surrogate markers such as ALT or GGT [gamma-glutamyltransferase] levels,” Naveed Sattar, PhD, FRCP, FRCPath, FRSE, FMedSci, commented in an interview.

“The Rotterdam study is merely cross-sectional and cannot answer the question of causality,” added Dr. Sattar, who is professor of metabolic medicine and Honorary Consultant in Cardiovascular & Medical Science at the University of Glasgow. “It may be people who have less NAFLD are more likely to be prescribed statins, perhaps because doctors are wary of prescribing statins to those with slightly deranged liver tests,” he qualified.

Moreover, said Dr. Sattar, “prior evidence shows statins are underused in people with heart disease but who have NAFLD, which represents a missed opportunity to prevent heart disease.

“If statins had positive effects for preventing conversion of NAFLD to NASH or lessening fibrosis, I believe we would have known that by now.”

As for use of statins in future treatments of fatty liver disease, Dr. Sattar said: “I would not pin my hopes on statins to improve liver health, but doctors need to remember statins are safe in people with NAFLD or NASH and they should not be withheld in those who have existing cardiovascular disease or at elevated risk.” 

The study received no commercial funding. Mr. Ayada and Dr. Sattar had no relevant conflicts of interest.
 

LONDON – Substantial reductions in liver fat and fibrosis can be achieved with statin therapy, according to research presented at the annual International Liver Congress sponsored by the European Association for the Study of the Liver.

Statins are thought to have multiple beneficial actions in people with fatty liver disease, but there has been little insight into how they may be exerting such effects.

Now, data from the Rotterdam Study and others suggest that statins may be reducing the formation of lipid droplets as well as influencing the expression of important inflammatory genes.

The results “require further confirmation,” the team behind the work said, which was done at Erasmus Medical Center in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, in collaboration with researchers at The First Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou (China) Medical University.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

“Statins are inversely associated with multiple components of the NAFLD [nonalcoholic fatty liver disease] spectrum,” said Ibrahim Ayada, a PhD student in the department of gastroenterology and hepatology at Erasmus MC.

“Statins can inhibit lipid synthesis in organoids and statins also exhibit healthy inflammatory effects, which might contribute to the hepatoprotective effects that we observe in our population studies,” Mr. Ayada said.
 

A rising problem that needs addressing

Together NAFLD and NASH constitute a significant and increasing health burden, Mr. Ayada observed, noting that there were an estimated 64 million people in the United States and 52 million people in Europe, at least, with the rise mirroring the obesity pandemic.

“The number of patients visiting outpatient clinics has nearly doubled within a study period of 5 years,” he said.

“There is no pharmacologic therapy,” he reminded his audience, observing that fatty liver disease was a major indication for liver transplantation.

Statins are a long-standing staple of cardiovascular disease management and are known to have pleiotropic effects, Mr. Ayada explained. Their use in NAFLD and non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) has been purported but is supported by inconclusive evidence.

Indeed, a prior Cochrane review performed in 2013 found only two studies that were eligible for analysis and had “high risk of bias and a small numbers of participants,” according to the review’s authors.
 

Examining the connection

To look at the possible benefits of statins in people with NASH and examine how these effects might be occurring, Mr. Ayada and collaborators first took data from the Rotterdam Study, a large population-based prospective cohort that has been collecting data on its participants since the early 90s.

Data on over 4,500 participants were examined and of these, just over 1,000 had NAFLD. Statin versus no statin use was found to be associated with around a 30% reduction in fatty liver disease, with an odds ratio or 0.72 for NAFLD.

Then, looking only at a subset of patients with biopsy-proven NAFLD, statin use was associated with a 45% reduction in NASH (OR, 0.55) and a 24% reduction in fibrosis, although only the NASH reduction was significant (P = .031). The purpose of this cohort is to look at potential biomarkers and all participants had donated blood, urine, and stool samples; all were of Chinese descent, Mr. Ayada said.

“We then pooled our results with existing evidence in a meta-analysis,” said Mr. Ayada, including 16 studies. While results showed an overall inverse association, only the findings for a reduction in NAFLD and fibrosis were significant; the relationship between statins and NASH was not significant.
 

Investigating mechanistic effects

Then, for the second part of their work, Mr. Ayada and associates looked at potential mechanistic effects of statins.

“We did part two because we knew part one was going to be cross-sectional and we could only show the association and not causality, so we tried to shed some light on possible pathways,” he said.

To do this they used a novel model of liver organoids developed to study fatty liver disease and test potential therapeutics. In this model human liver organoids are exposed to sodium lactate, sodium pyruvate, and octanoic acid, which induce the formation of lipid droplets. Exposing the organoids to statins – simvastatin and lovastatin were used in the experiments – resulted in a reduced number of the induced lipid droplets.

“Although all concentrations of statins significantly inhibited the lipid size versus the control, the major effect was quite modest,” observed Mr. Ayada. The effect was most noticeable at the highest dose used (10 micromolar), and what they think might be happening is that the statins are clearing the smaller droplets first, leaving the larger ones behind.

Next, they looked at the effect of statin treatment on inflammatory gene expression in liver-derived monocytes. These will turn into macrophages and play a key role in chronic inflammation, Mr. Ayada explained. Initial results suggest that several proinflammatory cytokines such as interleukin-1 beta, IL-6, and IL-8 may be downplayed by statin therapy.

An anti-inflammatory effect of statins was also reported in unrelated poster presentations at the congress. While researchers Seul Ki Han and associated from South Korea showed an anti-inflammatory effect of a combination of simvastatin and ezetimibe (SAT083), a Dutch team found that atorvastatin reduced the infiltration of hepatic macrophages, neutrophils, and monocytes, as well as lowering levels of proinflammatory cytokines (SAT033).
 

Statins for NASH – a missed opportunity?

“As far as I am aware there is no robust evidence from large, randomized trials to suggest statins lessen chances of NAFLD, or improve its surrogate markers such as ALT or GGT [gamma-glutamyltransferase] levels,” Naveed Sattar, PhD, FRCP, FRCPath, FRSE, FMedSci, commented in an interview.

“The Rotterdam study is merely cross-sectional and cannot answer the question of causality,” added Dr. Sattar, who is professor of metabolic medicine and Honorary Consultant in Cardiovascular & Medical Science at the University of Glasgow. “It may be people who have less NAFLD are more likely to be prescribed statins, perhaps because doctors are wary of prescribing statins to those with slightly deranged liver tests,” he qualified.

Moreover, said Dr. Sattar, “prior evidence shows statins are underused in people with heart disease but who have NAFLD, which represents a missed opportunity to prevent heart disease.

“If statins had positive effects for preventing conversion of NAFLD to NASH or lessening fibrosis, I believe we would have known that by now.”

As for use of statins in future treatments of fatty liver disease, Dr. Sattar said: “I would not pin my hopes on statins to improve liver health, but doctors need to remember statins are safe in people with NAFLD or NASH and they should not be withheld in those who have existing cardiovascular disease or at elevated risk.” 

The study received no commercial funding. Mr. Ayada and Dr. Sattar had no relevant conflicts of interest.
 

Ask the sibling of any celebrity and they’ll tell you they don’t get anywhere near the same attention. The same is true for coronaviruses – the one that causes COVID-19 has been in the spotlight for more than 2 years now, while the others at the moment circulate in relative obscurity.

With the knowledge that any of the other coronaviruses could pose a serious future threat, Pfizer and its partner BioNTech announced plans on June 29 to develop a vaccine that will work against SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19) and the entire class, or family, of related coronaviruses.

Trials in people of this “pan-coronavirus” vaccine are scheduled to start this fall, Reuters reported. The aim of this universal vaccine is to lessen the threat from new variants before they emerge – to provide “durable variant protection.”

“I applaud the sentiment that is long overdue,” said Eric Topol, MD, when asked to comment. “It is crucial that we get ahead of the virus, and the best way is to develop pan-betacoronavirus vaccines that are variant-proof.”

“We had potential to get them into clinical trials many months ago, but this is the first sign it may happen,” said Dr. Topol, executive vice president of Scripps Research and editor-in-chief for Medscape, WebMD’s sister site for health care professionals.

SARS-CoV-2 is not the first troublemaker in the coronavirus family. SARS, a coronavirus that causes acute respiratory syndrome, emerged in late 2002. A decade later, officials sounded the alarm about the coronavirus behind Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS).

The coronavirus family is large, but only seven coronavirus types can infect humans, the CDC reports. Most cause mild to moderate upper respiratory tract infections, although some people can get pneumonia or bronchiolitis.

Unless you’re a virologist, immunologist, or public health official, you may be unaware that coronaviruses are one of the causes of the common cold, for example.

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

Ask the sibling of any celebrity and they’ll tell you they don’t get anywhere near the same attention. The same is true for coronaviruses – the one that causes COVID-19 has been in the spotlight for more than 2 years now, while the others at the moment circulate in relative obscurity.

With the knowledge that any of the other coronaviruses could pose a serious future threat, Pfizer and its partner BioNTech announced plans on June 29 to develop a vaccine that will work against SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19) and the entire class, or family, of related coronaviruses.

Trials in people of this “pan-coronavirus” vaccine are scheduled to start this fall, Reuters reported. The aim of this universal vaccine is to lessen the threat from new variants before they emerge – to provide “durable variant protection.”

“I applaud the sentiment that is long overdue,” said Eric Topol, MD, when asked to comment. “It is crucial that we get ahead of the virus, and the best way is to develop pan-betacoronavirus vaccines that are variant-proof.”

“We had potential to get them into clinical trials many months ago, but this is the first sign it may happen,” said Dr. Topol, executive vice president of Scripps Research and editor-in-chief for Medscape, WebMD’s sister site for health care professionals.

SARS-CoV-2 is not the first troublemaker in the coronavirus family. SARS, a coronavirus that causes acute respiratory syndrome, emerged in late 2002. A decade later, officials sounded the alarm about the coronavirus behind Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS).

The coronavirus family is large, but only seven coronavirus types can infect humans, the CDC reports. Most cause mild to moderate upper respiratory tract infections, although some people can get pneumonia or bronchiolitis.

Unless you’re a virologist, immunologist, or public health official, you may be unaware that coronaviruses are one of the causes of the common cold, for example.

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

Ask the sibling of any celebrity and they’ll tell you they don’t get anywhere near the same attention. The same is true for coronaviruses – the one that causes COVID-19 has been in the spotlight for more than 2 years now, while the others at the moment circulate in relative obscurity.

With the knowledge that any of the other coronaviruses could pose a serious future threat, Pfizer and its partner BioNTech announced plans on June 29 to develop a vaccine that will work against SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19) and the entire class, or family, of related coronaviruses.

Trials in people of this “pan-coronavirus” vaccine are scheduled to start this fall, Reuters reported. The aim of this universal vaccine is to lessen the threat from new variants before they emerge – to provide “durable variant protection.”

“I applaud the sentiment that is long overdue,” said Eric Topol, MD, when asked to comment. “It is crucial that we get ahead of the virus, and the best way is to develop pan-betacoronavirus vaccines that are variant-proof.”

“We had potential to get them into clinical trials many months ago, but this is the first sign it may happen,” said Dr. Topol, executive vice president of Scripps Research and editor-in-chief for Medscape, WebMD’s sister site for health care professionals.

SARS-CoV-2 is not the first troublemaker in the coronavirus family. SARS, a coronavirus that causes acute respiratory syndrome, emerged in late 2002. A decade later, officials sounded the alarm about the coronavirus behind Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS).

The coronavirus family is large, but only seven coronavirus types can infect humans, the CDC reports. Most cause mild to moderate upper respiratory tract infections, although some people can get pneumonia or bronchiolitis.

Unless you’re a virologist, immunologist, or public health official, you may be unaware that coronaviruses are one of the causes of the common cold, for example.

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

A large Danish study has found that cancer increases the risk of new-onset type 2 diabetes, especially certain types of cancer, most notably pancreatic malignancies.

“Our study demonstrates that there is an elevated risk of developing diabetes if a person is affected by lung, pancreatic, breast, brain, urinary tract, or uterine cancers,” said Lykke Sylow, PhD, associate professor in the Molecular Metabolism in Cancer and Ageing Group at the University of Copenhagen, in a statement.

“It is great to see such a large, well-designed study confirm the findings of previous smaller studies and observations,” said Elias S. Siraj, MD, the David L. Bernd Distinguished Chair for EVMS-Sentara Cardiovascular Diabetes Program at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, when asked for comment by this news organization. Dr. Siraj also noted that “in clinical care we do observe that many patients develop diabetes after being diagnosed with cancer although one needs a well-designed study to confirm that observation.”
 

Diabetes risk highest with pancreatic cancer

Type 2 diabetes at the time of cancer diagnosis is known to increase cancer-specific and all-cause mortality, but not much is known about whether cancer is a risk factor for type 2 diabetes, the researchers state in their study, published in Diabetes Care.

Dr. Sylow and colleagues from the Steno Diabetes Center Copenhagen, Rigshospitalet, analyzed a database consisting of 112 million blood samples from 1.3 million Danes from 2000 to 2015. They looked at cancer cases with an incidence of more than 1,000 and excluded individuals with diabetes prior to cancer diagnosis. 

They found an increased risk of new-onset type 2 diabetes for all cancers (hazard ratio, 1.09; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.14). For pancreatic cancer, the hazard ratio rose to 5.0 (95% CI, 3.62-6.90), for brain and nervous system cancers the hazard ratio was 1.54 (95% CI, 1.22-1.95), and for uterine cancer the hazard ratio was 1.41 (95% CI, 1.10-1.84).

The link with pancreatic cancer was not surprising, said Dr. Sylow.

Dr. Siraj agreed, noting that a few studies have shown a strong association. “It has also been observed for years that many patients with pancreatic cancer may present with new-onset diabetes,” he said. “The mechanism is not clearly understood but could include a direct damage of the beta cells by the pancreatic cancer or could be due to a paraneoplastic secretion of special factors by the cancer that can affect beta-cell function or insulin resistance,” said Dr. Siraj, who is also professor and chief of endocrinology and director of the Strelitz Diabetes Center at Eastern Virginia Medical School.

The higher diabetes risk associated with brain and nervous system cancers has not been previously described and is “an intriguing finding,” he said.

In their statement, the Danish investigators said there is nothing in their research to suggest why some cancers are associated with a higher risk of new-onset type 2 diabetes, but they offered some theories, including that chemotherapeutics and perhaps the cancer, itself, may contribute.

“We know that cancer cells are able to secrete substances that can affect organs and possibility contribute to an increased incidence of diabetes,” said Dr. Sylow in the statement.
 

Increased mortality risk in those with cancer and type 2 diabetes

Dr. Sylow and colleagues also analyzed mortality in a subset of 28,308 patients with cancer who were still alive 2 years after diagnosis. They documented a 21% higher rate of all-cause mortality in these patients compared with those who did not have new-onset type 2 diabetes.

“We do not know enough about the patients who were diagnosed with type 2 diabetes, but we think our findings illustrate a potential new area of intervention in the cancer clinic,” Dr. Sylow said. However, the findings still require replication before drawing any definite conclusions, she added.

Christoffer Johansen, MD, PhD, DMSc, of Rigshospitalet, said in the statement that it might be prudent to screen patients with lung, breast, brain, uterine, and urinary tract cancers for diabetes. “Early intervention could have an impact on certain cancer patients,” said Dr. Johansen.

Dr. Siraj said he would urge oncologists to routinely monitor blood glucose levels during cancer treatment and as part of long-term surveillance, and to consider the potential risk of new-onset diabetes when choosing a cancer therapy. If diabetes is diagnosed, clinicians should be sure that it’s managed by a primary care physician or endocrinologist, “as proper treatment may contribute to better outcomes of the cancer,” said Dr. Siraj.

Endocrinologists should consider the possibility of pancreatic cancer if someone with few risk factors for type 2 diabetes has a new-onset diagnosis, he said. And they should aim for good glycemic control in those with new-onset type 2 diabetes, as it may lead to better cancer outcomes, he said.

Dr. Sylow has reported grant support from the Novo Nordisk Foundation and Independent Research Fund Denmark. Dr. Johansen has reported serving as an educator for Janssen and Pfizer. Coauthors have received grant support from the Danish Cancer Society and served as consultants, on advisory boards, or as educators for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Incyte, GSK, MSD, Mundipharma, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Sanofi.

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

A large Danish study has found that cancer increases the risk of new-onset type 2 diabetes, especially certain types of cancer, most notably pancreatic malignancies.

“Our study demonstrates that there is an elevated risk of developing diabetes if a person is affected by lung, pancreatic, breast, brain, urinary tract, or uterine cancers,” said Lykke Sylow, PhD, associate professor in the Molecular Metabolism in Cancer and Ageing Group at the University of Copenhagen, in a statement.

“It is great to see such a large, well-designed study confirm the findings of previous smaller studies and observations,” said Elias S. Siraj, MD, the David L. Bernd Distinguished Chair for EVMS-Sentara Cardiovascular Diabetes Program at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, when asked for comment by this news organization. Dr. Siraj also noted that “in clinical care we do observe that many patients develop diabetes after being diagnosed with cancer although one needs a well-designed study to confirm that observation.”
 

Diabetes risk highest with pancreatic cancer

Type 2 diabetes at the time of cancer diagnosis is known to increase cancer-specific and all-cause mortality, but not much is known about whether cancer is a risk factor for type 2 diabetes, the researchers state in their study, published in Diabetes Care.

Dr. Sylow and colleagues from the Steno Diabetes Center Copenhagen, Rigshospitalet, analyzed a database consisting of 112 million blood samples from 1.3 million Danes from 2000 to 2015. They looked at cancer cases with an incidence of more than 1,000 and excluded individuals with diabetes prior to cancer diagnosis. 

They found an increased risk of new-onset type 2 diabetes for all cancers (hazard ratio, 1.09; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.14). For pancreatic cancer, the hazard ratio rose to 5.0 (95% CI, 3.62-6.90), for brain and nervous system cancers the hazard ratio was 1.54 (95% CI, 1.22-1.95), and for uterine cancer the hazard ratio was 1.41 (95% CI, 1.10-1.84).

The link with pancreatic cancer was not surprising, said Dr. Sylow.

Dr. Siraj agreed, noting that a few studies have shown a strong association. “It has also been observed for years that many patients with pancreatic cancer may present with new-onset diabetes,” he said. “The mechanism is not clearly understood but could include a direct damage of the beta cells by the pancreatic cancer or could be due to a paraneoplastic secretion of special factors by the cancer that can affect beta-cell function or insulin resistance,” said Dr. Siraj, who is also professor and chief of endocrinology and director of the Strelitz Diabetes Center at Eastern Virginia Medical School.

The higher diabetes risk associated with brain and nervous system cancers has not been previously described and is “an intriguing finding,” he said.

In their statement, the Danish investigators said there is nothing in their research to suggest why some cancers are associated with a higher risk of new-onset type 2 diabetes, but they offered some theories, including that chemotherapeutics and perhaps the cancer, itself, may contribute.

“We know that cancer cells are able to secrete substances that can affect organs and possibility contribute to an increased incidence of diabetes,” said Dr. Sylow in the statement.
 

Increased mortality risk in those with cancer and type 2 diabetes

Dr. Sylow and colleagues also analyzed mortality in a subset of 28,308 patients with cancer who were still alive 2 years after diagnosis. They documented a 21% higher rate of all-cause mortality in these patients compared with those who did not have new-onset type 2 diabetes.

“We do not know enough about the patients who were diagnosed with type 2 diabetes, but we think our findings illustrate a potential new area of intervention in the cancer clinic,” Dr. Sylow said. However, the findings still require replication before drawing any definite conclusions, she added.

Christoffer Johansen, MD, PhD, DMSc, of Rigshospitalet, said in the statement that it might be prudent to screen patients with lung, breast, brain, uterine, and urinary tract cancers for diabetes. “Early intervention could have an impact on certain cancer patients,” said Dr. Johansen.

Dr. Siraj said he would urge oncologists to routinely monitor blood glucose levels during cancer treatment and as part of long-term surveillance, and to consider the potential risk of new-onset diabetes when choosing a cancer therapy. If diabetes is diagnosed, clinicians should be sure that it’s managed by a primary care physician or endocrinologist, “as proper treatment may contribute to better outcomes of the cancer,” said Dr. Siraj.

Endocrinologists should consider the possibility of pancreatic cancer if someone with few risk factors for type 2 diabetes has a new-onset diagnosis, he said. And they should aim for good glycemic control in those with new-onset type 2 diabetes, as it may lead to better cancer outcomes, he said.

Dr. Sylow has reported grant support from the Novo Nordisk Foundation and Independent Research Fund Denmark. Dr. Johansen has reported serving as an educator for Janssen and Pfizer. Coauthors have received grant support from the Danish Cancer Society and served as consultants, on advisory boards, or as educators for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Incyte, GSK, MSD, Mundipharma, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Sanofi.

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

A large Danish study has found that cancer increases the risk of new-onset type 2 diabetes, especially certain types of cancer, most notably pancreatic malignancies.

“Our study demonstrates that there is an elevated risk of developing diabetes if a person is affected by lung, pancreatic, breast, brain, urinary tract, or uterine cancers,” said Lykke Sylow, PhD, associate professor in the Molecular Metabolism in Cancer and Ageing Group at the University of Copenhagen, in a statement.

“It is great to see such a large, well-designed study confirm the findings of previous smaller studies and observations,” said Elias S. Siraj, MD, the David L. Bernd Distinguished Chair for EVMS-Sentara Cardiovascular Diabetes Program at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, when asked for comment by this news organization. Dr. Siraj also noted that “in clinical care we do observe that many patients develop diabetes after being diagnosed with cancer although one needs a well-designed study to confirm that observation.”
 

Diabetes risk highest with pancreatic cancer

Type 2 diabetes at the time of cancer diagnosis is known to increase cancer-specific and all-cause mortality, but not much is known about whether cancer is a risk factor for type 2 diabetes, the researchers state in their study, published in Diabetes Care.

Dr. Sylow and colleagues from the Steno Diabetes Center Copenhagen, Rigshospitalet, analyzed a database consisting of 112 million blood samples from 1.3 million Danes from 2000 to 2015. They looked at cancer cases with an incidence of more than 1,000 and excluded individuals with diabetes prior to cancer diagnosis. 

They found an increased risk of new-onset type 2 diabetes for all cancers (hazard ratio, 1.09; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.14). For pancreatic cancer, the hazard ratio rose to 5.0 (95% CI, 3.62-6.90), for brain and nervous system cancers the hazard ratio was 1.54 (95% CI, 1.22-1.95), and for uterine cancer the hazard ratio was 1.41 (95% CI, 1.10-1.84).

The link with pancreatic cancer was not surprising, said Dr. Sylow.

Dr. Siraj agreed, noting that a few studies have shown a strong association. “It has also been observed for years that many patients with pancreatic cancer may present with new-onset diabetes,” he said. “The mechanism is not clearly understood but could include a direct damage of the beta cells by the pancreatic cancer or could be due to a paraneoplastic secretion of special factors by the cancer that can affect beta-cell function or insulin resistance,” said Dr. Siraj, who is also professor and chief of endocrinology and director of the Strelitz Diabetes Center at Eastern Virginia Medical School.

The higher diabetes risk associated with brain and nervous system cancers has not been previously described and is “an intriguing finding,” he said.

In their statement, the Danish investigators said there is nothing in their research to suggest why some cancers are associated with a higher risk of new-onset type 2 diabetes, but they offered some theories, including that chemotherapeutics and perhaps the cancer, itself, may contribute.

“We know that cancer cells are able to secrete substances that can affect organs and possibility contribute to an increased incidence of diabetes,” said Dr. Sylow in the statement.
 

Increased mortality risk in those with cancer and type 2 diabetes

Dr. Sylow and colleagues also analyzed mortality in a subset of 28,308 patients with cancer who were still alive 2 years after diagnosis. They documented a 21% higher rate of all-cause mortality in these patients compared with those who did not have new-onset type 2 diabetes.

“We do not know enough about the patients who were diagnosed with type 2 diabetes, but we think our findings illustrate a potential new area of intervention in the cancer clinic,” Dr. Sylow said. However, the findings still require replication before drawing any definite conclusions, she added.

Christoffer Johansen, MD, PhD, DMSc, of Rigshospitalet, said in the statement that it might be prudent to screen patients with lung, breast, brain, uterine, and urinary tract cancers for diabetes. “Early intervention could have an impact on certain cancer patients,” said Dr. Johansen.

Dr. Siraj said he would urge oncologists to routinely monitor blood glucose levels during cancer treatment and as part of long-term surveillance, and to consider the potential risk of new-onset diabetes when choosing a cancer therapy. If diabetes is diagnosed, clinicians should be sure that it’s managed by a primary care physician or endocrinologist, “as proper treatment may contribute to better outcomes of the cancer,” said Dr. Siraj.

Endocrinologists should consider the possibility of pancreatic cancer if someone with few risk factors for type 2 diabetes has a new-onset diagnosis, he said. And they should aim for good glycemic control in those with new-onset type 2 diabetes, as it may lead to better cancer outcomes, he said.

Dr. Sylow has reported grant support from the Novo Nordisk Foundation and Independent Research Fund Denmark. Dr. Johansen has reported serving as an educator for Janssen and Pfizer. Coauthors have received grant support from the Danish Cancer Society and served as consultants, on advisory boards, or as educators for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Incyte, GSK, MSD, Mundipharma, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Sanofi.

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

Adults younger than 55 years were least likely to get screened for colorectal cancer over the past 2 decades, particularly if they were Hispanic or Asian or had a low income, lower education level, or no health insurance, according to a new study published online in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention.

The findings have raised concerns that disparities in screening rates will be even greater in adults aged 45-49 years, prompting the need for increased awareness and outreach to ensure that underserved groups have access to screenings.

“Differences in prevalence of screening by race and ethnicity, educational attainment, household income, and health insurance were most pronounced for those ages 50-54 years, whereas older adults experienced larger increases in prevalence across these groups,” wrote Po-Hong Liu, MD, MPH, a clinical investigator at Harvard University, Boston, and his colleagues. “The persistent and worsening disparities we observed in adults 50-54 years may extend to those ages 45-49 as they become eligible for screening.”

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force shifted their recommendation for colorectal cancer screening in May 2021 to 5 years earlier, advising people to start screenings at 45 instead of 50, which aligns with the recommendations the American Cancer Society made 3 years earlier.

Both organizations made the change because of increasing rates of colorectal cancer in adults under age 50 and research indicating that beginning screenings at age 45 results in fewer cases, fewer deaths, and more life years gained.

“Across all age groups, colorectal cancer screening participation remains below national goals, and the benefits of screening are not equally realized across populations,” senior author Caitlin Murphy, PhD, MPH, associate professor, UTHealth School of Public Health, Houston, said in a prepared statement. “Extra care must be taken to ensure that expanding screening to younger ages does not negatively impact efforts to eliminate disparities in colorectal screening and outcomes nor jeopardize efforts to increase screening initiation among older adults who remain unscreened.”
 

Data analyzed from 8 years over 2 decades

The researchers analyzed data from the CDC’s cross-sectional National Health Interview Survey during 8 years over the past 2 decades: 2000, 2003, 2005, 2008, 2010, 2013, 2015, and 2018.

The number of participants each year ranged from a low of 21,781 in 2008 to a high of 34,557 in 2013. After excluding participants with a history of colorectal cancer or missing information on screenings, the total population sample included 80,220 participants 50-75 years old.

The researchers considered a person as having been screened if they received at least one recommended screening test within the year covered by the survey, regardless of why they underwent the test.

Recommended tests included sigmoidoscopy, colonoscopy, and stool-based tests for all survey years. In addition, the surveys for 2010, 2015, and 2018 included CT colonography, and the 2018 survey included FIT-DNA.
 

Screening across population groups

Colorectal cancer screening rates have doubled in the past 2 decades, from 36.7% in 2000 to 66.1% in 2018.

Rates are considerably lower, however, for several key groups, including the youngest group. Less than half (47.6%) of those aged 50-54 years received screenings in 2018, though this was still a nearly 20-point improvement over the 28.2% in this age group who were screened in 2000.

Separate from age, several other groups continue to have low screening rates in general, including Hispanics (56.5%, up from 25.9% in 2000), Asians (57.1%, up from 22.6% in 2000), those who have not received a high school degree (53.6%, up from 26.8% in 2000), and those from low income families (56.6%, up from 30.2% in 2000).

The group with the greatest need for more outreach and screenings are people without insurance, only 39.7% of whom were screened in 2018, a modest increase from 30.2% in 2000.

The biggest increase in screenings over time occurred in those aged 70-75 years, from 46.4% in 2000 to 78% in 2018 overall.

Racial/ethnic, economic, education, and insurance-based disparities were particularly evident the younger people were, including in terms of progress made over time.

For example, screenings of non-Hispanic White people aged 50-54 years improved 21 points (30.3% to 51%) between 2000 and 2018, compared with 19 points in Hispanics (16.7% to 35.5%) and 15 points in Asians (17.3% to 32.3%). Fortunately, Black Americans made even greater strides than White Americans with a 27-point increase during that time (23.4% to 50%). 

Similarly, income correlated with expansion in screening rates for 50- to 54-year-olds: Those earning at least 400% over the federal poverty line improved 20 points (from 33.5% to 53.8%), compared with a 16-point improvement in those earning less than 200% above the poverty line (from 19.3% to 35%).

Those with private insurance likewise improved 21 points (from 30.7% to 51.7%), while those in this age group without insurance declined, with just 21.2% getting screened in 2018, compared with 28.2% in 2000. Those on public insurance saw a 15-point improvement, from 27.8% in 2000 to 43.1% in 2018.

“The individual and societal burden of colorectal cancer is especially great among younger adults,” the authors wrote.

The reasons for the much lower prevalence of screening in those under 55, the authors suggested, is likely due to less concern about colorectal cancer, less access to medical care (including being underinsured or uninsured), and the barriers created by competing priorities, such as work schedules, family responsibilities, and caregiving. The latter may be particularly true in underserved populations, the authors noted.

“Screening programs must consider the barriers unique to younger adults, ensuring the benefits of screening are equally realized by all population groups,” the authors concluded.

The research was funded by the National Institutes of Health and the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas. One author reported grants from Epigenomics and Freenome and personal fees from Guardant Health. Another author reported personal fees from Freenome, and a third author reported personal fees from Exact Sciences. No other authors had industry disclosures.

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

Adults younger than 55 years were least likely to get screened for colorectal cancer over the past 2 decades, particularly if they were Hispanic or Asian or had a low income, lower education level, or no health insurance, according to a new study published online in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention.

The findings have raised concerns that disparities in screening rates will be even greater in adults aged 45-49 years, prompting the need for increased awareness and outreach to ensure that underserved groups have access to screenings.

“Differences in prevalence of screening by race and ethnicity, educational attainment, household income, and health insurance were most pronounced for those ages 50-54 years, whereas older adults experienced larger increases in prevalence across these groups,” wrote Po-Hong Liu, MD, MPH, a clinical investigator at Harvard University, Boston, and his colleagues. “The persistent and worsening disparities we observed in adults 50-54 years may extend to those ages 45-49 as they become eligible for screening.”

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force shifted their recommendation for colorectal cancer screening in May 2021 to 5 years earlier, advising people to start screenings at 45 instead of 50, which aligns with the recommendations the American Cancer Society made 3 years earlier.

Both organizations made the change because of increasing rates of colorectal cancer in adults under age 50 and research indicating that beginning screenings at age 45 results in fewer cases, fewer deaths, and more life years gained.

“Across all age groups, colorectal cancer screening participation remains below national goals, and the benefits of screening are not equally realized across populations,” senior author Caitlin Murphy, PhD, MPH, associate professor, UTHealth School of Public Health, Houston, said in a prepared statement. “Extra care must be taken to ensure that expanding screening to younger ages does not negatively impact efforts to eliminate disparities in colorectal screening and outcomes nor jeopardize efforts to increase screening initiation among older adults who remain unscreened.”
 

Data analyzed from 8 years over 2 decades

The researchers analyzed data from the CDC’s cross-sectional National Health Interview Survey during 8 years over the past 2 decades: 2000, 2003, 2005, 2008, 2010, 2013, 2015, and 2018.

The number of participants each year ranged from a low of 21,781 in 2008 to a high of 34,557 in 2013. After excluding participants with a history of colorectal cancer or missing information on screenings, the total population sample included 80,220 participants 50-75 years old.

The researchers considered a person as having been screened if they received at least one recommended screening test within the year covered by the survey, regardless of why they underwent the test.

Recommended tests included sigmoidoscopy, colonoscopy, and stool-based tests for all survey years. In addition, the surveys for 2010, 2015, and 2018 included CT colonography, and the 2018 survey included FIT-DNA.
 

Screening across population groups

Colorectal cancer screening rates have doubled in the past 2 decades, from 36.7% in 2000 to 66.1% in 2018.

Rates are considerably lower, however, for several key groups, including the youngest group. Less than half (47.6%) of those aged 50-54 years received screenings in 2018, though this was still a nearly 20-point improvement over the 28.2% in this age group who were screened in 2000.

Separate from age, several other groups continue to have low screening rates in general, including Hispanics (56.5%, up from 25.9% in 2000), Asians (57.1%, up from 22.6% in 2000), those who have not received a high school degree (53.6%, up from 26.8% in 2000), and those from low income families (56.6%, up from 30.2% in 2000).

The group with the greatest need for more outreach and screenings are people without insurance, only 39.7% of whom were screened in 2018, a modest increase from 30.2% in 2000.

The biggest increase in screenings over time occurred in those aged 70-75 years, from 46.4% in 2000 to 78% in 2018 overall.

Racial/ethnic, economic, education, and insurance-based disparities were particularly evident the younger people were, including in terms of progress made over time.

For example, screenings of non-Hispanic White people aged 50-54 years improved 21 points (30.3% to 51%) between 2000 and 2018, compared with 19 points in Hispanics (16.7% to 35.5%) and 15 points in Asians (17.3% to 32.3%). Fortunately, Black Americans made even greater strides than White Americans with a 27-point increase during that time (23.4% to 50%). 

Similarly, income correlated with expansion in screening rates for 50- to 54-year-olds: Those earning at least 400% over the federal poverty line improved 20 points (from 33.5% to 53.8%), compared with a 16-point improvement in those earning less than 200% above the poverty line (from 19.3% to 35%).

Those with private insurance likewise improved 21 points (from 30.7% to 51.7%), while those in this age group without insurance declined, with just 21.2% getting screened in 2018, compared with 28.2% in 2000. Those on public insurance saw a 15-point improvement, from 27.8% in 2000 to 43.1% in 2018.

“The individual and societal burden of colorectal cancer is especially great among younger adults,” the authors wrote.

The reasons for the much lower prevalence of screening in those under 55, the authors suggested, is likely due to less concern about colorectal cancer, less access to medical care (including being underinsured or uninsured), and the barriers created by competing priorities, such as work schedules, family responsibilities, and caregiving. The latter may be particularly true in underserved populations, the authors noted.

“Screening programs must consider the barriers unique to younger adults, ensuring the benefits of screening are equally realized by all population groups,” the authors concluded.

The research was funded by the National Institutes of Health and the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas. One author reported grants from Epigenomics and Freenome and personal fees from Guardant Health. Another author reported personal fees from Freenome, and a third author reported personal fees from Exact Sciences. No other authors had industry disclosures.

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

Adults younger than 55 years were least likely to get screened for colorectal cancer over the past 2 decades, particularly if they were Hispanic or Asian or had a low income, lower education level, or no health insurance, according to a new study published online in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention.

The findings have raised concerns that disparities in screening rates will be even greater in adults aged 45-49 years, prompting the need for increased awareness and outreach to ensure that underserved groups have access to screenings.

“Differences in prevalence of screening by race and ethnicity, educational attainment, household income, and health insurance were most pronounced for those ages 50-54 years, whereas older adults experienced larger increases in prevalence across these groups,” wrote Po-Hong Liu, MD, MPH, a clinical investigator at Harvard University, Boston, and his colleagues. “The persistent and worsening disparities we observed in adults 50-54 years may extend to those ages 45-49 as they become eligible for screening.”

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force shifted their recommendation for colorectal cancer screening in May 2021 to 5 years earlier, advising people to start screenings at 45 instead of 50, which aligns with the recommendations the American Cancer Society made 3 years earlier.

Both organizations made the change because of increasing rates of colorectal cancer in adults under age 50 and research indicating that beginning screenings at age 45 results in fewer cases, fewer deaths, and more life years gained.

“Across all age groups, colorectal cancer screening participation remains below national goals, and the benefits of screening are not equally realized across populations,” senior author Caitlin Murphy, PhD, MPH, associate professor, UTHealth School of Public Health, Houston, said in a prepared statement. “Extra care must be taken to ensure that expanding screening to younger ages does not negatively impact efforts to eliminate disparities in colorectal screening and outcomes nor jeopardize efforts to increase screening initiation among older adults who remain unscreened.”
 

Data analyzed from 8 years over 2 decades

The researchers analyzed data from the CDC’s cross-sectional National Health Interview Survey during 8 years over the past 2 decades: 2000, 2003, 2005, 2008, 2010, 2013, 2015, and 2018.

The number of participants each year ranged from a low of 21,781 in 2008 to a high of 34,557 in 2013. After excluding participants with a history of colorectal cancer or missing information on screenings, the total population sample included 80,220 participants 50-75 years old.

The researchers considered a person as having been screened if they received at least one recommended screening test within the year covered by the survey, regardless of why they underwent the test.

Recommended tests included sigmoidoscopy, colonoscopy, and stool-based tests for all survey years. In addition, the surveys for 2010, 2015, and 2018 included CT colonography, and the 2018 survey included FIT-DNA.
 

Screening across population groups

Colorectal cancer screening rates have doubled in the past 2 decades, from 36.7% in 2000 to 66.1% in 2018.

Rates are considerably lower, however, for several key groups, including the youngest group. Less than half (47.6%) of those aged 50-54 years received screenings in 2018, though this was still a nearly 20-point improvement over the 28.2% in this age group who were screened in 2000.

Separate from age, several other groups continue to have low screening rates in general, including Hispanics (56.5%, up from 25.9% in 2000), Asians (57.1%, up from 22.6% in 2000), those who have not received a high school degree (53.6%, up from 26.8% in 2000), and those from low income families (56.6%, up from 30.2% in 2000).

The group with the greatest need for more outreach and screenings are people without insurance, only 39.7% of whom were screened in 2018, a modest increase from 30.2% in 2000.

The biggest increase in screenings over time occurred in those aged 70-75 years, from 46.4% in 2000 to 78% in 2018 overall.

Racial/ethnic, economic, education, and insurance-based disparities were particularly evident the younger people were, including in terms of progress made over time.

For example, screenings of non-Hispanic White people aged 50-54 years improved 21 points (30.3% to 51%) between 2000 and 2018, compared with 19 points in Hispanics (16.7% to 35.5%) and 15 points in Asians (17.3% to 32.3%). Fortunately, Black Americans made even greater strides than White Americans with a 27-point increase during that time (23.4% to 50%). 

Similarly, income correlated with expansion in screening rates for 50- to 54-year-olds: Those earning at least 400% over the federal poverty line improved 20 points (from 33.5% to 53.8%), compared with a 16-point improvement in those earning less than 200% above the poverty line (from 19.3% to 35%).

Those with private insurance likewise improved 21 points (from 30.7% to 51.7%), while those in this age group without insurance declined, with just 21.2% getting screened in 2018, compared with 28.2% in 2000. Those on public insurance saw a 15-point improvement, from 27.8% in 2000 to 43.1% in 2018.

“The individual and societal burden of colorectal cancer is especially great among younger adults,” the authors wrote.

The reasons for the much lower prevalence of screening in those under 55, the authors suggested, is likely due to less concern about colorectal cancer, less access to medical care (including being underinsured or uninsured), and the barriers created by competing priorities, such as work schedules, family responsibilities, and caregiving. The latter may be particularly true in underserved populations, the authors noted.

“Screening programs must consider the barriers unique to younger adults, ensuring the benefits of screening are equally realized by all population groups,” the authors concluded.

The research was funded by the National Institutes of Health and the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas. One author reported grants from Epigenomics and Freenome and personal fees from Guardant Health. Another author reported personal fees from Freenome, and a third author reported personal fees from Exact Sciences. No other authors had industry disclosures.

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

Nordic walking was significantly better at improving functional capacity than were moderate- to vigorous-intensity continuous training and high-intensity interval training (HIIT) in a single-center randomized controlled trial.

Participants who did Nordic walking saw better improvements in functional capacity, measured via the 6-minute walk test distances, than did individuals doing either of the other exercise strategies (interaction effect, P = .010).

amriphoto/E+/Getty Images

From baseline to 26 weeks, the average changes in 6-minute walk test distance were 55.6 m and 59.9 m for moderate- to vigorous-intensity continuous training and HIIT, respectively, but 94.2 m in the Nordic walking group, reported Tasuku Terada, PhD, University of Ottawa Heart Institute, Ontario, and colleagues.

Previous research looked at these results at the end of a 12-week supervised exercise intervention and showed that although all three strategies were safe and had positive effects on physical and mental health in these patients, Nordic walking had a better effect in raising the 6-minute walk test scores than did moderate- to vigorous-intensity continuous training and HIIT, the researchers noted.

“This study is a follow-up on the previous study to show that Nordic walking had greater sustained effects even after the observation phase,” from 12 to 26 weeks, Dr. Terada said in an interview.

“Exercise is a medicine to improve the health of patients, but unfortunately, sometimes it is not as often utilized,” Dr. Terada told this news organization.

Giving patients additional exercise modalities is beneficial because not everyone likes HIIT workouts or long continuous walking, Dr. Terada said. “So, if that’s the case, we can recommend Nordic walking as another type of exercise and expect a similar or good impact in functional capacity.”

The results were published online in the Canadian Journal of Cardiology.

“I think it honestly supports the idea that, as many other studies show, physical activity and exercise improve functional capacity no matter how you measure it and have beneficial effects on mental health and quality of life and particularly depression as well,” Carl “Chip” Lavie, MD, University of Queensland, New Orleans, who coauthored an editorial accompanying the publication, said in an interview.

“Clinicians need to get patients to do the type of exercise that they are going to do. A lot of people ask what’s the best exercise, and the best exercise is one that the person is going to do,” Dr. Lavie said.

Nordic walking is an enhanced form of walking that engages the upper and lower body musculatures, noted Dr. Lavie.

“With regard to Nordic walking, I think that now adds an additional option that many people wouldn’t have thought about. For many of the patients that have issues that are musculoskeletal, issues with posture, gait, or balance, using the poles can be a way to allow them to walk much better and increase their speed, and as they do that, they become fitter,” Dr. Lavie continued.

Moreover, these findings support the use of Nordic walking in cardiac rehabilitation programs, the editorialists noted.
 

Cardiac rehabilitation

The study examined patients with coronary artery disease who underwent cardiac revascularization. They were then referred by their physicians to cardiac rehabilitation.

Participants were randomly assigned to one of the following intervention groups: Nordic walking (n = 30), moderate- to vigorous-intensity continuous training (n = 27), and HIIT (n = 29) for a 12-week period. There was then an additional 14-week observation period after the exercise program. Mean age was 60 years across the intervention groups.

The research team analyzed the extent of participants’ depression with Beck Depression Inventory–II, quality of life with Short Form–36 and HeartQoL, and functional capacity with a 6-minute walk test. They assessed functional capacity, depression, and quality of life at baseline, 12 weeks, and 26 weeks.

Using linear mixed models with extended measures, the study authors evaluated sustained effects, which were between week 12 and week 26, and prolonged effects, which were between baseline and week 26.

From baseline to 26 weeks, participants saw significantly better outcomes in quality of life, depression symptoms, and 6-minute walk test (P < .05).

Physical quality of life and 6-minute walk test distance rose significantly between weeks 12 and 26 (P < .05).

Notably, at week 26, all training groups achieved the minimal clinical threshold difference of 54 m, although participants in the Nordic walking cohort demonstrated significantly greater improvement in outcomes.

Other data indicated the following:

• From baseline to week 12, physical activity levels rose significantly, and this improvement was sustained through the observation period.
• During the observation period, mental component summary significantly declined while physical component summary outcomes improved.
• After completion of cardiac rehabilitation, functional capacity continued to increase significantly.
• Moderate- to vigorous-intensity continuous training, HIIT, and Nordic walking had positive and significant prolonged effects on depression symptoms and general and disease-specific quality of life, with no differences in the extent of improvements between exercise types.

Some limitations of the study include the fact that women comprised a small portion of the study group, which limits the generalizability of these data, the cohort was recruited from a single medical facility, and there was a short follow-up time, the researchers noted.

“Further research is warranted to investigate the efficacy and integration of Nordic walking into home-based exercise after supervised cardiac rehabilitation for maintenance of physical and mental health,” the editorialists concluded.

Dr. Terada, Dr. Lavie, and Dr. Taylor reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Nordic walking was significantly better at improving functional capacity than were moderate- to vigorous-intensity continuous training and high-intensity interval training (HIIT) in a single-center randomized controlled trial.

Participants who did Nordic walking saw better improvements in functional capacity, measured via the 6-minute walk test distances, than did individuals doing either of the other exercise strategies (interaction effect, P = .010).

amriphoto/E+/Getty Images

From baseline to 26 weeks, the average changes in 6-minute walk test distance were 55.6 m and 59.9 m for moderate- to vigorous-intensity continuous training and HIIT, respectively, but 94.2 m in the Nordic walking group, reported Tasuku Terada, PhD, University of Ottawa Heart Institute, Ontario, and colleagues.

Previous research looked at these results at the end of a 12-week supervised exercise intervention and showed that although all three strategies were safe and had positive effects on physical and mental health in these patients, Nordic walking had a better effect in raising the 6-minute walk test scores than did moderate- to vigorous-intensity continuous training and HIIT, the researchers noted.

“This study is a follow-up on the previous study to show that Nordic walking had greater sustained effects even after the observation phase,” from 12 to 26 weeks, Dr. Terada said in an interview.

“Exercise is a medicine to improve the health of patients, but unfortunately, sometimes it is not as often utilized,” Dr. Terada told this news organization.

Giving patients additional exercise modalities is beneficial because not everyone likes HIIT workouts or long continuous walking, Dr. Terada said. “So, if that’s the case, we can recommend Nordic walking as another type of exercise and expect a similar or good impact in functional capacity.”

The results were published online in the Canadian Journal of Cardiology.

“I think it honestly supports the idea that, as many other studies show, physical activity and exercise improve functional capacity no matter how you measure it and have beneficial effects on mental health and quality of life and particularly depression as well,” Carl “Chip” Lavie, MD, University of Queensland, New Orleans, who coauthored an editorial accompanying the publication, said in an interview.

“Clinicians need to get patients to do the type of exercise that they are going to do. A lot of people ask what’s the best exercise, and the best exercise is one that the person is going to do,” Dr. Lavie said.

Nordic walking is an enhanced form of walking that engages the upper and lower body musculatures, noted Dr. Lavie.

“With regard to Nordic walking, I think that now adds an additional option that many people wouldn’t have thought about. For many of the patients that have issues that are musculoskeletal, issues with posture, gait, or balance, using the poles can be a way to allow them to walk much better and increase their speed, and as they do that, they become fitter,” Dr. Lavie continued.

Moreover, these findings support the use of Nordic walking in cardiac rehabilitation programs, the editorialists noted.
 

Cardiac rehabilitation

The study examined patients with coronary artery disease who underwent cardiac revascularization. They were then referred by their physicians to cardiac rehabilitation.

Participants were randomly assigned to one of the following intervention groups: Nordic walking (n = 30), moderate- to vigorous-intensity continuous training (n = 27), and HIIT (n = 29) for a 12-week period. There was then an additional 14-week observation period after the exercise program. Mean age was 60 years across the intervention groups.

The research team analyzed the extent of participants’ depression with Beck Depression Inventory–II, quality of life with Short Form–36 and HeartQoL, and functional capacity with a 6-minute walk test. They assessed functional capacity, depression, and quality of life at baseline, 12 weeks, and 26 weeks.

Using linear mixed models with extended measures, the study authors evaluated sustained effects, which were between week 12 and week 26, and prolonged effects, which were between baseline and week 26.

From baseline to 26 weeks, participants saw significantly better outcomes in quality of life, depression symptoms, and 6-minute walk test (P < .05).

Physical quality of life and 6-minute walk test distance rose significantly between weeks 12 and 26 (P < .05).

Notably, at week 26, all training groups achieved the minimal clinical threshold difference of 54 m, although participants in the Nordic walking cohort demonstrated significantly greater improvement in outcomes.

Other data indicated the following:

• From baseline to week 12, physical activity levels rose significantly, and this improvement was sustained through the observation period.
• During the observation period, mental component summary significantly declined while physical component summary outcomes improved.
• After completion of cardiac rehabilitation, functional capacity continued to increase significantly.
• Moderate- to vigorous-intensity continuous training, HIIT, and Nordic walking had positive and significant prolonged effects on depression symptoms and general and disease-specific quality of life, with no differences in the extent of improvements between exercise types.

Some limitations of the study include the fact that women comprised a small portion of the study group, which limits the generalizability of these data, the cohort was recruited from a single medical facility, and there was a short follow-up time, the researchers noted.

“Further research is warranted to investigate the efficacy and integration of Nordic walking into home-based exercise after supervised cardiac rehabilitation for maintenance of physical and mental health,” the editorialists concluded.

Dr. Terada, Dr. Lavie, and Dr. Taylor reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Nordic walking was significantly better at improving functional capacity than were moderate- to vigorous-intensity continuous training and high-intensity interval training (HIIT) in a single-center randomized controlled trial.

Participants who did Nordic walking saw better improvements in functional capacity, measured via the 6-minute walk test distances, than did individuals doing either of the other exercise strategies (interaction effect, P = .010).

amriphoto/E+/Getty Images

From baseline to 26 weeks, the average changes in 6-minute walk test distance were 55.6 m and 59.9 m for moderate- to vigorous-intensity continuous training and HIIT, respectively, but 94.2 m in the Nordic walking group, reported Tasuku Terada, PhD, University of Ottawa Heart Institute, Ontario, and colleagues.

Previous research looked at these results at the end of a 12-week supervised exercise intervention and showed that although all three strategies were safe and had positive effects on physical and mental health in these patients, Nordic walking had a better effect in raising the 6-minute walk test scores than did moderate- to vigorous-intensity continuous training and HIIT, the researchers noted.

“This study is a follow-up on the previous study to show that Nordic walking had greater sustained effects even after the observation phase,” from 12 to 26 weeks, Dr. Terada said in an interview.

“Exercise is a medicine to improve the health of patients, but unfortunately, sometimes it is not as often utilized,” Dr. Terada told this news organization.

Giving patients additional exercise modalities is beneficial because not everyone likes HIIT workouts or long continuous walking, Dr. Terada said. “So, if that’s the case, we can recommend Nordic walking as another type of exercise and expect a similar or good impact in functional capacity.”

The results were published online in the Canadian Journal of Cardiology.

“I think it honestly supports the idea that, as many other studies show, physical activity and exercise improve functional capacity no matter how you measure it and have beneficial effects on mental health and quality of life and particularly depression as well,” Carl “Chip” Lavie, MD, University of Queensland, New Orleans, who coauthored an editorial accompanying the publication, said in an interview.

“Clinicians need to get patients to do the type of exercise that they are going to do. A lot of people ask what’s the best exercise, and the best exercise is one that the person is going to do,” Dr. Lavie said.

Nordic walking is an enhanced form of walking that engages the upper and lower body musculatures, noted Dr. Lavie.

“With regard to Nordic walking, I think that now adds an additional option that many people wouldn’t have thought about. For many of the patients that have issues that are musculoskeletal, issues with posture, gait, or balance, using the poles can be a way to allow them to walk much better and increase their speed, and as they do that, they become fitter,” Dr. Lavie continued.

Moreover, these findings support the use of Nordic walking in cardiac rehabilitation programs, the editorialists noted.
 

Cardiac rehabilitation

The study examined patients with coronary artery disease who underwent cardiac revascularization. They were then referred by their physicians to cardiac rehabilitation.

Participants were randomly assigned to one of the following intervention groups: Nordic walking (n = 30), moderate- to vigorous-intensity continuous training (n = 27), and HIIT (n = 29) for a 12-week period. There was then an additional 14-week observation period after the exercise program. Mean age was 60 years across the intervention groups.

The research team analyzed the extent of participants’ depression with Beck Depression Inventory–II, quality of life with Short Form–36 and HeartQoL, and functional capacity with a 6-minute walk test. They assessed functional capacity, depression, and quality of life at baseline, 12 weeks, and 26 weeks.

Using linear mixed models with extended measures, the study authors evaluated sustained effects, which were between week 12 and week 26, and prolonged effects, which were between baseline and week 26.

From baseline to 26 weeks, participants saw significantly better outcomes in quality of life, depression symptoms, and 6-minute walk test (P < .05).

Physical quality of life and 6-minute walk test distance rose significantly between weeks 12 and 26 (P < .05).

Notably, at week 26, all training groups achieved the minimal clinical threshold difference of 54 m, although participants in the Nordic walking cohort demonstrated significantly greater improvement in outcomes.

Other data indicated the following:

• From baseline to week 12, physical activity levels rose significantly, and this improvement was sustained through the observation period.
• During the observation period, mental component summary significantly declined while physical component summary outcomes improved.
• After completion of cardiac rehabilitation, functional capacity continued to increase significantly.
• Moderate- to vigorous-intensity continuous training, HIIT, and Nordic walking had positive and significant prolonged effects on depression symptoms and general and disease-specific quality of life, with no differences in the extent of improvements between exercise types.

Some limitations of the study include the fact that women comprised a small portion of the study group, which limits the generalizability of these data, the cohort was recruited from a single medical facility, and there was a short follow-up time, the researchers noted.

“Further research is warranted to investigate the efficacy and integration of Nordic walking into home-based exercise after supervised cardiac rehabilitation for maintenance of physical and mental health,” the editorialists concluded.

Dr. Terada, Dr. Lavie, and Dr. Taylor reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) started 2 weeks after sternotomy for a cardiac procedure was noninferior to usual care, in which CR starts 6 weeks after the procedure, with a greater improvement in 6-minute walk test outcomes, a randomized study suggests.

There was no difference in adverse events between groups, although the researchers pointed out that the study was not powered specifically for safety outcomes.

“Cardiac surgical techniques have evolved significantly over the last 60 years, leading to improved survival and shorter hospital stays,” Gordon McGregor, PhD, University of Warwick, Coventry, England, told this news organization. “However, sternal precautions and rehabilitation guidelines have not changed accordingly. There has never been a guideline based on empirical evidence to support rehabilitation professionals working with cardiac surgery patients after median sternotomy.”

“By adopting a progressive individualized approach,” he added, “cardiac surgery sternotomy patients can start cardiac rehabilitation up to 4 weeks earlier than current guidance, and thus potentially complete their recovery sooner.”

Results of the Early Initiation of Poststernotomy Cardiac Rehabilitation Exercise Training study were published online  in JAMA Cardiology.

In the study, Dr. McGregor and colleagues randomly assigned 158 patients (mean age, 63 years; 84% men) to 8 weeks of 1-hour, twice-weekly supervised CR exercise training starting 2 weeks (early) or 6 weeks (usual care) after sternotomy.

The primary outcome was change in the 6-minute walk test distance from baseline to 10 or 14 weeks after sternotomy, respectively, and 12 months after randomization.

For usual care, training followed British standards: a warm-up with light cardiovascular and mobility exercises; continuous moderate-intensity cardiovascular exercise; a cooldown; functional exercises using resistance machines and free weights; and upper-body exercises designed to prevent sternal and leg wound pain and complications.

There are no specific outpatient CR exercise guidelines for early CR, so study participants followed an individualized exercise program for the first 2-3 weeks after surgery, starting with light mobility and moderate-intensity cardiovascular training when they could do those exercises with minimal discomfort. They then progressed to current British standards, as per usual care.

Forty patients were lost to follow-up, largely because of the pandemic; about half the participants in each group were included in the primary analysis.

Early CR was not inferior to usual care, the authors wrote. The mean change in 6-minute walk distance from baseline to completion of CR was 28 meters greater in the early group than in the usual-care group, and was achieved 4 weeks earlier in the recovery timeline.

Secondary outcomes (functional fitness and quality of life) improved in both groups and between-group differences were not statistically significant, indicating the noninferiority of early CR, the authors noted.
 

Safety not proven

There were more adverse events in the early group than in the usual-care group (58 vs. 46) and more serious adverse events (18 vs. 14), but fewer deaths (1 vs. 2).

Although there was no between-group difference in the likelihood of having an adverse or serious adverse event, Dr. McGregor acknowledged that the study was “not powered specifically for safety outcomes.” He added that “there is the potential to run a very large multination definitive superiority [randomized, controlled trial] with safety as the primary outcome; however, a very large sample would be required.”

Meanwhile, he said, “we can say with some degree of certainty that early CR was likely as safe as usual-care CR. In the United Kingdom, we work closely with the British Association for Cardiovascular Prevention and Rehabilitation and the Association of Chartered Physiotherapists in Cardiovascular Rehabilitation, who will incorporate our findings in their guidelines and training courses.”
 

Questions remain

Asked to comment on the study, John Larry, MD, medical director of cardiology and cardiac rehabilitation at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center East Hospital, Columbus, said: “For those under time pressure to return to work, [early CR] could be an advantage to allow more rehab time and improved stamina prior to their return-to-work date.”

That said, he noted, “we typically delay any significant upper-body training activities for 8-10 weeks to avoid impact on healing of the sternum. Thus ... starting sooner would limit the amount of time a patient would have to engage in any upper-body resistance training. Many lose upper body strength after surgery, so this is an important part of the recovery/rehab process.”

Matthew Tomey, MD, director of the cardiac intensive care unit, Mount Sinai Morningside, New York, advised “caution” when interpreting the findings, stating that “there was no evident difference in the primary outcome measure of functional capacity by 14 weeks, and the trial was not designed to directly assess impact on either social functioning or economic productivity.”

“I would be interested to [see] more comprehensive data on safety in a larger, more diverse sample of postoperative patients,” he said, “as well as evidence to indicate clear advantage of an earlier start for patient-centered outcomes specifically after cardiac surgery.

“Perhaps the greatest challenges to full realization of the benefits of CR in practice have been gaps in referral and gaps in enrollment,” he added. “It is incumbent upon us as clinicians to counsel our patients and to provide appropriate referrals.”

The study was supported by the Medical and Life Sciences Research Fund and the Jeremy Pilcher Memorial Fund. No conflicts of interest were reported.

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

Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) started 2 weeks after sternotomy for a cardiac procedure was noninferior to usual care, in which CR starts 6 weeks after the procedure, with a greater improvement in 6-minute walk test outcomes, a randomized study suggests.

There was no difference in adverse events between groups, although the researchers pointed out that the study was not powered specifically for safety outcomes.

“Cardiac surgical techniques have evolved significantly over the last 60 years, leading to improved survival and shorter hospital stays,” Gordon McGregor, PhD, University of Warwick, Coventry, England, told this news organization. “However, sternal precautions and rehabilitation guidelines have not changed accordingly. There has never been a guideline based on empirical evidence to support rehabilitation professionals working with cardiac surgery patients after median sternotomy.”

“By adopting a progressive individualized approach,” he added, “cardiac surgery sternotomy patients can start cardiac rehabilitation up to 4 weeks earlier than current guidance, and thus potentially complete their recovery sooner.”

Results of the Early Initiation of Poststernotomy Cardiac Rehabilitation Exercise Training study were published online  in JAMA Cardiology.

In the study, Dr. McGregor and colleagues randomly assigned 158 patients (mean age, 63 years; 84% men) to 8 weeks of 1-hour, twice-weekly supervised CR exercise training starting 2 weeks (early) or 6 weeks (usual care) after sternotomy.

The primary outcome was change in the 6-minute walk test distance from baseline to 10 or 14 weeks after sternotomy, respectively, and 12 months after randomization.

For usual care, training followed British standards: a warm-up with light cardiovascular and mobility exercises; continuous moderate-intensity cardiovascular exercise; a cooldown; functional exercises using resistance machines and free weights; and upper-body exercises designed to prevent sternal and leg wound pain and complications.

There are no specific outpatient CR exercise guidelines for early CR, so study participants followed an individualized exercise program for the first 2-3 weeks after surgery, starting with light mobility and moderate-intensity cardiovascular training when they could do those exercises with minimal discomfort. They then progressed to current British standards, as per usual care.

Forty patients were lost to follow-up, largely because of the pandemic; about half the participants in each group were included in the primary analysis.

Early CR was not inferior to usual care, the authors wrote. The mean change in 6-minute walk distance from baseline to completion of CR was 28 meters greater in the early group than in the usual-care group, and was achieved 4 weeks earlier in the recovery timeline.

Secondary outcomes (functional fitness and quality of life) improved in both groups and between-group differences were not statistically significant, indicating the noninferiority of early CR, the authors noted.
 

Safety not proven

There were more adverse events in the early group than in the usual-care group (58 vs. 46) and more serious adverse events (18 vs. 14), but fewer deaths (1 vs. 2).

Although there was no between-group difference in the likelihood of having an adverse or serious adverse event, Dr. McGregor acknowledged that the study was “not powered specifically for safety outcomes.” He added that “there is the potential to run a very large multination definitive superiority [randomized, controlled trial] with safety as the primary outcome; however, a very large sample would be required.”

Meanwhile, he said, “we can say with some degree of certainty that early CR was likely as safe as usual-care CR. In the United Kingdom, we work closely with the British Association for Cardiovascular Prevention and Rehabilitation and the Association of Chartered Physiotherapists in Cardiovascular Rehabilitation, who will incorporate our findings in their guidelines and training courses.”
 

Questions remain

Asked to comment on the study, John Larry, MD, medical director of cardiology and cardiac rehabilitation at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center East Hospital, Columbus, said: “For those under time pressure to return to work, [early CR] could be an advantage to allow more rehab time and improved stamina prior to their return-to-work date.”

That said, he noted, “we typically delay any significant upper-body training activities for 8-10 weeks to avoid impact on healing of the sternum. Thus ... starting sooner would limit the amount of time a patient would have to engage in any upper-body resistance training. Many lose upper body strength after surgery, so this is an important part of the recovery/rehab process.”

Matthew Tomey, MD, director of the cardiac intensive care unit, Mount Sinai Morningside, New York, advised “caution” when interpreting the findings, stating that “there was no evident difference in the primary outcome measure of functional capacity by 14 weeks, and the trial was not designed to directly assess impact on either social functioning or economic productivity.”

“I would be interested to [see] more comprehensive data on safety in a larger, more diverse sample of postoperative patients,” he said, “as well as evidence to indicate clear advantage of an earlier start for patient-centered outcomes specifically after cardiac surgery.

“Perhaps the greatest challenges to full realization of the benefits of CR in practice have been gaps in referral and gaps in enrollment,” he added. “It is incumbent upon us as clinicians to counsel our patients and to provide appropriate referrals.”

The study was supported by the Medical and Life Sciences Research Fund and the Jeremy Pilcher Memorial Fund. No conflicts of interest were reported.

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

Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) started 2 weeks after sternotomy for a cardiac procedure was noninferior to usual care, in which CR starts 6 weeks after the procedure, with a greater improvement in 6-minute walk test outcomes, a randomized study suggests.

There was no difference in adverse events between groups, although the researchers pointed out that the study was not powered specifically for safety outcomes.

“Cardiac surgical techniques have evolved significantly over the last 60 years, leading to improved survival and shorter hospital stays,” Gordon McGregor, PhD, University of Warwick, Coventry, England, told this news organization. “However, sternal precautions and rehabilitation guidelines have not changed accordingly. There has never been a guideline based on empirical evidence to support rehabilitation professionals working with cardiac surgery patients after median sternotomy.”

“By adopting a progressive individualized approach,” he added, “cardiac surgery sternotomy patients can start cardiac rehabilitation up to 4 weeks earlier than current guidance, and thus potentially complete their recovery sooner.”

Results of the Early Initiation of Poststernotomy Cardiac Rehabilitation Exercise Training study were published online  in JAMA Cardiology.

In the study, Dr. McGregor and colleagues randomly assigned 158 patients (mean age, 63 years; 84% men) to 8 weeks of 1-hour, twice-weekly supervised CR exercise training starting 2 weeks (early) or 6 weeks (usual care) after sternotomy.

The primary outcome was change in the 6-minute walk test distance from baseline to 10 or 14 weeks after sternotomy, respectively, and 12 months after randomization.

For usual care, training followed British standards: a warm-up with light cardiovascular and mobility exercises; continuous moderate-intensity cardiovascular exercise; a cooldown; functional exercises using resistance machines and free weights; and upper-body exercises designed to prevent sternal and leg wound pain and complications.

There are no specific outpatient CR exercise guidelines for early CR, so study participants followed an individualized exercise program for the first 2-3 weeks after surgery, starting with light mobility and moderate-intensity cardiovascular training when they could do those exercises with minimal discomfort. They then progressed to current British standards, as per usual care.

Forty patients were lost to follow-up, largely because of the pandemic; about half the participants in each group were included in the primary analysis.

Early CR was not inferior to usual care, the authors wrote. The mean change in 6-minute walk distance from baseline to completion of CR was 28 meters greater in the early group than in the usual-care group, and was achieved 4 weeks earlier in the recovery timeline.

Secondary outcomes (functional fitness and quality of life) improved in both groups and between-group differences were not statistically significant, indicating the noninferiority of early CR, the authors noted.
 

Safety not proven

There were more adverse events in the early group than in the usual-care group (58 vs. 46) and more serious adverse events (18 vs. 14), but fewer deaths (1 vs. 2).

Although there was no between-group difference in the likelihood of having an adverse or serious adverse event, Dr. McGregor acknowledged that the study was “not powered specifically for safety outcomes.” He added that “there is the potential to run a very large multination definitive superiority [randomized, controlled trial] with safety as the primary outcome; however, a very large sample would be required.”

Meanwhile, he said, “we can say with some degree of certainty that early CR was likely as safe as usual-care CR. In the United Kingdom, we work closely with the British Association for Cardiovascular Prevention and Rehabilitation and the Association of Chartered Physiotherapists in Cardiovascular Rehabilitation, who will incorporate our findings in their guidelines and training courses.”
 

Questions remain

Asked to comment on the study, John Larry, MD, medical director of cardiology and cardiac rehabilitation at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center East Hospital, Columbus, said: “For those under time pressure to return to work, [early CR] could be an advantage to allow more rehab time and improved stamina prior to their return-to-work date.”

That said, he noted, “we typically delay any significant upper-body training activities for 8-10 weeks to avoid impact on healing of the sternum. Thus ... starting sooner would limit the amount of time a patient would have to engage in any upper-body resistance training. Many lose upper body strength after surgery, so this is an important part of the recovery/rehab process.”

Matthew Tomey, MD, director of the cardiac intensive care unit, Mount Sinai Morningside, New York, advised “caution” when interpreting the findings, stating that “there was no evident difference in the primary outcome measure of functional capacity by 14 weeks, and the trial was not designed to directly assess impact on either social functioning or economic productivity.”

“I would be interested to [see] more comprehensive data on safety in a larger, more diverse sample of postoperative patients,” he said, “as well as evidence to indicate clear advantage of an earlier start for patient-centered outcomes specifically after cardiac surgery.

“Perhaps the greatest challenges to full realization of the benefits of CR in practice have been gaps in referral and gaps in enrollment,” he added. “It is incumbent upon us as clinicians to counsel our patients and to provide appropriate referrals.”

The study was supported by the Medical and Life Sciences Research Fund and the Jeremy Pilcher Memorial Fund. No conflicts of interest were reported.

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