Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management

At least one in four adults worldwide is thought to have nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, a major risk factor for cardiovascular disease (CVD), which is the leading cause of death in NAFLD, but the condition is widely underdiagnosed, according to a new American Heart Association scientific statement on NAFLD and cardiovascular risks.

The statement, published in Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology, aims to increase awareness of NAFLD among cardiologists and other clinicians treating vulnerable patients. It pulls together the existing evidence for using imaging to diagnose NAFLD as well as the role of current and emerging treatments for managing the disease.

“NAFLD is common, but most patients are undiagnosed,” statement writing committee chair P. Barton Duell, MD, said in an interview. “The identification of normal liver enzyme levels does not exclude the diagnosis of NAFLD. Early diagnosis and treatment are necessary to improve the health of patients with established NAFLD, as well as preventing the development of NAFLD in patients who are at risk for the condition.”

Dr. Duell is a professor at the Knight Cardiovascular Institute and division of endocrinology, diabetes and clinical nutrition at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.

This is the AHA’s first scientific statement on NAFLD. In 2021, the association issued a statement on obesity and CVD). Also in 2021, a multiorganization group headed by the American Gastroenterological Association published a “Call to Action” on nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) , a form of NAFLD that’s characterized by inflammation and scarring of the liver, and typically requires a liver biopsy for diagnosis.

Key take-homes

The AHA statement on NAFLD is sweeping. Among its key take-home messages:

• Calling into question the effectiveness of AST and ALT testing for diagnosing NAFLD and NASH.
• Providing context to the role of insulin resistance – either with or without diabetes – as well as obesity (particularly visceral adiposity), metabolic syndrome, and dyslipidemia in NAFLD.
• Advocating for lifestyle interventions – diet, exercise, weight loss and alcohol avoidance – as the key therapeutic intervention for NAFLD.
• Asserting that glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonists may modestly improve NAFLD.

The statement also tackles the differences in terminology different organizations use to describe NAFLD. “The terminology section is important to ensure everyone is using the right terminology in assessing patients, as well as choosing appropriate treatment interventions,” Dr. Duell said.

The statement also explores genetic factors that can predispose people to NAFLD, Dr. Duell pointed out, and it goes into detail about strategies for screening NAFLD and NASH. “It is not possible to diagnose NAFLD without understanding the pros and cons of various screening modalities, as well as the lack of sensitivity of some tests for detection of NAFLD We hope this information will increase success in screening for and early identification of NAFLD.”

Dr. Duell explained the rationale for issuing the statement. “Rates of NAFLD are increasing worldwide in association with rising rates of elevated body mass index and the metabolic syndrome, but the condition is commonly undiagnosed,” he said. “This allows patients to experience progression of disease, leading to hepatic and cardiovascular complications.” 

Avoiding NAFLD risk factors along with early diagnosis and treatment “may have the potential to mitigate long-term complications from NAFLD,” Dr. Duell said.

“This is one of first times where we really look at cardiovascular risks associated with NAFLD and pinpoint the risk factors, the imaging tools that can be used for diagnosing fatty liver disease, and ultimately what potential treatments we can consider,” Tiffany M. Powell-Wiley, MD, MPH, author of the AHA statement on obesity and CV risk, said in an interview.

“NAFLD has not been at the forefront of  cardiologists’ minds, but this statement highlights the importance of liver fat as a fat depot,” said Dr. Powell-Wiley, chief of the Social Determinants of Obesity and Cardiovascular Risk Laboratory at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute in Bethesda, Md.

“It does provide greater clarity for us as cardiologists, especially when thinking about what is required for diagnosis and ultimately how this relates to cardiovascular disease for people with fatty liver disease,” she said.

Dr. Duell and Dr. Powell-Wiley have no relevant relationships to disclose.


 

At least one in four adults worldwide is thought to have nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, a major risk factor for cardiovascular disease (CVD), which is the leading cause of death in NAFLD, but the condition is widely underdiagnosed, according to a new American Heart Association scientific statement on NAFLD and cardiovascular risks.

The statement, published in Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology, aims to increase awareness of NAFLD among cardiologists and other clinicians treating vulnerable patients. It pulls together the existing evidence for using imaging to diagnose NAFLD as well as the role of current and emerging treatments for managing the disease.

“NAFLD is common, but most patients are undiagnosed,” statement writing committee chair P. Barton Duell, MD, said in an interview. “The identification of normal liver enzyme levels does not exclude the diagnosis of NAFLD. Early diagnosis and treatment are necessary to improve the health of patients with established NAFLD, as well as preventing the development of NAFLD in patients who are at risk for the condition.”

Dr. Duell is a professor at the Knight Cardiovascular Institute and division of endocrinology, diabetes and clinical nutrition at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.

This is the AHA’s first scientific statement on NAFLD. In 2021, the association issued a statement on obesity and CVD). Also in 2021, a multiorganization group headed by the American Gastroenterological Association published a “Call to Action” on nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) , a form of NAFLD that’s characterized by inflammation and scarring of the liver, and typically requires a liver biopsy for diagnosis.

Key take-homes

The AHA statement on NAFLD is sweeping. Among its key take-home messages:

• Calling into question the effectiveness of AST and ALT testing for diagnosing NAFLD and NASH.
• Providing context to the role of insulin resistance – either with or without diabetes – as well as obesity (particularly visceral adiposity), metabolic syndrome, and dyslipidemia in NAFLD.
• Advocating for lifestyle interventions – diet, exercise, weight loss and alcohol avoidance – as the key therapeutic intervention for NAFLD.
• Asserting that glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonists may modestly improve NAFLD.

The statement also tackles the differences in terminology different organizations use to describe NAFLD. “The terminology section is important to ensure everyone is using the right terminology in assessing patients, as well as choosing appropriate treatment interventions,” Dr. Duell said.

The statement also explores genetic factors that can predispose people to NAFLD, Dr. Duell pointed out, and it goes into detail about strategies for screening NAFLD and NASH. “It is not possible to diagnose NAFLD without understanding the pros and cons of various screening modalities, as well as the lack of sensitivity of some tests for detection of NAFLD We hope this information will increase success in screening for and early identification of NAFLD.”

Dr. Duell explained the rationale for issuing the statement. “Rates of NAFLD are increasing worldwide in association with rising rates of elevated body mass index and the metabolic syndrome, but the condition is commonly undiagnosed,” he said. “This allows patients to experience progression of disease, leading to hepatic and cardiovascular complications.” 

Avoiding NAFLD risk factors along with early diagnosis and treatment “may have the potential to mitigate long-term complications from NAFLD,” Dr. Duell said.

“This is one of first times where we really look at cardiovascular risks associated with NAFLD and pinpoint the risk factors, the imaging tools that can be used for diagnosing fatty liver disease, and ultimately what potential treatments we can consider,” Tiffany M. Powell-Wiley, MD, MPH, author of the AHA statement on obesity and CV risk, said in an interview.

“NAFLD has not been at the forefront of  cardiologists’ minds, but this statement highlights the importance of liver fat as a fat depot,” said Dr. Powell-Wiley, chief of the Social Determinants of Obesity and Cardiovascular Risk Laboratory at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute in Bethesda, Md.

“It does provide greater clarity for us as cardiologists, especially when thinking about what is required for diagnosis and ultimately how this relates to cardiovascular disease for people with fatty liver disease,” she said.

Dr. Duell and Dr. Powell-Wiley have no relevant relationships to disclose.


 

At least one in four adults worldwide is thought to have nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, a major risk factor for cardiovascular disease (CVD), which is the leading cause of death in NAFLD, but the condition is widely underdiagnosed, according to a new American Heart Association scientific statement on NAFLD and cardiovascular risks.

The statement, published in Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology, aims to increase awareness of NAFLD among cardiologists and other clinicians treating vulnerable patients. It pulls together the existing evidence for using imaging to diagnose NAFLD as well as the role of current and emerging treatments for managing the disease.

“NAFLD is common, but most patients are undiagnosed,” statement writing committee chair P. Barton Duell, MD, said in an interview. “The identification of normal liver enzyme levels does not exclude the diagnosis of NAFLD. Early diagnosis and treatment are necessary to improve the health of patients with established NAFLD, as well as preventing the development of NAFLD in patients who are at risk for the condition.”

Dr. Duell is a professor at the Knight Cardiovascular Institute and division of endocrinology, diabetes and clinical nutrition at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.

This is the AHA’s first scientific statement on NAFLD. In 2021, the association issued a statement on obesity and CVD). Also in 2021, a multiorganization group headed by the American Gastroenterological Association published a “Call to Action” on nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) , a form of NAFLD that’s characterized by inflammation and scarring of the liver, and typically requires a liver biopsy for diagnosis.

Key take-homes

The AHA statement on NAFLD is sweeping. Among its key take-home messages:

• Calling into question the effectiveness of AST and ALT testing for diagnosing NAFLD and NASH.
• Providing context to the role of insulin resistance – either with or without diabetes – as well as obesity (particularly visceral adiposity), metabolic syndrome, and dyslipidemia in NAFLD.
• Advocating for lifestyle interventions – diet, exercise, weight loss and alcohol avoidance – as the key therapeutic intervention for NAFLD.
• Asserting that glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonists may modestly improve NAFLD.

The statement also tackles the differences in terminology different organizations use to describe NAFLD. “The terminology section is important to ensure everyone is using the right terminology in assessing patients, as well as choosing appropriate treatment interventions,” Dr. Duell said.

The statement also explores genetic factors that can predispose people to NAFLD, Dr. Duell pointed out, and it goes into detail about strategies for screening NAFLD and NASH. “It is not possible to diagnose NAFLD without understanding the pros and cons of various screening modalities, as well as the lack of sensitivity of some tests for detection of NAFLD We hope this information will increase success in screening for and early identification of NAFLD.”

Dr. Duell explained the rationale for issuing the statement. “Rates of NAFLD are increasing worldwide in association with rising rates of elevated body mass index and the metabolic syndrome, but the condition is commonly undiagnosed,” he said. “This allows patients to experience progression of disease, leading to hepatic and cardiovascular complications.” 

Avoiding NAFLD risk factors along with early diagnosis and treatment “may have the potential to mitigate long-term complications from NAFLD,” Dr. Duell said.

“This is one of first times where we really look at cardiovascular risks associated with NAFLD and pinpoint the risk factors, the imaging tools that can be used for diagnosing fatty liver disease, and ultimately what potential treatments we can consider,” Tiffany M. Powell-Wiley, MD, MPH, author of the AHA statement on obesity and CV risk, said in an interview.

“NAFLD has not been at the forefront of  cardiologists’ minds, but this statement highlights the importance of liver fat as a fat depot,” said Dr. Powell-Wiley, chief of the Social Determinants of Obesity and Cardiovascular Risk Laboratory at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute in Bethesda, Md.

“It does provide greater clarity for us as cardiologists, especially when thinking about what is required for diagnosis and ultimately how this relates to cardiovascular disease for people with fatty liver disease,” she said.

Dr. Duell and Dr. Powell-Wiley have no relevant relationships to disclose.


 

New data from two different sources on cardiac complications linked to COVID-19 have shown that such issues are low overall but are higher after infection than after vaccination.

The new information comes from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network (PCORnet) and from a separate large international clinical study published online in Circulation.
 

CDC data

The CDC study analyzed electronic health record data from 40 U.S. health care systems from Jan. 1, 2021, to Jan. 31, 2022, on more than 15 million people aged 5 years or older.

It reports a rate of myocarditis or pericarditis after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination of 0-35.9 per 100,000 for males and 0-10.9 per 100,000 for females across different age groups and vaccine cohorts.

Rates of myocarditis or pericarditis after SARS-CoV-2 infection ranged from 12.6 to 114 per 100,000 for males and from 5.4 to 61.7 per 100,000 for females across different age groups.  

Even among males aged 12-17 years, the group with the highest incidence of cardiac complications after receipt of a second mRNA COVID-19 vaccine dose, the risk was 1.8-5.6 times higher after SARS-CoV-2 infection than after vaccination, the CDC report notes.

“These findings provide important context for balancing risks and benefits of mRNA COVID-19 vaccination among eligible persons greater than or equal to 5 years,” the report states. They also “support the continued use of recommended mRNA vaccines among all eligible persons aged greater than or equal to 5 years,” it concludes.
 

International study

The international study focused on prevalence, clinical characteristics, and outcomes of clinically manifest acute myocarditis in patients with COVID-19 infection.

The study showed a rate of acute myocarditis of 2.4 per 1,000 patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

“A small study previously indicated acute myocarditis is a rare occurrence in people infected with COVID-19. Our analysis of international data offers better insight to the occurrence of acute myocarditis during COVID-19 hospitalization, particularly before the COVID-19 vaccines were widely available,” coauthor Enrico Ammirati, MD, PhD, Niguarda Hospital, Milan, commented.

“This analysis indicates that, although rare, hospitalized patients with acute myocarditis associated with COVID-19 infection have a much greater need for intensive care unit admission, in up to 70.5% of the cases, despite the average age of the individuals in the study being much younger than expected, at 38 years old,” added coauthor Marco Metra, MD, University of Brescia, Italy. 

The researchers report that the use of corticosteroids in patients with acute myocarditis appeared safe, and, in most cases, a rapid increase in the left ventricular ejection fraction was observed. In addition, they say that discharged patients with acute myocarditis had “an excellent short-term prognosis without occurrence of cardiovascular events.”

The authors also point out that these data show much higher frequency and severity of acute myocarditis linked to COVID-19 infection, compared with myocarditis cases linked to the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.

The international study examined health data on 56,963 patients who were hospitalized with COVID-19 at 23 hospitals across the United States and Europe from February 2020 through April 2021. 

Among these patients, 97 with possible acute myocarditis were identified (4.1 per 1,000), of whom 54 (2.4 per 1,000) were classified as having “definite or probable” acute myocarditis supported by endomyocardial biopsy (31.5% of cases) or magnetic resonance imaging (92.6% of cases).

The median age of definite/probable acute myocarditis cases was 38 years, and 39% were female. On admission, chest pain and dyspnea were the most frequent symptoms (55.5% and 53.7%, respectively), and 31 cases (57.4%) occurred in the absence of COVID-19–associated pneumonia. A fulminant presentation requiring inotropic support or temporary mechanical circulatory support occurred in 21 cases (39%).

Overall, 38 patients (70.4%) were admitted to the intensive care unit for a median time of 6 days. Ten patients (18.5%) received temporary mechanical circulatory support for a median time of 5 days. Three patients died (5.5%) during the index hospitalization, all of whom also had pneumonia. At 120 days, estimated mortality was 6.6%. Patients with pneumonia were more likely to develop hemodynamic instability, require mechanical circulatory support, and die, compared with those without pneumonia.

The authors note that their reported prevalence of acute myocarditis associated with COVID-19 is lower, compared with studies that performed universal cardiac MRI screening during the convalescent COVID-19 period.

They say that underestimation of the prevalence of mild or subclinical acute myocarditis is likely in this study because of the retrospective nature of the registry, the lack of systematic cardiac MRI, and the possibility of missing some diagnoses, particularly during the first pandemic wave when cardiac MRI and endomyocardial biopsy were less frequently performed.

The authors also point out that data on myocarditis after COVID-19 vaccination suggest that vaccination-linked myocarditis is milder than that associated with the virus itself.

With regard to the prevalence of acute myocarditis after vaccination, they report that among 2.8 million doses of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine in the armed forces, 23 individuals had evidence of acute myocarditis, suggesting a prevalence of less than 1 case of acute myocarditis per 100,000 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine doses.

They note that the CDC has also reported 399 reports of myocarditis among 129 million fully vaccinated individuals with the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.

“These figures appear reassuring, compared with the prevalence of clinically manifest acute myocarditis observed in this study among hospitalized patients with COVID-19,” they conclude.

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

New data from two different sources on cardiac complications linked to COVID-19 have shown that such issues are low overall but are higher after infection than after vaccination.

The new information comes from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network (PCORnet) and from a separate large international clinical study published online in Circulation.
 

CDC data

The CDC study analyzed electronic health record data from 40 U.S. health care systems from Jan. 1, 2021, to Jan. 31, 2022, on more than 15 million people aged 5 years or older.

It reports a rate of myocarditis or pericarditis after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination of 0-35.9 per 100,000 for males and 0-10.9 per 100,000 for females across different age groups and vaccine cohorts.

Rates of myocarditis or pericarditis after SARS-CoV-2 infection ranged from 12.6 to 114 per 100,000 for males and from 5.4 to 61.7 per 100,000 for females across different age groups.  

Even among males aged 12-17 years, the group with the highest incidence of cardiac complications after receipt of a second mRNA COVID-19 vaccine dose, the risk was 1.8-5.6 times higher after SARS-CoV-2 infection than after vaccination, the CDC report notes.

“These findings provide important context for balancing risks and benefits of mRNA COVID-19 vaccination among eligible persons greater than or equal to 5 years,” the report states. They also “support the continued use of recommended mRNA vaccines among all eligible persons aged greater than or equal to 5 years,” it concludes.
 

International study

The international study focused on prevalence, clinical characteristics, and outcomes of clinically manifest acute myocarditis in patients with COVID-19 infection.

The study showed a rate of acute myocarditis of 2.4 per 1,000 patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

“A small study previously indicated acute myocarditis is a rare occurrence in people infected with COVID-19. Our analysis of international data offers better insight to the occurrence of acute myocarditis during COVID-19 hospitalization, particularly before the COVID-19 vaccines were widely available,” coauthor Enrico Ammirati, MD, PhD, Niguarda Hospital, Milan, commented.

“This analysis indicates that, although rare, hospitalized patients with acute myocarditis associated with COVID-19 infection have a much greater need for intensive care unit admission, in up to 70.5% of the cases, despite the average age of the individuals in the study being much younger than expected, at 38 years old,” added coauthor Marco Metra, MD, University of Brescia, Italy. 

The researchers report that the use of corticosteroids in patients with acute myocarditis appeared safe, and, in most cases, a rapid increase in the left ventricular ejection fraction was observed. In addition, they say that discharged patients with acute myocarditis had “an excellent short-term prognosis without occurrence of cardiovascular events.”

The authors also point out that these data show much higher frequency and severity of acute myocarditis linked to COVID-19 infection, compared with myocarditis cases linked to the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.

The international study examined health data on 56,963 patients who were hospitalized with COVID-19 at 23 hospitals across the United States and Europe from February 2020 through April 2021. 

Among these patients, 97 with possible acute myocarditis were identified (4.1 per 1,000), of whom 54 (2.4 per 1,000) were classified as having “definite or probable” acute myocarditis supported by endomyocardial biopsy (31.5% of cases) or magnetic resonance imaging (92.6% of cases).

The median age of definite/probable acute myocarditis cases was 38 years, and 39% were female. On admission, chest pain and dyspnea were the most frequent symptoms (55.5% and 53.7%, respectively), and 31 cases (57.4%) occurred in the absence of COVID-19–associated pneumonia. A fulminant presentation requiring inotropic support or temporary mechanical circulatory support occurred in 21 cases (39%).

Overall, 38 patients (70.4%) were admitted to the intensive care unit for a median time of 6 days. Ten patients (18.5%) received temporary mechanical circulatory support for a median time of 5 days. Three patients died (5.5%) during the index hospitalization, all of whom also had pneumonia. At 120 days, estimated mortality was 6.6%. Patients with pneumonia were more likely to develop hemodynamic instability, require mechanical circulatory support, and die, compared with those without pneumonia.

The authors note that their reported prevalence of acute myocarditis associated with COVID-19 is lower, compared with studies that performed universal cardiac MRI screening during the convalescent COVID-19 period.

They say that underestimation of the prevalence of mild or subclinical acute myocarditis is likely in this study because of the retrospective nature of the registry, the lack of systematic cardiac MRI, and the possibility of missing some diagnoses, particularly during the first pandemic wave when cardiac MRI and endomyocardial biopsy were less frequently performed.

The authors also point out that data on myocarditis after COVID-19 vaccination suggest that vaccination-linked myocarditis is milder than that associated with the virus itself.

With regard to the prevalence of acute myocarditis after vaccination, they report that among 2.8 million doses of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine in the armed forces, 23 individuals had evidence of acute myocarditis, suggesting a prevalence of less than 1 case of acute myocarditis per 100,000 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine doses.

They note that the CDC has also reported 399 reports of myocarditis among 129 million fully vaccinated individuals with the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.

“These figures appear reassuring, compared with the prevalence of clinically manifest acute myocarditis observed in this study among hospitalized patients with COVID-19,” they conclude.

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

New data from two different sources on cardiac complications linked to COVID-19 have shown that such issues are low overall but are higher after infection than after vaccination.

The new information comes from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network (PCORnet) and from a separate large international clinical study published online in Circulation.
 

CDC data

The CDC study analyzed electronic health record data from 40 U.S. health care systems from Jan. 1, 2021, to Jan. 31, 2022, on more than 15 million people aged 5 years or older.

It reports a rate of myocarditis or pericarditis after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination of 0-35.9 per 100,000 for males and 0-10.9 per 100,000 for females across different age groups and vaccine cohorts.

Rates of myocarditis or pericarditis after SARS-CoV-2 infection ranged from 12.6 to 114 per 100,000 for males and from 5.4 to 61.7 per 100,000 for females across different age groups.  

Even among males aged 12-17 years, the group with the highest incidence of cardiac complications after receipt of a second mRNA COVID-19 vaccine dose, the risk was 1.8-5.6 times higher after SARS-CoV-2 infection than after vaccination, the CDC report notes.

“These findings provide important context for balancing risks and benefits of mRNA COVID-19 vaccination among eligible persons greater than or equal to 5 years,” the report states. They also “support the continued use of recommended mRNA vaccines among all eligible persons aged greater than or equal to 5 years,” it concludes.
 

International study

The international study focused on prevalence, clinical characteristics, and outcomes of clinically manifest acute myocarditis in patients with COVID-19 infection.

The study showed a rate of acute myocarditis of 2.4 per 1,000 patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

“A small study previously indicated acute myocarditis is a rare occurrence in people infected with COVID-19. Our analysis of international data offers better insight to the occurrence of acute myocarditis during COVID-19 hospitalization, particularly before the COVID-19 vaccines were widely available,” coauthor Enrico Ammirati, MD, PhD, Niguarda Hospital, Milan, commented.

“This analysis indicates that, although rare, hospitalized patients with acute myocarditis associated with COVID-19 infection have a much greater need for intensive care unit admission, in up to 70.5% of the cases, despite the average age of the individuals in the study being much younger than expected, at 38 years old,” added coauthor Marco Metra, MD, University of Brescia, Italy. 

The researchers report that the use of corticosteroids in patients with acute myocarditis appeared safe, and, in most cases, a rapid increase in the left ventricular ejection fraction was observed. In addition, they say that discharged patients with acute myocarditis had “an excellent short-term prognosis without occurrence of cardiovascular events.”

The authors also point out that these data show much higher frequency and severity of acute myocarditis linked to COVID-19 infection, compared with myocarditis cases linked to the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.

The international study examined health data on 56,963 patients who were hospitalized with COVID-19 at 23 hospitals across the United States and Europe from February 2020 through April 2021. 

Among these patients, 97 with possible acute myocarditis were identified (4.1 per 1,000), of whom 54 (2.4 per 1,000) were classified as having “definite or probable” acute myocarditis supported by endomyocardial biopsy (31.5% of cases) or magnetic resonance imaging (92.6% of cases).

The median age of definite/probable acute myocarditis cases was 38 years, and 39% were female. On admission, chest pain and dyspnea were the most frequent symptoms (55.5% and 53.7%, respectively), and 31 cases (57.4%) occurred in the absence of COVID-19–associated pneumonia. A fulminant presentation requiring inotropic support or temporary mechanical circulatory support occurred in 21 cases (39%).

Overall, 38 patients (70.4%) were admitted to the intensive care unit for a median time of 6 days. Ten patients (18.5%) received temporary mechanical circulatory support for a median time of 5 days. Three patients died (5.5%) during the index hospitalization, all of whom also had pneumonia. At 120 days, estimated mortality was 6.6%. Patients with pneumonia were more likely to develop hemodynamic instability, require mechanical circulatory support, and die, compared with those without pneumonia.

The authors note that their reported prevalence of acute myocarditis associated with COVID-19 is lower, compared with studies that performed universal cardiac MRI screening during the convalescent COVID-19 period.

They say that underestimation of the prevalence of mild or subclinical acute myocarditis is likely in this study because of the retrospective nature of the registry, the lack of systematic cardiac MRI, and the possibility of missing some diagnoses, particularly during the first pandemic wave when cardiac MRI and endomyocardial biopsy were less frequently performed.

The authors also point out that data on myocarditis after COVID-19 vaccination suggest that vaccination-linked myocarditis is milder than that associated with the virus itself.

With regard to the prevalence of acute myocarditis after vaccination, they report that among 2.8 million doses of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine in the armed forces, 23 individuals had evidence of acute myocarditis, suggesting a prevalence of less than 1 case of acute myocarditis per 100,000 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine doses.

They note that the CDC has also reported 399 reports of myocarditis among 129 million fully vaccinated individuals with the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.

“These figures appear reassuring, compared with the prevalence of clinically manifest acute myocarditis observed in this study among hospitalized patients with COVID-19,” they conclude.

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

A fourth dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine is effective in reducing the short-term risk for COVID-19 infection, hospitalization, and death in people who got a third dose at least 4 months before, a large study shows.

However, Paul Offit, MD, author of an editorial accompanying the study, told this news organization, “I would argue, without fear of contradiction, that this is going to have no impact on this pandemic.”

“We are still in the midst of a zero-tolerance policy for this virus. We don’t accept mild illness and if we’re not going to accept mild illness, we think we have to boost it away, which would mean probably about two doses every year. That’s not a reasonable public health strategy,” said Dr. Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.
 

Booster confusion

Results of the research out of Israel, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, make a case for a fourth booster for people 60 and over.

Researchers, led by Ori Magen, MD, Clalit Research Institute, innovation division, Clalit Health Services, Tel Aviv, analyzed data comparing 182,122 matched pairs recorded by the largest health care organization in Israel from Jan. 3 to Feb. 18, 2022. With more than 4.7 million members, Clalit Health Services covers more than half of the population of Israel.

The researchers compared outcomes in people 60 or older (average age, 72 years) who got a fourth dose with outcomes in those who had only a third dose. They individually matched people from the two groups, considering factors such as age, health status, and ethnicity.

Relative vaccine effectiveness in days 7-30 after the fourth dose was estimated to be 45% (95% confidence interval, 44%-47%) against confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, 55% (95% CI, 53%-58%) against symptomatic COVID-19, 68% (95% CI, 59%-74%) against hospitalization, 62% (95% CI, 50%-74%) against severe COVID, and 74% (95% CI, 50%-90%) against COVID-related death.

Several countries, including the United States, have begun offering a fourth vaccine dose for higher-risk populations in light of evidence of waning immunity after the third dose and waves of infection, driven by Omicron and its variants, in some parts of the world. But the recommended age groups differ considerably.

In the United States, for instance, the Food and Drug Administration in late March approved a fourth dose of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine for anyone over 50 and people over 18 who have gotten a solid organ transplant or have a similar level of immune risk.

Dr. Offit pointed out that Israel offers the fourth vaccine for people 60 and over and the European Medical Association offers it for those over 80. No surprise that confusion over the fourth dose is rampant.
 

Booster advice

Dr. Offit offered this perspective: People who are immunocompromised could reasonably get a fourth dose, depending on the manner in which they are compromised.

“Someone who has a solid organ transplant is not the same as someone who is getting a monoclonal antibody for their rheumatoid arthritis,” Dr. Offit said, adding that people could also make a reasonable argument for the fourth dose if they are over 65 and have multiple comorbidities.

“I’m over 65,” Dr. Offit said. “I’m generally healthy. I’m not going to get a fourth dose.”

People with multiple comorbidities over age 12 could reasonably get a third dose, he said. “For everybody else – healthy people less than 65 – I would argue this is a two-dose vaccine.”

CHOP, he noted as an example, mandates the vaccine but doesn’t mandate three doses and he says that’s not unusual for hospital systems.

“How many lives are you really saving with that fourth dose? If you really want to have an effect on this pandemic, vaccinate the unvaccinated,” Dr. Offit said.
 

Focus on the memory cells

Dr. Offit wrote in the editorial: “Arguably, the most disappointing error surrounding the use of COVID-19 vaccines was the labeling of mild illnesses or asymptomatic infections after vaccination as ‘breakthroughs.’ As is true for all mucosal vaccines, the goal is to protect against serious illness – to keep people out of the hospital, intensive care unit, and morgue. The term ‘breakthrough,’ which implies failure, created unrealistic expectations and led to the adoption of a zero-tolerance strategy for this virus.”

Dr. Offit said that the focus should be on the memory cells, not the neutralizing antibodies.

Regarding mRNA vaccines, Dr. Offit said “the surprise of this vaccine – it surprised me and other vaccine researchers – is that with these two doses of mRNA separated by 3-4 weeks, you actually appear to have long-lived memory response.

“That’s not the history of vaccines. If you look at the inactivated polio vaccine or the inactivated hepatitis A vaccine, you really do need a 4- to 6-month interval between doses to get high frequencies of memory cells. That doesn’t appear to be the case here. It looks like two doses given close together do just that. Memory cells last for years if not, sometimes, decades.”

Neutralizing antibodies, on the other hand, protect against mild illness and their effectiveness wanes after months.

“At some point we are going to have to get used to mild illness,” Dr. Offit said.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention must now determine who will benefit most from booster dosing and educate the public about the limits of mucosal vaccines, Dr. Offit wrote in the editorial.

“Otherwise, a zero-tolerance strategy for mild or asymptomatic infection, which can be implemented only with frequent booster doses, will continue to mislead the public about what COVID-19 vaccines can and cannot do.”

The work was funded by the Ivan and Francesca Berkowitz Family Living Laboratory Collaboration at Harvard Medical School and Clalit Research Institute.

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

A fourth dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine is effective in reducing the short-term risk for COVID-19 infection, hospitalization, and death in people who got a third dose at least 4 months before, a large study shows.

However, Paul Offit, MD, author of an editorial accompanying the study, told this news organization, “I would argue, without fear of contradiction, that this is going to have no impact on this pandemic.”

“We are still in the midst of a zero-tolerance policy for this virus. We don’t accept mild illness and if we’re not going to accept mild illness, we think we have to boost it away, which would mean probably about two doses every year. That’s not a reasonable public health strategy,” said Dr. Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.
 

Booster confusion

Results of the research out of Israel, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, make a case for a fourth booster for people 60 and over.

Researchers, led by Ori Magen, MD, Clalit Research Institute, innovation division, Clalit Health Services, Tel Aviv, analyzed data comparing 182,122 matched pairs recorded by the largest health care organization in Israel from Jan. 3 to Feb. 18, 2022. With more than 4.7 million members, Clalit Health Services covers more than half of the population of Israel.

The researchers compared outcomes in people 60 or older (average age, 72 years) who got a fourth dose with outcomes in those who had only a third dose. They individually matched people from the two groups, considering factors such as age, health status, and ethnicity.

Relative vaccine effectiveness in days 7-30 after the fourth dose was estimated to be 45% (95% confidence interval, 44%-47%) against confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, 55% (95% CI, 53%-58%) against symptomatic COVID-19, 68% (95% CI, 59%-74%) against hospitalization, 62% (95% CI, 50%-74%) against severe COVID, and 74% (95% CI, 50%-90%) against COVID-related death.

Several countries, including the United States, have begun offering a fourth vaccine dose for higher-risk populations in light of evidence of waning immunity after the third dose and waves of infection, driven by Omicron and its variants, in some parts of the world. But the recommended age groups differ considerably.

In the United States, for instance, the Food and Drug Administration in late March approved a fourth dose of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine for anyone over 50 and people over 18 who have gotten a solid organ transplant or have a similar level of immune risk.

Dr. Offit pointed out that Israel offers the fourth vaccine for people 60 and over and the European Medical Association offers it for those over 80. No surprise that confusion over the fourth dose is rampant.
 

Booster advice

Dr. Offit offered this perspective: People who are immunocompromised could reasonably get a fourth dose, depending on the manner in which they are compromised.

“Someone who has a solid organ transplant is not the same as someone who is getting a monoclonal antibody for their rheumatoid arthritis,” Dr. Offit said, adding that people could also make a reasonable argument for the fourth dose if they are over 65 and have multiple comorbidities.

“I’m over 65,” Dr. Offit said. “I’m generally healthy. I’m not going to get a fourth dose.”

People with multiple comorbidities over age 12 could reasonably get a third dose, he said. “For everybody else – healthy people less than 65 – I would argue this is a two-dose vaccine.”

CHOP, he noted as an example, mandates the vaccine but doesn’t mandate three doses and he says that’s not unusual for hospital systems.

“How many lives are you really saving with that fourth dose? If you really want to have an effect on this pandemic, vaccinate the unvaccinated,” Dr. Offit said.
 

Focus on the memory cells

Dr. Offit wrote in the editorial: “Arguably, the most disappointing error surrounding the use of COVID-19 vaccines was the labeling of mild illnesses or asymptomatic infections after vaccination as ‘breakthroughs.’ As is true for all mucosal vaccines, the goal is to protect against serious illness – to keep people out of the hospital, intensive care unit, and morgue. The term ‘breakthrough,’ which implies failure, created unrealistic expectations and led to the adoption of a zero-tolerance strategy for this virus.”

Dr. Offit said that the focus should be on the memory cells, not the neutralizing antibodies.

Regarding mRNA vaccines, Dr. Offit said “the surprise of this vaccine – it surprised me and other vaccine researchers – is that with these two doses of mRNA separated by 3-4 weeks, you actually appear to have long-lived memory response.

“That’s not the history of vaccines. If you look at the inactivated polio vaccine or the inactivated hepatitis A vaccine, you really do need a 4- to 6-month interval between doses to get high frequencies of memory cells. That doesn’t appear to be the case here. It looks like two doses given close together do just that. Memory cells last for years if not, sometimes, decades.”

Neutralizing antibodies, on the other hand, protect against mild illness and their effectiveness wanes after months.

“At some point we are going to have to get used to mild illness,” Dr. Offit said.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention must now determine who will benefit most from booster dosing and educate the public about the limits of mucosal vaccines, Dr. Offit wrote in the editorial.

“Otherwise, a zero-tolerance strategy for mild or asymptomatic infection, which can be implemented only with frequent booster doses, will continue to mislead the public about what COVID-19 vaccines can and cannot do.”

The work was funded by the Ivan and Francesca Berkowitz Family Living Laboratory Collaboration at Harvard Medical School and Clalit Research Institute.

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

A fourth dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine is effective in reducing the short-term risk for COVID-19 infection, hospitalization, and death in people who got a third dose at least 4 months before, a large study shows.

However, Paul Offit, MD, author of an editorial accompanying the study, told this news organization, “I would argue, without fear of contradiction, that this is going to have no impact on this pandemic.”

“We are still in the midst of a zero-tolerance policy for this virus. We don’t accept mild illness and if we’re not going to accept mild illness, we think we have to boost it away, which would mean probably about two doses every year. That’s not a reasonable public health strategy,” said Dr. Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.
 

Booster confusion

Results of the research out of Israel, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, make a case for a fourth booster for people 60 and over.

Researchers, led by Ori Magen, MD, Clalit Research Institute, innovation division, Clalit Health Services, Tel Aviv, analyzed data comparing 182,122 matched pairs recorded by the largest health care organization in Israel from Jan. 3 to Feb. 18, 2022. With more than 4.7 million members, Clalit Health Services covers more than half of the population of Israel.

The researchers compared outcomes in people 60 or older (average age, 72 years) who got a fourth dose with outcomes in those who had only a third dose. They individually matched people from the two groups, considering factors such as age, health status, and ethnicity.

Relative vaccine effectiveness in days 7-30 after the fourth dose was estimated to be 45% (95% confidence interval, 44%-47%) against confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, 55% (95% CI, 53%-58%) against symptomatic COVID-19, 68% (95% CI, 59%-74%) against hospitalization, 62% (95% CI, 50%-74%) against severe COVID, and 74% (95% CI, 50%-90%) against COVID-related death.

Several countries, including the United States, have begun offering a fourth vaccine dose for higher-risk populations in light of evidence of waning immunity after the third dose and waves of infection, driven by Omicron and its variants, in some parts of the world. But the recommended age groups differ considerably.

In the United States, for instance, the Food and Drug Administration in late March approved a fourth dose of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine for anyone over 50 and people over 18 who have gotten a solid organ transplant or have a similar level of immune risk.

Dr. Offit pointed out that Israel offers the fourth vaccine for people 60 and over and the European Medical Association offers it for those over 80. No surprise that confusion over the fourth dose is rampant.
 

Booster advice

Dr. Offit offered this perspective: People who are immunocompromised could reasonably get a fourth dose, depending on the manner in which they are compromised.

“Someone who has a solid organ transplant is not the same as someone who is getting a monoclonal antibody for their rheumatoid arthritis,” Dr. Offit said, adding that people could also make a reasonable argument for the fourth dose if they are over 65 and have multiple comorbidities.

“I’m over 65,” Dr. Offit said. “I’m generally healthy. I’m not going to get a fourth dose.”

People with multiple comorbidities over age 12 could reasonably get a third dose, he said. “For everybody else – healthy people less than 65 – I would argue this is a two-dose vaccine.”

CHOP, he noted as an example, mandates the vaccine but doesn’t mandate three doses and he says that’s not unusual for hospital systems.

“How many lives are you really saving with that fourth dose? If you really want to have an effect on this pandemic, vaccinate the unvaccinated,” Dr. Offit said.
 

Focus on the memory cells

Dr. Offit wrote in the editorial: “Arguably, the most disappointing error surrounding the use of COVID-19 vaccines was the labeling of mild illnesses or asymptomatic infections after vaccination as ‘breakthroughs.’ As is true for all mucosal vaccines, the goal is to protect against serious illness – to keep people out of the hospital, intensive care unit, and morgue. The term ‘breakthrough,’ which implies failure, created unrealistic expectations and led to the adoption of a zero-tolerance strategy for this virus.”

Dr. Offit said that the focus should be on the memory cells, not the neutralizing antibodies.

Regarding mRNA vaccines, Dr. Offit said “the surprise of this vaccine – it surprised me and other vaccine researchers – is that with these two doses of mRNA separated by 3-4 weeks, you actually appear to have long-lived memory response.

“That’s not the history of vaccines. If you look at the inactivated polio vaccine or the inactivated hepatitis A vaccine, you really do need a 4- to 6-month interval between doses to get high frequencies of memory cells. That doesn’t appear to be the case here. It looks like two doses given close together do just that. Memory cells last for years if not, sometimes, decades.”

Neutralizing antibodies, on the other hand, protect against mild illness and their effectiveness wanes after months.

“At some point we are going to have to get used to mild illness,” Dr. Offit said.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention must now determine who will benefit most from booster dosing and educate the public about the limits of mucosal vaccines, Dr. Offit wrote in the editorial.

“Otherwise, a zero-tolerance strategy for mild or asymptomatic infection, which can be implemented only with frequent booster doses, will continue to mislead the public about what COVID-19 vaccines can and cannot do.”

The work was funded by the Ivan and Francesca Berkowitz Family Living Laboratory Collaboration at Harvard Medical School and Clalit Research Institute.

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

New research suggests that the casirivimab-imdevimab monoclonal antibody treatment for COVID-19 could have been delivered via injection instead of intravenously. There was no statistically significant difference in 28-day hospitalization or death in those treated intravenously and via subcutaneous injection.

The findings, published in JAMA Network Open, aren’t directly relevant at the moment, since the casirivimab-imdevimab treatment was abandoned when it failed to work during the Omicron outbreak. However, they point toward the importance of studying multiple routes of administration, said study lead author and pharmacist Erin K. McCreary, PharmD, of the University of Pittsburgh, in an interview.

“It would be beneficial for all future monoclonal antibodies for COVID-19 to be studied subcutaneously or intramuscularly, if possible, since that’s logistically easier than IV in the outpatient setting,” she said.

According to Dr. McCreary, an outpatient casirivimab-imdevimab treatment was used from 2020 to 2022 to treat higher-risk patients with mild to moderate COVID-19. The treatment was typically given intravenously as recommended by the federal government’s Emergency Use Authorization, she said. Clinical trials of the treatment, according to the study, allowed only IV administration.

“However, during the Delta surge, we were faced with so many patient referrals for treatment and staffing shortages that we couldn’t accommodate every patient unless we switched to [the] subcutaneous route,” Dr. McCreary said. This approach shortened appointment times by 30 minutes vs. infusion, she said.

There are many benefits to subcutaneous administration versus IV, Dr. McCreary said. “You don’t need to start an intravenous line, so you avoid the line kit and the nursing time needed for that. You draw up the drug directly into syringes and inject under the skin, so you avoid the need for a fluid bag to mix the drug in and run intravenously,” she said. “The appointment times are shorter, so you can accommodate more patients per day. Pharmacy interns can give subcutaneous injections, so you avoid the need for a nurse trained in placing intravenous lines.”

The researchers prospectively assigned 1,959 matched adults with mild to moderate COVID-19 to subcutaneous or intravenous treatment. Of 969 patients who received the subcutaneous treatment (mean age, 53.8; 56.4% women), the 28-day rate of hospitalization or death was 3.4%. Of 1,216 patients who received intravenous treatment (mean age, 54.3; 54.4% women), the rate was 1.7%. The difference was not statistically significant (P = .16).

Among 1,306 nontreated controls, 7.0% were hospitalized or died within 28 days (risk ratio = 0.48 vs. subcutaneous treatment group; 95% confidence interval, 0.30-0.80; P = .002).

“We did not find any patients where IV is a must,” Dr. McCreary said. “However, our study wasn’t powered to see a difference in certain subgroups.”

In an interview, University of Toronto internal medicine and pharmacology/toxicology physician Peter Wu, MD, said he agrees that the study has value because it emphasizes the importance of testing whether monoclonal antibodies can be administered in ways other than intravenously.

However, in the larger picture, he said, this may be irrelevant since it’s clear that anti-spike treatments are not holding up against COVID-19 variants.

No study funding is reported. Some study authors reported disclosures outside the submitted work. Dr. Wu has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

New research suggests that the casirivimab-imdevimab monoclonal antibody treatment for COVID-19 could have been delivered via injection instead of intravenously. There was no statistically significant difference in 28-day hospitalization or death in those treated intravenously and via subcutaneous injection.

The findings, published in JAMA Network Open, aren’t directly relevant at the moment, since the casirivimab-imdevimab treatment was abandoned when it failed to work during the Omicron outbreak. However, they point toward the importance of studying multiple routes of administration, said study lead author and pharmacist Erin K. McCreary, PharmD, of the University of Pittsburgh, in an interview.

“It would be beneficial for all future monoclonal antibodies for COVID-19 to be studied subcutaneously or intramuscularly, if possible, since that’s logistically easier than IV in the outpatient setting,” she said.

According to Dr. McCreary, an outpatient casirivimab-imdevimab treatment was used from 2020 to 2022 to treat higher-risk patients with mild to moderate COVID-19. The treatment was typically given intravenously as recommended by the federal government’s Emergency Use Authorization, she said. Clinical trials of the treatment, according to the study, allowed only IV administration.

“However, during the Delta surge, we were faced with so many patient referrals for treatment and staffing shortages that we couldn’t accommodate every patient unless we switched to [the] subcutaneous route,” Dr. McCreary said. This approach shortened appointment times by 30 minutes vs. infusion, she said.

There are many benefits to subcutaneous administration versus IV, Dr. McCreary said. “You don’t need to start an intravenous line, so you avoid the line kit and the nursing time needed for that. You draw up the drug directly into syringes and inject under the skin, so you avoid the need for a fluid bag to mix the drug in and run intravenously,” she said. “The appointment times are shorter, so you can accommodate more patients per day. Pharmacy interns can give subcutaneous injections, so you avoid the need for a nurse trained in placing intravenous lines.”

The researchers prospectively assigned 1,959 matched adults with mild to moderate COVID-19 to subcutaneous or intravenous treatment. Of 969 patients who received the subcutaneous treatment (mean age, 53.8; 56.4% women), the 28-day rate of hospitalization or death was 3.4%. Of 1,216 patients who received intravenous treatment (mean age, 54.3; 54.4% women), the rate was 1.7%. The difference was not statistically significant (P = .16).

Among 1,306 nontreated controls, 7.0% were hospitalized or died within 28 days (risk ratio = 0.48 vs. subcutaneous treatment group; 95% confidence interval, 0.30-0.80; P = .002).

“We did not find any patients where IV is a must,” Dr. McCreary said. “However, our study wasn’t powered to see a difference in certain subgroups.”

In an interview, University of Toronto internal medicine and pharmacology/toxicology physician Peter Wu, MD, said he agrees that the study has value because it emphasizes the importance of testing whether monoclonal antibodies can be administered in ways other than intravenously.

However, in the larger picture, he said, this may be irrelevant since it’s clear that anti-spike treatments are not holding up against COVID-19 variants.

No study funding is reported. Some study authors reported disclosures outside the submitted work. Dr. Wu has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

New research suggests that the casirivimab-imdevimab monoclonal antibody treatment for COVID-19 could have been delivered via injection instead of intravenously. There was no statistically significant difference in 28-day hospitalization or death in those treated intravenously and via subcutaneous injection.

The findings, published in JAMA Network Open, aren’t directly relevant at the moment, since the casirivimab-imdevimab treatment was abandoned when it failed to work during the Omicron outbreak. However, they point toward the importance of studying multiple routes of administration, said study lead author and pharmacist Erin K. McCreary, PharmD, of the University of Pittsburgh, in an interview.

“It would be beneficial for all future monoclonal antibodies for COVID-19 to be studied subcutaneously or intramuscularly, if possible, since that’s logistically easier than IV in the outpatient setting,” she said.

According to Dr. McCreary, an outpatient casirivimab-imdevimab treatment was used from 2020 to 2022 to treat higher-risk patients with mild to moderate COVID-19. The treatment was typically given intravenously as recommended by the federal government’s Emergency Use Authorization, she said. Clinical trials of the treatment, according to the study, allowed only IV administration.

“However, during the Delta surge, we were faced with so many patient referrals for treatment and staffing shortages that we couldn’t accommodate every patient unless we switched to [the] subcutaneous route,” Dr. McCreary said. This approach shortened appointment times by 30 minutes vs. infusion, she said.

There are many benefits to subcutaneous administration versus IV, Dr. McCreary said. “You don’t need to start an intravenous line, so you avoid the line kit and the nursing time needed for that. You draw up the drug directly into syringes and inject under the skin, so you avoid the need for a fluid bag to mix the drug in and run intravenously,” she said. “The appointment times are shorter, so you can accommodate more patients per day. Pharmacy interns can give subcutaneous injections, so you avoid the need for a nurse trained in placing intravenous lines.”

The researchers prospectively assigned 1,959 matched adults with mild to moderate COVID-19 to subcutaneous or intravenous treatment. Of 969 patients who received the subcutaneous treatment (mean age, 53.8; 56.4% women), the 28-day rate of hospitalization or death was 3.4%. Of 1,216 patients who received intravenous treatment (mean age, 54.3; 54.4% women), the rate was 1.7%. The difference was not statistically significant (P = .16).

Among 1,306 nontreated controls, 7.0% were hospitalized or died within 28 days (risk ratio = 0.48 vs. subcutaneous treatment group; 95% confidence interval, 0.30-0.80; P = .002).

“We did not find any patients where IV is a must,” Dr. McCreary said. “However, our study wasn’t powered to see a difference in certain subgroups.”

In an interview, University of Toronto internal medicine and pharmacology/toxicology physician Peter Wu, MD, said he agrees that the study has value because it emphasizes the importance of testing whether monoclonal antibodies can be administered in ways other than intravenously.

However, in the larger picture, he said, this may be irrelevant since it’s clear that anti-spike treatments are not holding up against COVID-19 variants.

No study funding is reported. Some study authors reported disclosures outside the submitted work. Dr. Wu has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Metformin use, regardless of dose, was associated with increased overall survival in older adults with advanced cancer, according to results of a retrospective study of patients with type 2 diabetes and stage IV cancer.

The analysis included 7,725 patients with lung, breast, colorectal, prostate, or pancreatic cancer identified through a search of a Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare dataset from 2007 to 2016.

Out of the full dataset, 2,981 patients (38.5%) had been prescribed metformin, and use was highest among patients with prostate cancer (46%).

Patients who took metformin versus those who did not had significantly better overall survival in both unadjusted (unadjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69-0.76; P < .001) and adjusted models (adjusted HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.73-0.81; P < .001).

Lead author Lisa Scarton, PhD, RN, assistant professor, University of Florida College of Nursing, Gainesville, said that the “underlying mechanisms of metformin related to cancer are still not completely understood,” but many studies have shown metformin is associated with a reduction in the incidence of cancer, a reduction in cancer mortality, and an improvement in overall survival.

“As more evidence of anticancer benefit of metformin is emerging, it is important to explore optimal dosages that significantly improve cancer outcomes to boost anticancer effect,” she said in an interview.  

Dr. Scarton presented the new data in a poster at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.  

The analysis found no significant difference in overall survival between patients who took metformin with average daily doses ≥ 1,000 mg or < 1,000 mg (aHR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.93-1.08; P = .90).

Although the improvement in overall survival was seen in cancer subgroups, regardless of dose, Dr. Scarton noted the benefit was greatest among patients with breast cancer (aHR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.56-0.82; P < .001). Hazard ratios among those who received metformin were 0.78 (95% CI, 0.69-0.88; P < .001) for colorectal cancer, 0.77 (95% CI, 0.72-0.82; P < .001) for lung cancer, 0.82 (95% CI, 0.72-0.93; P < .001) for pancreatic cancer, and 0.74 (95% CI, 0.62-0.88; P = .002) for prostate cancer. Also, she noted that race/ethnicity did not play a role as a significant factor for predicting better overall survival.

Among study limitations, Dr. Scarton said, was the advanced age of patients. “Our study population was 66 and older. It would be interesting to investigate this relationship among younger adults. We would also explore explicit benefits of metformin use in different racial and ethnic groups.”

The study was funded by the University of Florida. Dr. Scarton has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Metformin use, regardless of dose, was associated with increased overall survival in older adults with advanced cancer, according to results of a retrospective study of patients with type 2 diabetes and stage IV cancer.

The analysis included 7,725 patients with lung, breast, colorectal, prostate, or pancreatic cancer identified through a search of a Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare dataset from 2007 to 2016.

Out of the full dataset, 2,981 patients (38.5%) had been prescribed metformin, and use was highest among patients with prostate cancer (46%).

Patients who took metformin versus those who did not had significantly better overall survival in both unadjusted (unadjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69-0.76; P < .001) and adjusted models (adjusted HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.73-0.81; P < .001).

Lead author Lisa Scarton, PhD, RN, assistant professor, University of Florida College of Nursing, Gainesville, said that the “underlying mechanisms of metformin related to cancer are still not completely understood,” but many studies have shown metformin is associated with a reduction in the incidence of cancer, a reduction in cancer mortality, and an improvement in overall survival.

“As more evidence of anticancer benefit of metformin is emerging, it is important to explore optimal dosages that significantly improve cancer outcomes to boost anticancer effect,” she said in an interview.  

Dr. Scarton presented the new data in a poster at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.  

The analysis found no significant difference in overall survival between patients who took metformin with average daily doses ≥ 1,000 mg or < 1,000 mg (aHR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.93-1.08; P = .90).

Although the improvement in overall survival was seen in cancer subgroups, regardless of dose, Dr. Scarton noted the benefit was greatest among patients with breast cancer (aHR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.56-0.82; P < .001). Hazard ratios among those who received metformin were 0.78 (95% CI, 0.69-0.88; P < .001) for colorectal cancer, 0.77 (95% CI, 0.72-0.82; P < .001) for lung cancer, 0.82 (95% CI, 0.72-0.93; P < .001) for pancreatic cancer, and 0.74 (95% CI, 0.62-0.88; P = .002) for prostate cancer. Also, she noted that race/ethnicity did not play a role as a significant factor for predicting better overall survival.

Among study limitations, Dr. Scarton said, was the advanced age of patients. “Our study population was 66 and older. It would be interesting to investigate this relationship among younger adults. We would also explore explicit benefits of metformin use in different racial and ethnic groups.”

The study was funded by the University of Florida. Dr. Scarton has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Metformin use, regardless of dose, was associated with increased overall survival in older adults with advanced cancer, according to results of a retrospective study of patients with type 2 diabetes and stage IV cancer.

The analysis included 7,725 patients with lung, breast, colorectal, prostate, or pancreatic cancer identified through a search of a Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare dataset from 2007 to 2016.

Out of the full dataset, 2,981 patients (38.5%) had been prescribed metformin, and use was highest among patients with prostate cancer (46%).

Patients who took metformin versus those who did not had significantly better overall survival in both unadjusted (unadjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69-0.76; P < .001) and adjusted models (adjusted HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.73-0.81; P < .001).

Lead author Lisa Scarton, PhD, RN, assistant professor, University of Florida College of Nursing, Gainesville, said that the “underlying mechanisms of metformin related to cancer are still not completely understood,” but many studies have shown metformin is associated with a reduction in the incidence of cancer, a reduction in cancer mortality, and an improvement in overall survival.

“As more evidence of anticancer benefit of metformin is emerging, it is important to explore optimal dosages that significantly improve cancer outcomes to boost anticancer effect,” she said in an interview.  

Dr. Scarton presented the new data in a poster at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.  

The analysis found no significant difference in overall survival between patients who took metformin with average daily doses ≥ 1,000 mg or < 1,000 mg (aHR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.93-1.08; P = .90).

Although the improvement in overall survival was seen in cancer subgroups, regardless of dose, Dr. Scarton noted the benefit was greatest among patients with breast cancer (aHR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.56-0.82; P < .001). Hazard ratios among those who received metformin were 0.78 (95% CI, 0.69-0.88; P < .001) for colorectal cancer, 0.77 (95% CI, 0.72-0.82; P < .001) for lung cancer, 0.82 (95% CI, 0.72-0.93; P < .001) for pancreatic cancer, and 0.74 (95% CI, 0.62-0.88; P = .002) for prostate cancer. Also, she noted that race/ethnicity did not play a role as a significant factor for predicting better overall survival.

Among study limitations, Dr. Scarton said, was the advanced age of patients. “Our study population was 66 and older. It would be interesting to investigate this relationship among younger adults. We would also explore explicit benefits of metformin use in different racial and ethnic groups.”

The study was funded by the University of Florida. Dr. Scarton has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Who needs medical degrees anyway?

It’s no secret that doctors make a fair chunk of change. It’s a lucrative profession, but that big fat paycheck is siloed behind long, tough years of medical school and residency. It’s not an easy path doctors walk. Or at least, it’s not supposed to be. Anything’s easy if you’re willing to lie.

vchal/Thinkstock

That brings us to Sonia, a 31-year-old woman from northern France with a bachelor’s degree in real estate management who wasn’t bringing in enough money for her three children, at least not to her satisfaction. Naturally, the only decision was to forge some diplomas from the University of Strasbourg, as well as a certificate from the French Order of Physicians. Sonia got hired as a general practitioner by using the identities of two doctors who shared her name. She had no experience, had no idea what she was doing, and was wearing a GPS tagging bracelet for an unrelated crime, so she was quickly caught and exposed in October 2021, after, um, 3 years of fake doctoring, according to France Live.

Not to be deterred by this temporary setback, Sonia proceeded to immediately find work as an ophthalmologist, a career that requires more than 10 years of training, continuing her fraudulent medical career until recently, when she was caught again and sentenced to 3 years in prison. She did make 70,000 euros a year as a fake doctor, which isn’t exactly huge money, but certainly not bad either.

We certainly hope she’s learned her lesson about impersonating a doctor, at this point, but maybe she should just go to medical school. If not, northern France might just end up with a new endocrinologist or oncologist floating around in 3 years.
 

No need to ‘guess what size horse you are’

Is COVID-19 warming up for yet another surge? Maybe. That means it’s also time for the return of its remora-like follower, ivermectin. Our thanks go out to the Tennessee state legislature for bringing the proven-to-be-ineffective treatment for COVID back into our hearts and minds and emergency rooms.

StockPlanets/Getty Images

Both the state House and Senate have approved a bill that allows pharmacists to dispense the antiparasitic drug without a prescription while shielding them “from any liability that could arise from dispensing ivermectin,” Nashville Public Radio reported.

The drug’s manufacturer, Merck, said over a year ago that there is “no scientific basis for a potential therapeutic effect against COVID-19 from preclinical studies … and a concerning lack of safety data.” More recently, a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine showed that ivermectin treatment had no important benefits in patients with COVID.

Last week, the bill’s Senate sponsor, Frank Niceley of Strawberry Plains, said that it was all about safety, as he explained to NPR station WPLN: “It’s a lot safer to go to your pharmacist and let him tell you how much ivermectin to take than it is to go to the co-op and guess what size horse you are.”

And on that note, here are a few more items of business that just might end up on the legislature’s calendar:

• Horses will be allowed to “share” their unused ivermectin with humans and other mammals.
• An apple a day not only keeps the doctor away, but the IRS and the FDA as well.
• Colon cleansing is more fun than humans should be allowed to have.
• TikTok videos qualify as CME.

Who needs medical degrees anyway?

It’s no secret that doctors make a fair chunk of change. It’s a lucrative profession, but that big fat paycheck is siloed behind long, tough years of medical school and residency. It’s not an easy path doctors walk. Or at least, it’s not supposed to be. Anything’s easy if you’re willing to lie.

vchal/Thinkstock

That brings us to Sonia, a 31-year-old woman from northern France with a bachelor’s degree in real estate management who wasn’t bringing in enough money for her three children, at least not to her satisfaction. Naturally, the only decision was to forge some diplomas from the University of Strasbourg, as well as a certificate from the French Order of Physicians. Sonia got hired as a general practitioner by using the identities of two doctors who shared her name. She had no experience, had no idea what she was doing, and was wearing a GPS tagging bracelet for an unrelated crime, so she was quickly caught and exposed in October 2021, after, um, 3 years of fake doctoring, according to France Live.

Not to be deterred by this temporary setback, Sonia proceeded to immediately find work as an ophthalmologist, a career that requires more than 10 years of training, continuing her fraudulent medical career until recently, when she was caught again and sentenced to 3 years in prison. She did make 70,000 euros a year as a fake doctor, which isn’t exactly huge money, but certainly not bad either.

We certainly hope she’s learned her lesson about impersonating a doctor, at this point, but maybe she should just go to medical school. If not, northern France might just end up with a new endocrinologist or oncologist floating around in 3 years.
 

Speak louder, I can’t see you

With the introduction of FaceTime and the pandemic pushing work and social events to Zoom, video calls have become ubiquitous. Along the way, however, we’ve had to learn to adjust to technical difficulties. Often by yelling at the screen when the video quality is disrupted. Waving our hands and arms, speaking louder. Sound like you?

Tumisu/Pixabay

Well, a new study published in Royal Society Open Science shows that it sounds like a lot of us.

James Trujillo of the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics in Nijmegen, the Netherlands, who was lead author of the paper, said on Eurekalert that “previous research has shown that speech and gestures are linked, but ours is the first to look into how visuals impact our behavior in those fields.”

He and his associates set up 40 participants in separate rooms to have conversations in pairs over a video chat. Over the course of 40 minutes, the video quality started to deteriorate from clear to extremely blurry. When the video quality was affected, participants started with gestures but as the quality continued to lessen the gestures increased and so did the decibels of their voices.

Even when the participants could barely see each other, they still gestured and their voices were even louder, positively supporting the idea that gestures and speech are a dynamically linked when it comes to communication. Even on regular phone calls, when we can’t see each other at all, people make small movements and gestures, Mr. Trujillo said.

So, the next time the Wifi is terrible and your video calls keep cutting out, don’t worry about looking foolish screaming at the computer. We’ve all been there.
 

Seek a doctor if standing at attention for more than 4 hours

Imbrochável. In Brazil, it means “unfloppable” or “flaccid proof.” It’s also a word that Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro likes to use when referring to himself. Gives you a good idea of what he’s all about. Imagine his embarrassment when news recently broke about more than 30,000 pills of Viagra that had been secretly distributed to the Brazilian military.

PublicDomainPictures/Pixabay

The military offered a simple and plausible explanation: The Viagra had been prescribed to treat pulmonary hypertension. Fair, but when a Brazilian newspaper dug a little deeper, they found that this was not the case. The Viagra was, in general, being used for its, shall we say, traditional purpose.

Many Brazilians reacted poorly to the news that their tax dollars were being used to provide Brazilian soldiers with downstairs assistance, with the standard associated furor on social media. A rival politician, Ciro Gomes, who is planning on challenging the president in an upcoming election, had perhaps the best remark on the situation: “Unless they’re able to prove they’re developing some kind of secret weapon – capable of revolutionizing the international arms industry – it’ll be tough to justify the purchase of 35,000 units of a erectile dysfunction drug.”

Hmm, secret weapon. Well, a certain Russian fellow has made a bit of a thrust into world affairs recently. Does anyone know if Putin is sitting on a big Viagra stash?
 

Who needs medical degrees anyway?

It’s no secret that doctors make a fair chunk of change. It’s a lucrative profession, but that big fat paycheck is siloed behind long, tough years of medical school and residency. It’s not an easy path doctors walk. Or at least, it’s not supposed to be. Anything’s easy if you’re willing to lie.

vchal/Thinkstock

That brings us to Sonia, a 31-year-old woman from northern France with a bachelor’s degree in real estate management who wasn’t bringing in enough money for her three children, at least not to her satisfaction. Naturally, the only decision was to forge some diplomas from the University of Strasbourg, as well as a certificate from the French Order of Physicians. Sonia got hired as a general practitioner by using the identities of two doctors who shared her name. She had no experience, had no idea what she was doing, and was wearing a GPS tagging bracelet for an unrelated crime, so she was quickly caught and exposed in October 2021, after, um, 3 years of fake doctoring, according to France Live.

Not to be deterred by this temporary setback, Sonia proceeded to immediately find work as an ophthalmologist, a career that requires more than 10 years of training, continuing her fraudulent medical career until recently, when she was caught again and sentenced to 3 years in prison. She did make 70,000 euros a year as a fake doctor, which isn’t exactly huge money, but certainly not bad either.

We certainly hope she’s learned her lesson about impersonating a doctor, at this point, but maybe she should just go to medical school. If not, northern France might just end up with a new endocrinologist or oncologist floating around in 3 years.
 

No need to ‘guess what size horse you are’

Is COVID-19 warming up for yet another surge? Maybe. That means it’s also time for the return of its remora-like follower, ivermectin. Our thanks go out to the Tennessee state legislature for bringing the proven-to-be-ineffective treatment for COVID back into our hearts and minds and emergency rooms.

StockPlanets/Getty Images

Both the state House and Senate have approved a bill that allows pharmacists to dispense the antiparasitic drug without a prescription while shielding them “from any liability that could arise from dispensing ivermectin,” Nashville Public Radio reported.

The drug’s manufacturer, Merck, said over a year ago that there is “no scientific basis for a potential therapeutic effect against COVID-19 from preclinical studies … and a concerning lack of safety data.” More recently, a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine showed that ivermectin treatment had no important benefits in patients with COVID.

Last week, the bill’s Senate sponsor, Frank Niceley of Strawberry Plains, said that it was all about safety, as he explained to NPR station WPLN: “It’s a lot safer to go to your pharmacist and let him tell you how much ivermectin to take than it is to go to the co-op and guess what size horse you are.”

And on that note, here are a few more items of business that just might end up on the legislature’s calendar:

• Horses will be allowed to “share” their unused ivermectin with humans and other mammals.
• An apple a day not only keeps the doctor away, but the IRS and the FDA as well.
• Colon cleansing is more fun than humans should be allowed to have.
• TikTok videos qualify as CME.

Who needs medical degrees anyway?

It’s no secret that doctors make a fair chunk of change. It’s a lucrative profession, but that big fat paycheck is siloed behind long, tough years of medical school and residency. It’s not an easy path doctors walk. Or at least, it’s not supposed to be. Anything’s easy if you’re willing to lie.

vchal/Thinkstock

That brings us to Sonia, a 31-year-old woman from northern France with a bachelor’s degree in real estate management who wasn’t bringing in enough money for her three children, at least not to her satisfaction. Naturally, the only decision was to forge some diplomas from the University of Strasbourg, as well as a certificate from the French Order of Physicians. Sonia got hired as a general practitioner by using the identities of two doctors who shared her name. She had no experience, had no idea what she was doing, and was wearing a GPS tagging bracelet for an unrelated crime, so she was quickly caught and exposed in October 2021, after, um, 3 years of fake doctoring, according to France Live.

Not to be deterred by this temporary setback, Sonia proceeded to immediately find work as an ophthalmologist, a career that requires more than 10 years of training, continuing her fraudulent medical career until recently, when she was caught again and sentenced to 3 years in prison. She did make 70,000 euros a year as a fake doctor, which isn’t exactly huge money, but certainly not bad either.

We certainly hope she’s learned her lesson about impersonating a doctor, at this point, but maybe she should just go to medical school. If not, northern France might just end up with a new endocrinologist or oncologist floating around in 3 years.
 

Speak louder, I can’t see you

With the introduction of FaceTime and the pandemic pushing work and social events to Zoom, video calls have become ubiquitous. Along the way, however, we’ve had to learn to adjust to technical difficulties. Often by yelling at the screen when the video quality is disrupted. Waving our hands and arms, speaking louder. Sound like you?

Tumisu/Pixabay

Well, a new study published in Royal Society Open Science shows that it sounds like a lot of us.

James Trujillo of the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics in Nijmegen, the Netherlands, who was lead author of the paper, said on Eurekalert that “previous research has shown that speech and gestures are linked, but ours is the first to look into how visuals impact our behavior in those fields.”

He and his associates set up 40 participants in separate rooms to have conversations in pairs over a video chat. Over the course of 40 minutes, the video quality started to deteriorate from clear to extremely blurry. When the video quality was affected, participants started with gestures but as the quality continued to lessen the gestures increased and so did the decibels of their voices.

Even when the participants could barely see each other, they still gestured and their voices were even louder, positively supporting the idea that gestures and speech are a dynamically linked when it comes to communication. Even on regular phone calls, when we can’t see each other at all, people make small movements and gestures, Mr. Trujillo said.

So, the next time the Wifi is terrible and your video calls keep cutting out, don’t worry about looking foolish screaming at the computer. We’ve all been there.
 

Seek a doctor if standing at attention for more than 4 hours

Imbrochável. In Brazil, it means “unfloppable” or “flaccid proof.” It’s also a word that Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro likes to use when referring to himself. Gives you a good idea of what he’s all about. Imagine his embarrassment when news recently broke about more than 30,000 pills of Viagra that had been secretly distributed to the Brazilian military.

PublicDomainPictures/Pixabay

The military offered a simple and plausible explanation: The Viagra had been prescribed to treat pulmonary hypertension. Fair, but when a Brazilian newspaper dug a little deeper, they found that this was not the case. The Viagra was, in general, being used for its, shall we say, traditional purpose.

Many Brazilians reacted poorly to the news that their tax dollars were being used to provide Brazilian soldiers with downstairs assistance, with the standard associated furor on social media. A rival politician, Ciro Gomes, who is planning on challenging the president in an upcoming election, had perhaps the best remark on the situation: “Unless they’re able to prove they’re developing some kind of secret weapon – capable of revolutionizing the international arms industry – it’ll be tough to justify the purchase of 35,000 units of a erectile dysfunction drug.”

Hmm, secret weapon. Well, a certain Russian fellow has made a bit of a thrust into world affairs recently. Does anyone know if Putin is sitting on a big Viagra stash?
 

Who needs medical degrees anyway?

It’s no secret that doctors make a fair chunk of change. It’s a lucrative profession, but that big fat paycheck is siloed behind long, tough years of medical school and residency. It’s not an easy path doctors walk. Or at least, it’s not supposed to be. Anything’s easy if you’re willing to lie.

vchal/Thinkstock

That brings us to Sonia, a 31-year-old woman from northern France with a bachelor’s degree in real estate management who wasn’t bringing in enough money for her three children, at least not to her satisfaction. Naturally, the only decision was to forge some diplomas from the University of Strasbourg, as well as a certificate from the French Order of Physicians. Sonia got hired as a general practitioner by using the identities of two doctors who shared her name. She had no experience, had no idea what she was doing, and was wearing a GPS tagging bracelet for an unrelated crime, so she was quickly caught and exposed in October 2021, after, um, 3 years of fake doctoring, according to France Live.

Not to be deterred by this temporary setback, Sonia proceeded to immediately find work as an ophthalmologist, a career that requires more than 10 years of training, continuing her fraudulent medical career until recently, when she was caught again and sentenced to 3 years in prison. She did make 70,000 euros a year as a fake doctor, which isn’t exactly huge money, but certainly not bad either.

We certainly hope she’s learned her lesson about impersonating a doctor, at this point, but maybe she should just go to medical school. If not, northern France might just end up with a new endocrinologist or oncologist floating around in 3 years.
 

No need to ‘guess what size horse you are’

Is COVID-19 warming up for yet another surge? Maybe. That means it’s also time for the return of its remora-like follower, ivermectin. Our thanks go out to the Tennessee state legislature for bringing the proven-to-be-ineffective treatment for COVID back into our hearts and minds and emergency rooms.

StockPlanets/Getty Images

Both the state House and Senate have approved a bill that allows pharmacists to dispense the antiparasitic drug without a prescription while shielding them “from any liability that could arise from dispensing ivermectin,” Nashville Public Radio reported.

The drug’s manufacturer, Merck, said over a year ago that there is “no scientific basis for a potential therapeutic effect against COVID-19 from preclinical studies … and a concerning lack of safety data.” More recently, a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine showed that ivermectin treatment had no important benefits in patients with COVID.

Last week, the bill’s Senate sponsor, Frank Niceley of Strawberry Plains, said that it was all about safety, as he explained to NPR station WPLN: “It’s a lot safer to go to your pharmacist and let him tell you how much ivermectin to take than it is to go to the co-op and guess what size horse you are.”

And on that note, here are a few more items of business that just might end up on the legislature’s calendar:

• Horses will be allowed to “share” their unused ivermectin with humans and other mammals.
• An apple a day not only keeps the doctor away, but the IRS and the FDA as well.
• Colon cleansing is more fun than humans should be allowed to have.
• TikTok videos qualify as CME.

Who needs medical degrees anyway?

It’s no secret that doctors make a fair chunk of change. It’s a lucrative profession, but that big fat paycheck is siloed behind long, tough years of medical school and residency. It’s not an easy path doctors walk. Or at least, it’s not supposed to be. Anything’s easy if you’re willing to lie.

vchal/Thinkstock

That brings us to Sonia, a 31-year-old woman from northern France with a bachelor’s degree in real estate management who wasn’t bringing in enough money for her three children, at least not to her satisfaction. Naturally, the only decision was to forge some diplomas from the University of Strasbourg, as well as a certificate from the French Order of Physicians. Sonia got hired as a general practitioner by using the identities of two doctors who shared her name. She had no experience, had no idea what she was doing, and was wearing a GPS tagging bracelet for an unrelated crime, so she was quickly caught and exposed in October 2021, after, um, 3 years of fake doctoring, according to France Live.

Not to be deterred by this temporary setback, Sonia proceeded to immediately find work as an ophthalmologist, a career that requires more than 10 years of training, continuing her fraudulent medical career until recently, when she was caught again and sentenced to 3 years in prison. She did make 70,000 euros a year as a fake doctor, which isn’t exactly huge money, but certainly not bad either.

We certainly hope she’s learned her lesson about impersonating a doctor, at this point, but maybe she should just go to medical school. If not, northern France might just end up with a new endocrinologist or oncologist floating around in 3 years.
 

Speak louder, I can’t see you

With the introduction of FaceTime and the pandemic pushing work and social events to Zoom, video calls have become ubiquitous. Along the way, however, we’ve had to learn to adjust to technical difficulties. Often by yelling at the screen when the video quality is disrupted. Waving our hands and arms, speaking louder. Sound like you?

Tumisu/Pixabay

Well, a new study published in Royal Society Open Science shows that it sounds like a lot of us.

James Trujillo of the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics in Nijmegen, the Netherlands, who was lead author of the paper, said on Eurekalert that “previous research has shown that speech and gestures are linked, but ours is the first to look into how visuals impact our behavior in those fields.”

He and his associates set up 40 participants in separate rooms to have conversations in pairs over a video chat. Over the course of 40 minutes, the video quality started to deteriorate from clear to extremely blurry. When the video quality was affected, participants started with gestures but as the quality continued to lessen the gestures increased and so did the decibels of their voices.

Even when the participants could barely see each other, they still gestured and their voices were even louder, positively supporting the idea that gestures and speech are a dynamically linked when it comes to communication. Even on regular phone calls, when we can’t see each other at all, people make small movements and gestures, Mr. Trujillo said.

So, the next time the Wifi is terrible and your video calls keep cutting out, don’t worry about looking foolish screaming at the computer. We’ve all been there.
 

Seek a doctor if standing at attention for more than 4 hours

Imbrochável. In Brazil, it means “unfloppable” or “flaccid proof.” It’s also a word that Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro likes to use when referring to himself. Gives you a good idea of what he’s all about. Imagine his embarrassment when news recently broke about more than 30,000 pills of Viagra that had been secretly distributed to the Brazilian military.

PublicDomainPictures/Pixabay

The military offered a simple and plausible explanation: The Viagra had been prescribed to treat pulmonary hypertension. Fair, but when a Brazilian newspaper dug a little deeper, they found that this was not the case. The Viagra was, in general, being used for its, shall we say, traditional purpose.

Many Brazilians reacted poorly to the news that their tax dollars were being used to provide Brazilian soldiers with downstairs assistance, with the standard associated furor on social media. A rival politician, Ciro Gomes, who is planning on challenging the president in an upcoming election, had perhaps the best remark on the situation: “Unless they’re able to prove they’re developing some kind of secret weapon – capable of revolutionizing the international arms industry – it’ll be tough to justify the purchase of 35,000 units of a erectile dysfunction drug.”

Hmm, secret weapon. Well, a certain Russian fellow has made a bit of a thrust into world affairs recently. Does anyone know if Putin is sitting on a big Viagra stash?
 

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force on Apr. 12 posted draft recommendations on screening for depression and anxiety in children and adolescents.

For the first time, the USPSTF is recommending screening children ages 8 and older for anxiety.

It also recommended screening children ages 12 and older for depression, which was consistent with the USPSTF’s prior recommendations on the topic.

These B-grade draft recommendations are for children and teens who are not showing signs or symptoms of these conditions. The task force emphasized that anyone who has concerns about or shows signs of these conditions should be connected to care.

Task force member Martha Kubik, PhD, RN, a professor with George Mason University, Fairfax, Va, said in a statement: “Fortunately, we found that screening older children for anxiety and depression is effective in identifying these conditions so children and teens can be connected to the support they need.”

The group cited in its recommendation on anxiety the 2018-2019 National Survey of Children’s Health, which found that 7.8% of children and adolescents ages 3-17 years had a current anxiety disorder. It also noted that the National Survey on LGBTQ Youth Mental Health found that 72% of LGBTQ youth and 77% of transgender and nonbinary youth described general anxiety disorder symptoms.

“Anxiety disorders in childhood and adolescence are associated with an increased likelihood of a future anxiety disorder or depression,” the task force authors wrote.

They highlighted that “the prevalence of anxiety in Black youth may be evolving.” Previously, studies had suggested that young Black people may have had lower rates of mental health disorders, compared with their White counterparts.

“However, recent cohorts of Black children or adolescents have reported a higher prevalence of anxiety disorders than in the past,” the authors wrote.

Joanna Quigley, MD, clinical associate professor and associate medical director for child & adolescent services at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in an interview she was not surprised the USPSTF recommended screening for anxiety starting at age 8.

That’s when parents and providers see anxiety disorders begin to present or become more problematic, she said.

“It’s also acknowledging the importance of prevention,” she said. “The sooner we can identify these challenges for kids, the sooner we can intervene and have better outcomes for that child across their lifespan.”

Screening gets providers and families in the habit of thinking about these concerns when a child or adolescent comes in for another kind of visit, Dr. Quigley said. Chest pains in a well-child check, for example, may trigger thoughts to consider anxiety later if the child is brought in for a cardiac check for chest pains.

“It creates a culture of awareness that is important as well,” Dr. Quigley said. “I think part of what the task force is trying to do is saying that identifying anxiety can be a precursor to what could turn out to be related to depression or related to ADHD and factors we think about when we think about suicide risk as well.

“We’re seeing an increase in suicide in the younger age group as well, which is a huge concern, “ she noted.

Dr. Quigley said, if these recommendations are adopted after the comment period, pediatricians and family practice providers will likely be doing most of the screening for anxiety, but there may also be a role for the screening in pediatric subspecialty care, such as those treating children with chronic illness and in specialized mental health care.

She added: “This builds on the national conversation going on about the mental health crisis, declared a national emergency in the fall. This deserves attention in continuing the momentum.”
 

Factors that may signal higher risk for depression

While the USPSTF recommends screening for major depressive disorder in all adolescents aged 12 years and older, the USPSTF notes that several risk factors might help identify those at higher risk.

Markers for higher risk include a combination of factors such as a family history of depression, prior episode of depression, and other mental health or behavioral problems.

“Other psychosocial risk factors include childhood abuse or neglect, exposure to traumatic events, bullying (either as perpetrators or as victims), adverse life events, early exposure to stress, maltreatment, and an insecure parental relationship,” the task force authors wrote.

There was limited evidence, however, on the benefits and harms of screening children younger than 8 for anxiety and screening kids younger than 12 for depression.
 

Not enough evidence for suicide risk screening

The authors of the recommendations acknowledged that, while suicide is a leading cause of death for older children and teens, evidence is still too sparse to make recommendations regarding screening for suicide risk in those without signs or symptoms at any age.

They also explained that evidence is lacking and inconsistent on the effectiveness of treatment (psychotherapy, pharmacotherapy, or collaborative care) for suicide risk in improving outcomes in children and adolescents.

Comments on the USPSTF recommendations may be submitted until May 9, 2022. The USPSTF topic leads review all comments, revise the draft recommendations, put them to a vote by the full task force, and then post the final versions to the website.

The task force authors and Dr. Quigley reported no financial disclosures.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force on Apr. 12 posted draft recommendations on screening for depression and anxiety in children and adolescents.

For the first time, the USPSTF is recommending screening children ages 8 and older for anxiety.

It also recommended screening children ages 12 and older for depression, which was consistent with the USPSTF’s prior recommendations on the topic.

These B-grade draft recommendations are for children and teens who are not showing signs or symptoms of these conditions. The task force emphasized that anyone who has concerns about or shows signs of these conditions should be connected to care.

Task force member Martha Kubik, PhD, RN, a professor with George Mason University, Fairfax, Va, said in a statement: “Fortunately, we found that screening older children for anxiety and depression is effective in identifying these conditions so children and teens can be connected to the support they need.”

The group cited in its recommendation on anxiety the 2018-2019 National Survey of Children’s Health, which found that 7.8% of children and adolescents ages 3-17 years had a current anxiety disorder. It also noted that the National Survey on LGBTQ Youth Mental Health found that 72% of LGBTQ youth and 77% of transgender and nonbinary youth described general anxiety disorder symptoms.

“Anxiety disorders in childhood and adolescence are associated with an increased likelihood of a future anxiety disorder or depression,” the task force authors wrote.

They highlighted that “the prevalence of anxiety in Black youth may be evolving.” Previously, studies had suggested that young Black people may have had lower rates of mental health disorders, compared with their White counterparts.

“However, recent cohorts of Black children or adolescents have reported a higher prevalence of anxiety disorders than in the past,” the authors wrote.

Joanna Quigley, MD, clinical associate professor and associate medical director for child & adolescent services at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in an interview she was not surprised the USPSTF recommended screening for anxiety starting at age 8.

That’s when parents and providers see anxiety disorders begin to present or become more problematic, she said.

“It’s also acknowledging the importance of prevention,” she said. “The sooner we can identify these challenges for kids, the sooner we can intervene and have better outcomes for that child across their lifespan.”

Screening gets providers and families in the habit of thinking about these concerns when a child or adolescent comes in for another kind of visit, Dr. Quigley said. Chest pains in a well-child check, for example, may trigger thoughts to consider anxiety later if the child is brought in for a cardiac check for chest pains.

“It creates a culture of awareness that is important as well,” Dr. Quigley said. “I think part of what the task force is trying to do is saying that identifying anxiety can be a precursor to what could turn out to be related to depression or related to ADHD and factors we think about when we think about suicide risk as well.

“We’re seeing an increase in suicide in the younger age group as well, which is a huge concern, “ she noted.

Dr. Quigley said, if these recommendations are adopted after the comment period, pediatricians and family practice providers will likely be doing most of the screening for anxiety, but there may also be a role for the screening in pediatric subspecialty care, such as those treating children with chronic illness and in specialized mental health care.

She added: “This builds on the national conversation going on about the mental health crisis, declared a national emergency in the fall. This deserves attention in continuing the momentum.”
 

Factors that may signal higher risk for depression

While the USPSTF recommends screening for major depressive disorder in all adolescents aged 12 years and older, the USPSTF notes that several risk factors might help identify those at higher risk.

Markers for higher risk include a combination of factors such as a family history of depression, prior episode of depression, and other mental health or behavioral problems.

“Other psychosocial risk factors include childhood abuse or neglect, exposure to traumatic events, bullying (either as perpetrators or as victims), adverse life events, early exposure to stress, maltreatment, and an insecure parental relationship,” the task force authors wrote.

There was limited evidence, however, on the benefits and harms of screening children younger than 8 for anxiety and screening kids younger than 12 for depression.
 

Not enough evidence for suicide risk screening

The authors of the recommendations acknowledged that, while suicide is a leading cause of death for older children and teens, evidence is still too sparse to make recommendations regarding screening for suicide risk in those without signs or symptoms at any age.

They also explained that evidence is lacking and inconsistent on the effectiveness of treatment (psychotherapy, pharmacotherapy, or collaborative care) for suicide risk in improving outcomes in children and adolescents.

Comments on the USPSTF recommendations may be submitted until May 9, 2022. The USPSTF topic leads review all comments, revise the draft recommendations, put them to a vote by the full task force, and then post the final versions to the website.

The task force authors and Dr. Quigley reported no financial disclosures.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force on Apr. 12 posted draft recommendations on screening for depression and anxiety in children and adolescents.

For the first time, the USPSTF is recommending screening children ages 8 and older for anxiety.

It also recommended screening children ages 12 and older for depression, which was consistent with the USPSTF’s prior recommendations on the topic.

These B-grade draft recommendations are for children and teens who are not showing signs or symptoms of these conditions. The task force emphasized that anyone who has concerns about or shows signs of these conditions should be connected to care.

Task force member Martha Kubik, PhD, RN, a professor with George Mason University, Fairfax, Va, said in a statement: “Fortunately, we found that screening older children for anxiety and depression is effective in identifying these conditions so children and teens can be connected to the support they need.”

The group cited in its recommendation on anxiety the 2018-2019 National Survey of Children’s Health, which found that 7.8% of children and adolescents ages 3-17 years had a current anxiety disorder. It also noted that the National Survey on LGBTQ Youth Mental Health found that 72% of LGBTQ youth and 77% of transgender and nonbinary youth described general anxiety disorder symptoms.

“Anxiety disorders in childhood and adolescence are associated with an increased likelihood of a future anxiety disorder or depression,” the task force authors wrote.

They highlighted that “the prevalence of anxiety in Black youth may be evolving.” Previously, studies had suggested that young Black people may have had lower rates of mental health disorders, compared with their White counterparts.

“However, recent cohorts of Black children or adolescents have reported a higher prevalence of anxiety disorders than in the past,” the authors wrote.

Joanna Quigley, MD, clinical associate professor and associate medical director for child & adolescent services at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in an interview she was not surprised the USPSTF recommended screening for anxiety starting at age 8.

That’s when parents and providers see anxiety disorders begin to present or become more problematic, she said.

“It’s also acknowledging the importance of prevention,” she said. “The sooner we can identify these challenges for kids, the sooner we can intervene and have better outcomes for that child across their lifespan.”

Screening gets providers and families in the habit of thinking about these concerns when a child or adolescent comes in for another kind of visit, Dr. Quigley said. Chest pains in a well-child check, for example, may trigger thoughts to consider anxiety later if the child is brought in for a cardiac check for chest pains.

“It creates a culture of awareness that is important as well,” Dr. Quigley said. “I think part of what the task force is trying to do is saying that identifying anxiety can be a precursor to what could turn out to be related to depression or related to ADHD and factors we think about when we think about suicide risk as well.

“We’re seeing an increase in suicide in the younger age group as well, which is a huge concern, “ she noted.

Dr. Quigley said, if these recommendations are adopted after the comment period, pediatricians and family practice providers will likely be doing most of the screening for anxiety, but there may also be a role for the screening in pediatric subspecialty care, such as those treating children with chronic illness and in specialized mental health care.

She added: “This builds on the national conversation going on about the mental health crisis, declared a national emergency in the fall. This deserves attention in continuing the momentum.”
 

Factors that may signal higher risk for depression

While the USPSTF recommends screening for major depressive disorder in all adolescents aged 12 years and older, the USPSTF notes that several risk factors might help identify those at higher risk.

Markers for higher risk include a combination of factors such as a family history of depression, prior episode of depression, and other mental health or behavioral problems.

“Other psychosocial risk factors include childhood abuse or neglect, exposure to traumatic events, bullying (either as perpetrators or as victims), adverse life events, early exposure to stress, maltreatment, and an insecure parental relationship,” the task force authors wrote.

There was limited evidence, however, on the benefits and harms of screening children younger than 8 for anxiety and screening kids younger than 12 for depression.
 

Not enough evidence for suicide risk screening

The authors of the recommendations acknowledged that, while suicide is a leading cause of death for older children and teens, evidence is still too sparse to make recommendations regarding screening for suicide risk in those without signs or symptoms at any age.

They also explained that evidence is lacking and inconsistent on the effectiveness of treatment (psychotherapy, pharmacotherapy, or collaborative care) for suicide risk in improving outcomes in children and adolescents.

Comments on the USPSTF recommendations may be submitted until May 9, 2022. The USPSTF topic leads review all comments, revise the draft recommendations, put them to a vote by the full task force, and then post the final versions to the website.

The task force authors and Dr. Quigley reported no financial disclosures.

Cardiovascular complications are uncommon for children and young adults after COVID-19 disease or SARS-CoV-2 infection, according to a new scientific statement from the American Heart Association.

However, the infection can cause some children and young people to experience arrhythmias, myocarditis, pericarditis, or multisystem inflammatory syndrome (MIS-C), a new condition identified during the pandemic, it notes.

The statement details what has been learned about how to treat, manage, and prevent cardiovascular complications associated with COVID-19 in children and young adults and calls for more research, including studies following the short- and long-term cardiovascular effects.

It also reports that COVID-19 vaccines have been found to prevent severe COVID-19 disease and decrease the risk of developing MIS-C by 91% among children ages 12-18 years.

On returning to sports, it says data suggest it is safe for young people with mild or asymptomatic COVID-19 to resume exercise after recovery from symptoms. For those with more serious infections, it recommends additional tests, including cardiac enzyme levels, electrocardiogram, and echocardiogram, before returning to sports or strenuous physical exercise.

The scientific statement was published online on in Circulation.

“Two years into the pandemic and with vast amounts of research conducted in children with COVID-19, this statement summarizes what we know so far related to COVID-19 in children,” said chair of the statement writing group Pei-Ni Jone, MD, from the Children’s Hospital Colorado, Aurora.

Analysis of the latest research indicates children generally have mild symptoms from SARS-CoV-2 infection. In the U.S., as of Feb. 24, 2022, children under 18 years of age have accounted for 17.6% of total COVID-19 cases and about 0.1% of deaths from the virus, the report states.  

In addition, young adults, ages 18-29 years, have accounted for 21.3% of cases and 0.8% of deaths from COVID-19.

Like adults, children with underlying medical conditions such as chronic lung disease or obesity and those who are immunocompromised are more likely to be hospitalized, to be admitted to an intensive care unit, and to die of COVID-19, the statement notes. There are conflicting reports on the risk of severe COVID-19 in children and young adults with congenital heart disease, with some reports suggesting a slightly increased risk of severe COVID-19.

In terms of cardiovascular complications of COVID-19 in children, arrhythmias have included ventricular tachycardia and atrial tachycardia, as well as first-degree atrioventricular block. Although arrhythmias generally self-resolve without the need for treatment, prophylactic antiarrhythmics have been administered in some cases, and death caused by recurrent ventricular tachycardia in an adolescent with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy has been described.

Elevations of troponin, electrocardiographic abnormalities, including ST-segment changes, and delayed gadolinium enhancement on cardiac magnetic resonance imaging have been seen in those with myocardial involvement. Although death is rare, both sudden cardiac death and death after intensive medical and supportive therapies have occurred in children with severe myocardial involvement.

In a large retrospective pediatric case series of SARS-CoV-2–associated deaths in individuals under 21 years of age, the median age at death was 17 years, 63% were male, 28% were Black, and 46% were Hispanic. Of those who died, 86% had a comorbid condition, with obesity (42%) and asthma (29%) being the most common.

But the report concludes that: “Although children with comorbidities are at increased risk for symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection, compared with healthy children, cardiovascular complications, severe illness, and death are uncommon.”
 

MIS-C: Rare but severe

The authors of the statement explain that children and some young adults may develop MIS-C, a relatively rare but severe inflammatory syndrome generally occurring 2-6 weeks after infection with SARS-CoV-2 that can affect the heart and multiple organ systems.

In the first year of the pandemic, more than 2,600 cases of MIS-C were reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, at an estimated rate of 1 case per 3,164 cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection in children, with MIS-C disproportionately affecting Hispanic and Black children.

As many as 50% of children with MIS-C have myocardial involvement, including decreased left ventricular function, coronary artery dilation or aneurysms, myocarditis, elevated troponin and BNP or NT-proBNP, or pericardial effusion. Acute-phase reactants, including C-reactive protein, D-dimer, ferritin, and fibrinogen, can be significantly elevated in MIS-C, neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio may be higher, and platelet counts lower than those with non–MIS-C febrile illnesses.

Fortunately, the outcome of MIS-C is generally very good, with resolution of inflammation and cardiovascular abnormalities within 1-4 weeks of diagnosis, the report says.

However, there have been reports of progression of coronary artery aneurysms after discharge, highlighting the potential for long-term complications. Death resulting from MIS-C is rare, with a mortality rate of 1.4%-1.9%.

Compared with children and young adults who died of acute SARS-CoV-2 infection, most of the fatalities from MIS-C were in previously healthy individuals without comorbidities.

The authors recommend structured follow-up of patients with MIS-C because of concern about progression of cardiac complications and an unclear long-term prognosis.

The statement notes that the first-line treatment for MIS-C is typically intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) and patients with poor ventricular function may need to have IVIG in divided doses to tolerate the fluid load.  

Supportive treatment for heart failure and vasoplegic shock often requires aggressive management in an ICU for administration of inotropes and vasoactive medications. Antiplatelet therapy with low-dose aspirin is considered in patients with coronary artery involvement, and anticoagulation is added, depending on the degree of coronary artery dilation.
 

COVID-19 vaccination

The statement notes that vaccines can prevent patients from getting COVID-19 and decrease the risk of MIS-C by 91% among children 12-18 years of age.

On vaccine-associated myocarditis, it concludes the benefits of getting the vaccines outweigh the risks.  

For example, for every 1 million doses of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in males ages 12-29 years (the highest risk group for vaccine-associated myocarditis), it is estimated that 11,000 COVID-19 cases, 560 hospitalizations, and six deaths would be prevented, whereas 39-47 cases of myocarditis would be expected.

But it adds that the CDC is continuing to follow myocarditis in children and young adults closely, particularly a possible connection to the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.

The statement says that more research is needed to better understand the mechanisms and optimal treatment approaches for SARS-CoV-2 infection, vaccine-associated myocarditis, the long-term outcomes of both COVID-19 and MIS-C, and the impact of these various conditions on the heart in children and young adults. In addition, any new antiviral therapies need to be tested in clinical trials focused on children.

“Although much has been learned about how the virus impacts children’s and young adult’s hearts, how to best treat cardiovascular complications, and prevent severe illness, continued clinical research trials are needed to better understand the long-term cardiovascular impacts,” Dr. Jone said. “It is also important to address health disparities that have become more apparent during the pandemic. We must work to ensure all children receive equal access to vaccination and high-quality care.”

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

Cardiovascular complications are uncommon for children and young adults after COVID-19 disease or SARS-CoV-2 infection, according to a new scientific statement from the American Heart Association.

However, the infection can cause some children and young people to experience arrhythmias, myocarditis, pericarditis, or multisystem inflammatory syndrome (MIS-C), a new condition identified during the pandemic, it notes.

The statement details what has been learned about how to treat, manage, and prevent cardiovascular complications associated with COVID-19 in children and young adults and calls for more research, including studies following the short- and long-term cardiovascular effects.

It also reports that COVID-19 vaccines have been found to prevent severe COVID-19 disease and decrease the risk of developing MIS-C by 91% among children ages 12-18 years.

On returning to sports, it says data suggest it is safe for young people with mild or asymptomatic COVID-19 to resume exercise after recovery from symptoms. For those with more serious infections, it recommends additional tests, including cardiac enzyme levels, electrocardiogram, and echocardiogram, before returning to sports or strenuous physical exercise.

The scientific statement was published online on in Circulation.

“Two years into the pandemic and with vast amounts of research conducted in children with COVID-19, this statement summarizes what we know so far related to COVID-19 in children,” said chair of the statement writing group Pei-Ni Jone, MD, from the Children’s Hospital Colorado, Aurora.

Analysis of the latest research indicates children generally have mild symptoms from SARS-CoV-2 infection. In the U.S., as of Feb. 24, 2022, children under 18 years of age have accounted for 17.6% of total COVID-19 cases and about 0.1% of deaths from the virus, the report states.  

In addition, young adults, ages 18-29 years, have accounted for 21.3% of cases and 0.8% of deaths from COVID-19.

Like adults, children with underlying medical conditions such as chronic lung disease or obesity and those who are immunocompromised are more likely to be hospitalized, to be admitted to an intensive care unit, and to die of COVID-19, the statement notes. There are conflicting reports on the risk of severe COVID-19 in children and young adults with congenital heart disease, with some reports suggesting a slightly increased risk of severe COVID-19.

In terms of cardiovascular complications of COVID-19 in children, arrhythmias have included ventricular tachycardia and atrial tachycardia, as well as first-degree atrioventricular block. Although arrhythmias generally self-resolve without the need for treatment, prophylactic antiarrhythmics have been administered in some cases, and death caused by recurrent ventricular tachycardia in an adolescent with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy has been described.

Elevations of troponin, electrocardiographic abnormalities, including ST-segment changes, and delayed gadolinium enhancement on cardiac magnetic resonance imaging have been seen in those with myocardial involvement. Although death is rare, both sudden cardiac death and death after intensive medical and supportive therapies have occurred in children with severe myocardial involvement.

In a large retrospective pediatric case series of SARS-CoV-2–associated deaths in individuals under 21 years of age, the median age at death was 17 years, 63% were male, 28% were Black, and 46% were Hispanic. Of those who died, 86% had a comorbid condition, with obesity (42%) and asthma (29%) being the most common.

But the report concludes that: “Although children with comorbidities are at increased risk for symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection, compared with healthy children, cardiovascular complications, severe illness, and death are uncommon.”
 

MIS-C: Rare but severe

The authors of the statement explain that children and some young adults may develop MIS-C, a relatively rare but severe inflammatory syndrome generally occurring 2-6 weeks after infection with SARS-CoV-2 that can affect the heart and multiple organ systems.

In the first year of the pandemic, more than 2,600 cases of MIS-C were reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, at an estimated rate of 1 case per 3,164 cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection in children, with MIS-C disproportionately affecting Hispanic and Black children.

As many as 50% of children with MIS-C have myocardial involvement, including decreased left ventricular function, coronary artery dilation or aneurysms, myocarditis, elevated troponin and BNP or NT-proBNP, or pericardial effusion. Acute-phase reactants, including C-reactive protein, D-dimer, ferritin, and fibrinogen, can be significantly elevated in MIS-C, neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio may be higher, and platelet counts lower than those with non–MIS-C febrile illnesses.

Fortunately, the outcome of MIS-C is generally very good, with resolution of inflammation and cardiovascular abnormalities within 1-4 weeks of diagnosis, the report says.

However, there have been reports of progression of coronary artery aneurysms after discharge, highlighting the potential for long-term complications. Death resulting from MIS-C is rare, with a mortality rate of 1.4%-1.9%.

Compared with children and young adults who died of acute SARS-CoV-2 infection, most of the fatalities from MIS-C were in previously healthy individuals without comorbidities.

The authors recommend structured follow-up of patients with MIS-C because of concern about progression of cardiac complications and an unclear long-term prognosis.

The statement notes that the first-line treatment for MIS-C is typically intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) and patients with poor ventricular function may need to have IVIG in divided doses to tolerate the fluid load.  

Supportive treatment for heart failure and vasoplegic shock often requires aggressive management in an ICU for administration of inotropes and vasoactive medications. Antiplatelet therapy with low-dose aspirin is considered in patients with coronary artery involvement, and anticoagulation is added, depending on the degree of coronary artery dilation.
 

COVID-19 vaccination

The statement notes that vaccines can prevent patients from getting COVID-19 and decrease the risk of MIS-C by 91% among children 12-18 years of age.

On vaccine-associated myocarditis, it concludes the benefits of getting the vaccines outweigh the risks.  

For example, for every 1 million doses of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in males ages 12-29 years (the highest risk group for vaccine-associated myocarditis), it is estimated that 11,000 COVID-19 cases, 560 hospitalizations, and six deaths would be prevented, whereas 39-47 cases of myocarditis would be expected.

But it adds that the CDC is continuing to follow myocarditis in children and young adults closely, particularly a possible connection to the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.

The statement says that more research is needed to better understand the mechanisms and optimal treatment approaches for SARS-CoV-2 infection, vaccine-associated myocarditis, the long-term outcomes of both COVID-19 and MIS-C, and the impact of these various conditions on the heart in children and young adults. In addition, any new antiviral therapies need to be tested in clinical trials focused on children.

“Although much has been learned about how the virus impacts children’s and young adult’s hearts, how to best treat cardiovascular complications, and prevent severe illness, continued clinical research trials are needed to better understand the long-term cardiovascular impacts,” Dr. Jone said. “It is also important to address health disparities that have become more apparent during the pandemic. We must work to ensure all children receive equal access to vaccination and high-quality care.”

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

Cardiovascular complications are uncommon for children and young adults after COVID-19 disease or SARS-CoV-2 infection, according to a new scientific statement from the American Heart Association.

However, the infection can cause some children and young people to experience arrhythmias, myocarditis, pericarditis, or multisystem inflammatory syndrome (MIS-C), a new condition identified during the pandemic, it notes.

The statement details what has been learned about how to treat, manage, and prevent cardiovascular complications associated with COVID-19 in children and young adults and calls for more research, including studies following the short- and long-term cardiovascular effects.

It also reports that COVID-19 vaccines have been found to prevent severe COVID-19 disease and decrease the risk of developing MIS-C by 91% among children ages 12-18 years.

On returning to sports, it says data suggest it is safe for young people with mild or asymptomatic COVID-19 to resume exercise after recovery from symptoms. For those with more serious infections, it recommends additional tests, including cardiac enzyme levels, electrocardiogram, and echocardiogram, before returning to sports or strenuous physical exercise.

The scientific statement was published online on in Circulation.

“Two years into the pandemic and with vast amounts of research conducted in children with COVID-19, this statement summarizes what we know so far related to COVID-19 in children,” said chair of the statement writing group Pei-Ni Jone, MD, from the Children’s Hospital Colorado, Aurora.

Analysis of the latest research indicates children generally have mild symptoms from SARS-CoV-2 infection. In the U.S., as of Feb. 24, 2022, children under 18 years of age have accounted for 17.6% of total COVID-19 cases and about 0.1% of deaths from the virus, the report states.  

In addition, young adults, ages 18-29 years, have accounted for 21.3% of cases and 0.8% of deaths from COVID-19.

Like adults, children with underlying medical conditions such as chronic lung disease or obesity and those who are immunocompromised are more likely to be hospitalized, to be admitted to an intensive care unit, and to die of COVID-19, the statement notes. There are conflicting reports on the risk of severe COVID-19 in children and young adults with congenital heart disease, with some reports suggesting a slightly increased risk of severe COVID-19.

In terms of cardiovascular complications of COVID-19 in children, arrhythmias have included ventricular tachycardia and atrial tachycardia, as well as first-degree atrioventricular block. Although arrhythmias generally self-resolve without the need for treatment, prophylactic antiarrhythmics have been administered in some cases, and death caused by recurrent ventricular tachycardia in an adolescent with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy has been described.

Elevations of troponin, electrocardiographic abnormalities, including ST-segment changes, and delayed gadolinium enhancement on cardiac magnetic resonance imaging have been seen in those with myocardial involvement. Although death is rare, both sudden cardiac death and death after intensive medical and supportive therapies have occurred in children with severe myocardial involvement.

In a large retrospective pediatric case series of SARS-CoV-2–associated deaths in individuals under 21 years of age, the median age at death was 17 years, 63% were male, 28% were Black, and 46% were Hispanic. Of those who died, 86% had a comorbid condition, with obesity (42%) and asthma (29%) being the most common.

But the report concludes that: “Although children with comorbidities are at increased risk for symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection, compared with healthy children, cardiovascular complications, severe illness, and death are uncommon.”
 

MIS-C: Rare but severe

The authors of the statement explain that children and some young adults may develop MIS-C, a relatively rare but severe inflammatory syndrome generally occurring 2-6 weeks after infection with SARS-CoV-2 that can affect the heart and multiple organ systems.

In the first year of the pandemic, more than 2,600 cases of MIS-C were reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, at an estimated rate of 1 case per 3,164 cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection in children, with MIS-C disproportionately affecting Hispanic and Black children.

As many as 50% of children with MIS-C have myocardial involvement, including decreased left ventricular function, coronary artery dilation or aneurysms, myocarditis, elevated troponin and BNP or NT-proBNP, or pericardial effusion. Acute-phase reactants, including C-reactive protein, D-dimer, ferritin, and fibrinogen, can be significantly elevated in MIS-C, neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio may be higher, and platelet counts lower than those with non–MIS-C febrile illnesses.

Fortunately, the outcome of MIS-C is generally very good, with resolution of inflammation and cardiovascular abnormalities within 1-4 weeks of diagnosis, the report says.

However, there have been reports of progression of coronary artery aneurysms after discharge, highlighting the potential for long-term complications. Death resulting from MIS-C is rare, with a mortality rate of 1.4%-1.9%.

Compared with children and young adults who died of acute SARS-CoV-2 infection, most of the fatalities from MIS-C were in previously healthy individuals without comorbidities.

The authors recommend structured follow-up of patients with MIS-C because of concern about progression of cardiac complications and an unclear long-term prognosis.

The statement notes that the first-line treatment for MIS-C is typically intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) and patients with poor ventricular function may need to have IVIG in divided doses to tolerate the fluid load.  

Supportive treatment for heart failure and vasoplegic shock often requires aggressive management in an ICU for administration of inotropes and vasoactive medications. Antiplatelet therapy with low-dose aspirin is considered in patients with coronary artery involvement, and anticoagulation is added, depending on the degree of coronary artery dilation.
 

COVID-19 vaccination

The statement notes that vaccines can prevent patients from getting COVID-19 and decrease the risk of MIS-C by 91% among children 12-18 years of age.

On vaccine-associated myocarditis, it concludes the benefits of getting the vaccines outweigh the risks.  

For example, for every 1 million doses of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in males ages 12-29 years (the highest risk group for vaccine-associated myocarditis), it is estimated that 11,000 COVID-19 cases, 560 hospitalizations, and six deaths would be prevented, whereas 39-47 cases of myocarditis would be expected.

But it adds that the CDC is continuing to follow myocarditis in children and young adults closely, particularly a possible connection to the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.

The statement says that more research is needed to better understand the mechanisms and optimal treatment approaches for SARS-CoV-2 infection, vaccine-associated myocarditis, the long-term outcomes of both COVID-19 and MIS-C, and the impact of these various conditions on the heart in children and young adults. In addition, any new antiviral therapies need to be tested in clinical trials focused on children.

“Although much has been learned about how the virus impacts children’s and young adult’s hearts, how to best treat cardiovascular complications, and prevent severe illness, continued clinical research trials are needed to better understand the long-term cardiovascular impacts,” Dr. Jone said. “It is also important to address health disparities that have become more apparent during the pandemic. We must work to ensure all children receive equal access to vaccination and high-quality care.”

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

Driving from his home in Asheville, N.C., to his new job at the tiny Cane Creek clinic, Benjamin Gilmer, MD, was eager to start his new life and pay off his medical school debts.

The rural clinic had been forced to close after his predecessor, family physician Vince Gilmer, MD, (no relation) had been convicted of first-degree murder 4 years earlier. He was serving a life sentence in a West Virginia prison without the possibility of parole. He is still behind bars and could not comment on this story.

As the months flew by, Benjamin Gilmer’s patients shared stories about the other Dr. Gilmer that surprised him. They described Vince Gilmer as a caring, generous person who went out of his way to help them. He made house calls, and if a patient couldn’t afford to pay him, he would accept a bushel of corn instead.

Yet there was no doubt about the gruesome murder. Vince Gilmer was convicted of strangling his frail 60-year-old father with a rope in his Toyota truck. He then cut off all his father’s fingers and dumped his father’s body by the side of the road.

“Four years later, his patients were still shocked about what happened and couldn’t reconcile the person they knew with the event that happened,” says Benjamin Gilmer.

Yet, Vince Gilmer had admitted to the killing, and the prosecution had presented evidence at the trial that it was premeditated and that he tried to cover up the crime. The detectives found the “murder” weapons in Vince’s truck: the ropes he strangled his father with and the garden shears that he cut off his fingers with. They also had evidence that he drove to Virginia to dump the body, returned to see patients for several days as if nothing had happened, and then ran away when a detective came to arrest him.

But something kept gnawing away at Benjamin Gilmer. Could there be a medical explanation for his sudden change in personality and behavior?

Little did he know that he would embark on a journey to solve a medical mystery, and then even fight to get the convicted killer out of prison.
 

Solving a medical mystery

Benjamin Gilmer decided to investigate what might have happened to Vince in the months leading up to the murder. He talked to his friends and found several clues about Vince’s medical history. They recalled that he suffered a concussion in a car accident 6 months before the murder, which suggested he could have had a traumatic brain injury.

Benjamin Gilmer also discovered that Vince’s father was diagnosed with schizophrenia and had been in a residential psychiatric facility in Virginia until he was released that fateful night to Vince’s custody.

Vince had written to friends that “something is wrong with my brain and help me.” He mentioned SSRI discontinuation syndrome because he abruptly stopped taking his medication the week of the murder (which can cause electric shock sensations and mood swings among other symptoms).

Vince had mentioned the SSRI discontinuation syndrome at his trial and that his father had sexually molested him for years and that he tried to molest him again during the ride in his truck. However, the court dismissed that information because Vince represented himself, dismissed his court-appointed attorneys, and lacked expert testimony about his mental state.

The prosecutor portrayed Vince as a lying sociopath who had planned his father’s murder down to the last detail. The judge agreed. Two psychiatrists and a psychologist who later evaluated him in prison concluded that he was faking his symptoms and denied his requests for an SSRI.

Meanwhile, Benjamin Gilmer became increasingly preoccupied with what happened to Vince. “It was hard to erase a memory that had so tainted that community,” he said.

When Sarah Koenig, a journalist and former producer of the radio program This American Life, called Benjamin Gilmer to interview him about the coincidence of taking over Vince Gilmer’s practice and sharing the same last name, he refused. “I was scared and didn’t want to be on his radar, I was afraid of how he might react.”

In spring 2012, he called Koenig and agreed to collaborate on an episode about Vince’s case. Benjamin Gilmer wrote to Vince Gilmer in prison, asking for a meeting. To his surprise, Vince wanted to meet them.

When Vince shuffled into the waiting area at the Wallens Ridge State Prison in West Virginia, Benjamin Gilmer was shocked by his appearance. “He looked like a caged animal, it was very hard for him to string together ideas and express himself, and he was twitching and shaking dramatically. He looked 20 years older than his actual age of 50 and like someone you would imagine in the movie One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest,” said Benjamin Gilmer.

He felt that “there was something clearly wrong with him.” They agreed to a second meeting, and this time Benjamin Gilmer invited a psychiatrist, Steve Buie, MD, to observe Vince. As the visit ended and Vince turned to leave, Dr. Buie watched his shuffling gait. They suspected he may have Huntington’s disease, “which explained why he had delusions and his mind was unraveling,” says Benjamin Gilmer. But they had no way of testing him in prison.

Unexpectedly, an event happened that turned the whole case on its head. Vince was moved to a psychiatric hospital in southern Virginia because he had threatened to commit suicide. The chief psychiatrist, Colin Angliker, MD, was willing to order a genetic test, and the results confirmed the diagnosis: Vince Gilmer had a terminal degenerative brain disease.

Benjamin Gilmer worried how Vince would take the news. To his surprise, Vince was grateful and relieved. He finally knew what was wrong with him.

Vince also improved with the SSRI that Dr. Angliker prescribed — he was less anxious and more mentally alert. “He expressed joy for the first time, despite the death sentence of a diagnosis.”

Still, he was going to spend the rest of his life in prison for the crime he committed.

After the This American Life episode aired in 2013, Benjamin Gilmer felt that he couldn’t just abandon Vince to the prison system, where thousands of inmates with mental illness languish without adequate treatment.

Benjamin Gilmer decided he had a new — although controversial — mission — to get Vince out.
 

Confronting the politics of a pardon

After nearly a decade of trying, Benjamin Gilmer now admits that he was naive to think he could get him released quickly.

After the episode aired, offers of legal help started to arrive, and a team was assembled who agreed to work on the case pro bono. They wanted justice for Vince but also to prevent anyone else with mental illness from experiencing a similar tragedy.

The goal was to get Vince transferred to a secure hospital, a psychiatric facility dedicated to Huntington’s patients, or a nursing home with a dementia unit.

However, after realizing that Vince may not survive a potentially lengthy court battle, the legal team decided to ask the governor of Virginia to grant a clemency pardon.

They gathered the evidence for Vince’s case and presented their petition to Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D). He rejected it at the end of his term in 2017.

The team tried again with his successor, Gov. Ralph Northam (D), a neurologist. He dashed their hopes when he rejected their petition in late 2021.

That was a huge setback. The team had spent $1 million and had exhausted every contact they could make with the governor’s office, says Gilmer. “We were totally demoralized.”

He dreaded having to tell Vince that yet another governor had rejected their clemency petition. “I went to prison and could see the hopelessness and despair in his reaction. I lost it emotionally,” says Benjamin Gilmer.

Vince surprised him by hugging and comforting him and thanking him for all his efforts. They had developed a strong bond over a decade of visits and calls. Benjamin Gilmer had even brought his wife and children along on special occasions.

“I thought of him as a friend, as a patient, and someone who was really suffering, all those things helped our relationship evolve and kept me engaged with him all these years and continued to inspire me to fight for him. I also liked him because I knew what he was like before the murder from the stories I was hearing from his friends and patients.”

But his continuous advocacy came at a personal cost. “This battle pushed me to my limits emotionally and intellectually. I was busy building my career, trying to be a good doctor, teacher, husband, and father to two young children. I became so distracted that my wife confronted me several times about not being more emotionally present,” says Benjamin Gilmer.

But he knows that without Vince in his life, he would not have written his first book (released earlier this year) about the case and their unlikely friendship.
 

A pardon is finally granted

He had also given Gov. Northam’s staff advance copies of the book. In a highly unusual move, the governor reversed his previous rejection and granted Vince Gilmer his long-awaited pardon on January 12.

Benjamin Gilmer isn’t ready to celebrate yet. “Despite being a free man, Vince is still living behind bars because we haven’t been able to find him an available bed in a secure treatment facility. There has been a shortage of beds due to COVID.”

He says Vince is looking forward to being safe and being surrounded by people who are committed to caring for him and not punishing him. He can’t wait to be around his family and to give and receive hugs.

“After a while, it was hard not to believe that I was supposed to be in his path and this was just part of my destiny,” says Benjamin Gilmer.

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

Driving from his home in Asheville, N.C., to his new job at the tiny Cane Creek clinic, Benjamin Gilmer, MD, was eager to start his new life and pay off his medical school debts.

The rural clinic had been forced to close after his predecessor, family physician Vince Gilmer, MD, (no relation) had been convicted of first-degree murder 4 years earlier. He was serving a life sentence in a West Virginia prison without the possibility of parole. He is still behind bars and could not comment on this story.

As the months flew by, Benjamin Gilmer’s patients shared stories about the other Dr. Gilmer that surprised him. They described Vince Gilmer as a caring, generous person who went out of his way to help them. He made house calls, and if a patient couldn’t afford to pay him, he would accept a bushel of corn instead.

Yet there was no doubt about the gruesome murder. Vince Gilmer was convicted of strangling his frail 60-year-old father with a rope in his Toyota truck. He then cut off all his father’s fingers and dumped his father’s body by the side of the road.

“Four years later, his patients were still shocked about what happened and couldn’t reconcile the person they knew with the event that happened,” says Benjamin Gilmer.

Yet, Vince Gilmer had admitted to the killing, and the prosecution had presented evidence at the trial that it was premeditated and that he tried to cover up the crime. The detectives found the “murder” weapons in Vince’s truck: the ropes he strangled his father with and the garden shears that he cut off his fingers with. They also had evidence that he drove to Virginia to dump the body, returned to see patients for several days as if nothing had happened, and then ran away when a detective came to arrest him.

But something kept gnawing away at Benjamin Gilmer. Could there be a medical explanation for his sudden change in personality and behavior?

Little did he know that he would embark on a journey to solve a medical mystery, and then even fight to get the convicted killer out of prison.
 

Solving a medical mystery

Benjamin Gilmer decided to investigate what might have happened to Vince in the months leading up to the murder. He talked to his friends and found several clues about Vince’s medical history. They recalled that he suffered a concussion in a car accident 6 months before the murder, which suggested he could have had a traumatic brain injury.

Benjamin Gilmer also discovered that Vince’s father was diagnosed with schizophrenia and had been in a residential psychiatric facility in Virginia until he was released that fateful night to Vince’s custody.

Vince had written to friends that “something is wrong with my brain and help me.” He mentioned SSRI discontinuation syndrome because he abruptly stopped taking his medication the week of the murder (which can cause electric shock sensations and mood swings among other symptoms).

Vince had mentioned the SSRI discontinuation syndrome at his trial and that his father had sexually molested him for years and that he tried to molest him again during the ride in his truck. However, the court dismissed that information because Vince represented himself, dismissed his court-appointed attorneys, and lacked expert testimony about his mental state.

The prosecutor portrayed Vince as a lying sociopath who had planned his father’s murder down to the last detail. The judge agreed. Two psychiatrists and a psychologist who later evaluated him in prison concluded that he was faking his symptoms and denied his requests for an SSRI.

Meanwhile, Benjamin Gilmer became increasingly preoccupied with what happened to Vince. “It was hard to erase a memory that had so tainted that community,” he said.

When Sarah Koenig, a journalist and former producer of the radio program This American Life, called Benjamin Gilmer to interview him about the coincidence of taking over Vince Gilmer’s practice and sharing the same last name, he refused. “I was scared and didn’t want to be on his radar, I was afraid of how he might react.”

In spring 2012, he called Koenig and agreed to collaborate on an episode about Vince’s case. Benjamin Gilmer wrote to Vince Gilmer in prison, asking for a meeting. To his surprise, Vince wanted to meet them.

When Vince shuffled into the waiting area at the Wallens Ridge State Prison in West Virginia, Benjamin Gilmer was shocked by his appearance. “He looked like a caged animal, it was very hard for him to string together ideas and express himself, and he was twitching and shaking dramatically. He looked 20 years older than his actual age of 50 and like someone you would imagine in the movie One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest,” said Benjamin Gilmer.

He felt that “there was something clearly wrong with him.” They agreed to a second meeting, and this time Benjamin Gilmer invited a psychiatrist, Steve Buie, MD, to observe Vince. As the visit ended and Vince turned to leave, Dr. Buie watched his shuffling gait. They suspected he may have Huntington’s disease, “which explained why he had delusions and his mind was unraveling,” says Benjamin Gilmer. But they had no way of testing him in prison.

Unexpectedly, an event happened that turned the whole case on its head. Vince was moved to a psychiatric hospital in southern Virginia because he had threatened to commit suicide. The chief psychiatrist, Colin Angliker, MD, was willing to order a genetic test, and the results confirmed the diagnosis: Vince Gilmer had a terminal degenerative brain disease.

Benjamin Gilmer worried how Vince would take the news. To his surprise, Vince was grateful and relieved. He finally knew what was wrong with him.

Vince also improved with the SSRI that Dr. Angliker prescribed — he was less anxious and more mentally alert. “He expressed joy for the first time, despite the death sentence of a diagnosis.”

Still, he was going to spend the rest of his life in prison for the crime he committed.

After the This American Life episode aired in 2013, Benjamin Gilmer felt that he couldn’t just abandon Vince to the prison system, where thousands of inmates with mental illness languish without adequate treatment.

Benjamin Gilmer decided he had a new — although controversial — mission — to get Vince out.
 

Confronting the politics of a pardon

After nearly a decade of trying, Benjamin Gilmer now admits that he was naive to think he could get him released quickly.

After the episode aired, offers of legal help started to arrive, and a team was assembled who agreed to work on the case pro bono. They wanted justice for Vince but also to prevent anyone else with mental illness from experiencing a similar tragedy.

The goal was to get Vince transferred to a secure hospital, a psychiatric facility dedicated to Huntington’s patients, or a nursing home with a dementia unit.

However, after realizing that Vince may not survive a potentially lengthy court battle, the legal team decided to ask the governor of Virginia to grant a clemency pardon.

They gathered the evidence for Vince’s case and presented their petition to Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D). He rejected it at the end of his term in 2017.

The team tried again with his successor, Gov. Ralph Northam (D), a neurologist. He dashed their hopes when he rejected their petition in late 2021.

That was a huge setback. The team had spent $1 million and had exhausted every contact they could make with the governor’s office, says Gilmer. “We were totally demoralized.”

He dreaded having to tell Vince that yet another governor had rejected their clemency petition. “I went to prison and could see the hopelessness and despair in his reaction. I lost it emotionally,” says Benjamin Gilmer.

Vince surprised him by hugging and comforting him and thanking him for all his efforts. They had developed a strong bond over a decade of visits and calls. Benjamin Gilmer had even brought his wife and children along on special occasions.

“I thought of him as a friend, as a patient, and someone who was really suffering, all those things helped our relationship evolve and kept me engaged with him all these years and continued to inspire me to fight for him. I also liked him because I knew what he was like before the murder from the stories I was hearing from his friends and patients.”

But his continuous advocacy came at a personal cost. “This battle pushed me to my limits emotionally and intellectually. I was busy building my career, trying to be a good doctor, teacher, husband, and father to two young children. I became so distracted that my wife confronted me several times about not being more emotionally present,” says Benjamin Gilmer.

But he knows that without Vince in his life, he would not have written his first book (released earlier this year) about the case and their unlikely friendship.
 

A pardon is finally granted

He had also given Gov. Northam’s staff advance copies of the book. In a highly unusual move, the governor reversed his previous rejection and granted Vince Gilmer his long-awaited pardon on January 12.

Benjamin Gilmer isn’t ready to celebrate yet. “Despite being a free man, Vince is still living behind bars because we haven’t been able to find him an available bed in a secure treatment facility. There has been a shortage of beds due to COVID.”

He says Vince is looking forward to being safe and being surrounded by people who are committed to caring for him and not punishing him. He can’t wait to be around his family and to give and receive hugs.

“After a while, it was hard not to believe that I was supposed to be in his path and this was just part of my destiny,” says Benjamin Gilmer.

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

Driving from his home in Asheville, N.C., to his new job at the tiny Cane Creek clinic, Benjamin Gilmer, MD, was eager to start his new life and pay off his medical school debts.

The rural clinic had been forced to close after his predecessor, family physician Vince Gilmer, MD, (no relation) had been convicted of first-degree murder 4 years earlier. He was serving a life sentence in a West Virginia prison without the possibility of parole. He is still behind bars and could not comment on this story.

As the months flew by, Benjamin Gilmer’s patients shared stories about the other Dr. Gilmer that surprised him. They described Vince Gilmer as a caring, generous person who went out of his way to help them. He made house calls, and if a patient couldn’t afford to pay him, he would accept a bushel of corn instead.

Yet there was no doubt about the gruesome murder. Vince Gilmer was convicted of strangling his frail 60-year-old father with a rope in his Toyota truck. He then cut off all his father’s fingers and dumped his father’s body by the side of the road.

“Four years later, his patients were still shocked about what happened and couldn’t reconcile the person they knew with the event that happened,” says Benjamin Gilmer.

Yet, Vince Gilmer had admitted to the killing, and the prosecution had presented evidence at the trial that it was premeditated and that he tried to cover up the crime. The detectives found the “murder” weapons in Vince’s truck: the ropes he strangled his father with and the garden shears that he cut off his fingers with. They also had evidence that he drove to Virginia to dump the body, returned to see patients for several days as if nothing had happened, and then ran away when a detective came to arrest him.

But something kept gnawing away at Benjamin Gilmer. Could there be a medical explanation for his sudden change in personality and behavior?

Little did he know that he would embark on a journey to solve a medical mystery, and then even fight to get the convicted killer out of prison.
 

Solving a medical mystery

Benjamin Gilmer decided to investigate what might have happened to Vince in the months leading up to the murder. He talked to his friends and found several clues about Vince’s medical history. They recalled that he suffered a concussion in a car accident 6 months before the murder, which suggested he could have had a traumatic brain injury.

Benjamin Gilmer also discovered that Vince’s father was diagnosed with schizophrenia and had been in a residential psychiatric facility in Virginia until he was released that fateful night to Vince’s custody.

Vince had written to friends that “something is wrong with my brain and help me.” He mentioned SSRI discontinuation syndrome because he abruptly stopped taking his medication the week of the murder (which can cause electric shock sensations and mood swings among other symptoms).

Vince had mentioned the SSRI discontinuation syndrome at his trial and that his father had sexually molested him for years and that he tried to molest him again during the ride in his truck. However, the court dismissed that information because Vince represented himself, dismissed his court-appointed attorneys, and lacked expert testimony about his mental state.

The prosecutor portrayed Vince as a lying sociopath who had planned his father’s murder down to the last detail. The judge agreed. Two psychiatrists and a psychologist who later evaluated him in prison concluded that he was faking his symptoms and denied his requests for an SSRI.

Meanwhile, Benjamin Gilmer became increasingly preoccupied with what happened to Vince. “It was hard to erase a memory that had so tainted that community,” he said.

When Sarah Koenig, a journalist and former producer of the radio program This American Life, called Benjamin Gilmer to interview him about the coincidence of taking over Vince Gilmer’s practice and sharing the same last name, he refused. “I was scared and didn’t want to be on his radar, I was afraid of how he might react.”

In spring 2012, he called Koenig and agreed to collaborate on an episode about Vince’s case. Benjamin Gilmer wrote to Vince Gilmer in prison, asking for a meeting. To his surprise, Vince wanted to meet them.

When Vince shuffled into the waiting area at the Wallens Ridge State Prison in West Virginia, Benjamin Gilmer was shocked by his appearance. “He looked like a caged animal, it was very hard for him to string together ideas and express himself, and he was twitching and shaking dramatically. He looked 20 years older than his actual age of 50 and like someone you would imagine in the movie One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest,” said Benjamin Gilmer.

He felt that “there was something clearly wrong with him.” They agreed to a second meeting, and this time Benjamin Gilmer invited a psychiatrist, Steve Buie, MD, to observe Vince. As the visit ended and Vince turned to leave, Dr. Buie watched his shuffling gait. They suspected he may have Huntington’s disease, “which explained why he had delusions and his mind was unraveling,” says Benjamin Gilmer. But they had no way of testing him in prison.

Unexpectedly, an event happened that turned the whole case on its head. Vince was moved to a psychiatric hospital in southern Virginia because he had threatened to commit suicide. The chief psychiatrist, Colin Angliker, MD, was willing to order a genetic test, and the results confirmed the diagnosis: Vince Gilmer had a terminal degenerative brain disease.

Benjamin Gilmer worried how Vince would take the news. To his surprise, Vince was grateful and relieved. He finally knew what was wrong with him.

Vince also improved with the SSRI that Dr. Angliker prescribed — he was less anxious and more mentally alert. “He expressed joy for the first time, despite the death sentence of a diagnosis.”

Still, he was going to spend the rest of his life in prison for the crime he committed.

After the This American Life episode aired in 2013, Benjamin Gilmer felt that he couldn’t just abandon Vince to the prison system, where thousands of inmates with mental illness languish without adequate treatment.

Benjamin Gilmer decided he had a new — although controversial — mission — to get Vince out.
 

Confronting the politics of a pardon

After nearly a decade of trying, Benjamin Gilmer now admits that he was naive to think he could get him released quickly.

After the episode aired, offers of legal help started to arrive, and a team was assembled who agreed to work on the case pro bono. They wanted justice for Vince but also to prevent anyone else with mental illness from experiencing a similar tragedy.

The goal was to get Vince transferred to a secure hospital, a psychiatric facility dedicated to Huntington’s patients, or a nursing home with a dementia unit.

However, after realizing that Vince may not survive a potentially lengthy court battle, the legal team decided to ask the governor of Virginia to grant a clemency pardon.

They gathered the evidence for Vince’s case and presented their petition to Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D). He rejected it at the end of his term in 2017.

The team tried again with his successor, Gov. Ralph Northam (D), a neurologist. He dashed their hopes when he rejected their petition in late 2021.

That was a huge setback. The team had spent $1 million and had exhausted every contact they could make with the governor’s office, says Gilmer. “We were totally demoralized.”

He dreaded having to tell Vince that yet another governor had rejected their clemency petition. “I went to prison and could see the hopelessness and despair in his reaction. I lost it emotionally,” says Benjamin Gilmer.

Vince surprised him by hugging and comforting him and thanking him for all his efforts. They had developed a strong bond over a decade of visits and calls. Benjamin Gilmer had even brought his wife and children along on special occasions.

“I thought of him as a friend, as a patient, and someone who was really suffering, all those things helped our relationship evolve and kept me engaged with him all these years and continued to inspire me to fight for him. I also liked him because I knew what he was like before the murder from the stories I was hearing from his friends and patients.”

But his continuous advocacy came at a personal cost. “This battle pushed me to my limits emotionally and intellectually. I was busy building my career, trying to be a good doctor, teacher, husband, and father to two young children. I became so distracted that my wife confronted me several times about not being more emotionally present,” says Benjamin Gilmer.

But he knows that without Vince in his life, he would not have written his first book (released earlier this year) about the case and their unlikely friendship.
 

A pardon is finally granted

He had also given Gov. Northam’s staff advance copies of the book. In a highly unusual move, the governor reversed his previous rejection and granted Vince Gilmer his long-awaited pardon on January 12.

Benjamin Gilmer isn’t ready to celebrate yet. “Despite being a free man, Vince is still living behind bars because we haven’t been able to find him an available bed in a secure treatment facility. There has been a shortage of beds due to COVID.”

He says Vince is looking forward to being safe and being surrounded by people who are committed to caring for him and not punishing him. He can’t wait to be around his family and to give and receive hugs.

“After a while, it was hard not to believe that I was supposed to be in his path and this was just part of my destiny,” says Benjamin Gilmer.

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

Compared with White people, Black people are less likely to develop cirrhosis from nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) but are more likely to die when hospitalized with this condition, researchers say.

The finding highlights the importance of addressing hepatic complications and nonhepatic comorbidities with a comprehensive and interdisciplinary approach that includes social determinants of health, said Emad Qayed, MD, MPH, an associate professor of medicine at Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta.

“Clinicians should realize that in Black patients with NASH and NASH cirrhosis, mortality can be high despite a low rate of hepatic complications,” he told this news organization.

The study by Dr. Qayed and colleagues was published in the Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology.
 

A nationwide analysis

Previous studies have indicated that Black people are less likely than White people to develop nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), despite the fact that prevalence is increasing. Furthermore, when Black people do develop NAFLD, the disease is less likely to progress to NASH. In cases in which NASH does develop, the evidence has been mixed as to the effect of race on hospital outcomes.

To shed new light on that question, Dr. Qayed and colleagues analyzed data from 2016 to 2018 from the National Inpatient Sample, which is produced by the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project and is sponsored by the Agency of Healthcare Research and Quality.

They identified 43,409 hospitalizations for NASH, with 41,143 White patients and 2,266 Black patients. The mean age of the Black patients was less than that of the White patients (56.4 years vs. 63.0 years), and Black patients were more likely to be women (69.9% vs. 61.6%).

More of the Black patients had hypertension, obesity, chronic kidney disease, and congestive heart failure, while more of the White patients had diabetes, dyslipidemia, and ischemic heart disease.

Among the Black patients, 33.6% had cirrhosis, compared with 56.4% of the White patients. Likewise, among the Black patients, there were fewer manifestations of decompensated cirrhosis, compared with the White patients. Black patients were also less likely to have had to undergo upper endoscopy and paracentesis.

The Black patients died in the hospital at a rate of 3.9%, which was not significantly higher than the 3.7% rate for the White patients (unadjusted odds ratio = 1.06; 95% confidence interval: 0.84-1.32; P = .6). But, when the researchers adjusted for age, sex, cirrhosis, risk of mortality (based on the overall number and severity of diseases), and insurance status, there were significantly higher odds of mortality among the Black patients (adjusted OR, 1.34; 95% CI: 1.05-1.71; P = .018).

They did not find any association between hospital size, location, or region with mortality.

They also found no difference in mortality between Black patients and White patients among those those with and those without cirrhosis. However, they found that Black patients were more likely to have acute kidney injury, chronic kidney disease, and congestive heart failure.

Regarding the reasons for hospitalization, the researchers found liver-related illnesses, such as hepatic failure and noninfectious hepatitis, to be most common among the White patients. Circulatory disorders, such as heart failure, and endocrine disorders, such as diabetes mellitus with complications, were found to be most common among the Black patients.

The length of time in the hospital was longer for the Black patients than the White patients (6.3 days vs. 5.6 days; P < .0001). The cost of hospitalization was higher for Black patients as well ($18,603 vs. $17,467). This suggests that Black patients were sicker overall, despite their lower rates of liver complications.

“Some of these differences are likely related to socioeconomic factors and clinical comorbidities, such as cardiac and renal disease,” Dr. Qayed said. “However, the underlying etiologies for such disparities in NASH and cirrhosis remain unclear. Further research is warranted to clarify these etiologies.”
 

NASH as part of the metabolic syndrome

“Clinicians should consider NASH as part of the metabolic syndrome,” Paul Martin, MD, chief of digestive health and liver diseases at the University of Miami, told this news organization. He was not involved in the study.

“Typically, these patients have a number of risk factors for fatty liver, including obesity and often hyperlipidemia, hypertension, and sleep apnea,” he said. “Clinicians should screen their patients for such comorbidities and then treat them.”

Genetic factors could also play a role in the difference in susceptibility to fatty liver disease found between Black and White patients, he added.

Dr. Martin noted a prevalence of fatty liver in many Hispanic populations and that it is found in Asia but sometimes in the absence of the risk factors associated with it in the United States.

Dr. Qayed and Dr. Martin reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Compared with White people, Black people are less likely to develop cirrhosis from nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) but are more likely to die when hospitalized with this condition, researchers say.

The finding highlights the importance of addressing hepatic complications and nonhepatic comorbidities with a comprehensive and interdisciplinary approach that includes social determinants of health, said Emad Qayed, MD, MPH, an associate professor of medicine at Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta.

“Clinicians should realize that in Black patients with NASH and NASH cirrhosis, mortality can be high despite a low rate of hepatic complications,” he told this news organization.

The study by Dr. Qayed and colleagues was published in the Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology.
 

A nationwide analysis

Previous studies have indicated that Black people are less likely than White people to develop nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), despite the fact that prevalence is increasing. Furthermore, when Black people do develop NAFLD, the disease is less likely to progress to NASH. In cases in which NASH does develop, the evidence has been mixed as to the effect of race on hospital outcomes.

To shed new light on that question, Dr. Qayed and colleagues analyzed data from 2016 to 2018 from the National Inpatient Sample, which is produced by the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project and is sponsored by the Agency of Healthcare Research and Quality.

They identified 43,409 hospitalizations for NASH, with 41,143 White patients and 2,266 Black patients. The mean age of the Black patients was less than that of the White patients (56.4 years vs. 63.0 years), and Black patients were more likely to be women (69.9% vs. 61.6%).

More of the Black patients had hypertension, obesity, chronic kidney disease, and congestive heart failure, while more of the White patients had diabetes, dyslipidemia, and ischemic heart disease.

Among the Black patients, 33.6% had cirrhosis, compared with 56.4% of the White patients. Likewise, among the Black patients, there were fewer manifestations of decompensated cirrhosis, compared with the White patients. Black patients were also less likely to have had to undergo upper endoscopy and paracentesis.

The Black patients died in the hospital at a rate of 3.9%, which was not significantly higher than the 3.7% rate for the White patients (unadjusted odds ratio = 1.06; 95% confidence interval: 0.84-1.32; P = .6). But, when the researchers adjusted for age, sex, cirrhosis, risk of mortality (based on the overall number and severity of diseases), and insurance status, there were significantly higher odds of mortality among the Black patients (adjusted OR, 1.34; 95% CI: 1.05-1.71; P = .018).

They did not find any association between hospital size, location, or region with mortality.

They also found no difference in mortality between Black patients and White patients among those those with and those without cirrhosis. However, they found that Black patients were more likely to have acute kidney injury, chronic kidney disease, and congestive heart failure.

Regarding the reasons for hospitalization, the researchers found liver-related illnesses, such as hepatic failure and noninfectious hepatitis, to be most common among the White patients. Circulatory disorders, such as heart failure, and endocrine disorders, such as diabetes mellitus with complications, were found to be most common among the Black patients.

The length of time in the hospital was longer for the Black patients than the White patients (6.3 days vs. 5.6 days; P < .0001). The cost of hospitalization was higher for Black patients as well ($18,603 vs. $17,467). This suggests that Black patients were sicker overall, despite their lower rates of liver complications.

“Some of these differences are likely related to socioeconomic factors and clinical comorbidities, such as cardiac and renal disease,” Dr. Qayed said. “However, the underlying etiologies for such disparities in NASH and cirrhosis remain unclear. Further research is warranted to clarify these etiologies.”
 

NASH as part of the metabolic syndrome

“Clinicians should consider NASH as part of the metabolic syndrome,” Paul Martin, MD, chief of digestive health and liver diseases at the University of Miami, told this news organization. He was not involved in the study.

“Typically, these patients have a number of risk factors for fatty liver, including obesity and often hyperlipidemia, hypertension, and sleep apnea,” he said. “Clinicians should screen their patients for such comorbidities and then treat them.”

Genetic factors could also play a role in the difference in susceptibility to fatty liver disease found between Black and White patients, he added.

Dr. Martin noted a prevalence of fatty liver in many Hispanic populations and that it is found in Asia but sometimes in the absence of the risk factors associated with it in the United States.

Dr. Qayed and Dr. Martin reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Compared with White people, Black people are less likely to develop cirrhosis from nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) but are more likely to die when hospitalized with this condition, researchers say.

The finding highlights the importance of addressing hepatic complications and nonhepatic comorbidities with a comprehensive and interdisciplinary approach that includes social determinants of health, said Emad Qayed, MD, MPH, an associate professor of medicine at Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta.

“Clinicians should realize that in Black patients with NASH and NASH cirrhosis, mortality can be high despite a low rate of hepatic complications,” he told this news organization.

The study by Dr. Qayed and colleagues was published in the Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology.
 

A nationwide analysis

Previous studies have indicated that Black people are less likely than White people to develop nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), despite the fact that prevalence is increasing. Furthermore, when Black people do develop NAFLD, the disease is less likely to progress to NASH. In cases in which NASH does develop, the evidence has been mixed as to the effect of race on hospital outcomes.

To shed new light on that question, Dr. Qayed and colleagues analyzed data from 2016 to 2018 from the National Inpatient Sample, which is produced by the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project and is sponsored by the Agency of Healthcare Research and Quality.

They identified 43,409 hospitalizations for NASH, with 41,143 White patients and 2,266 Black patients. The mean age of the Black patients was less than that of the White patients (56.4 years vs. 63.0 years), and Black patients were more likely to be women (69.9% vs. 61.6%).

More of the Black patients had hypertension, obesity, chronic kidney disease, and congestive heart failure, while more of the White patients had diabetes, dyslipidemia, and ischemic heart disease.

Among the Black patients, 33.6% had cirrhosis, compared with 56.4% of the White patients. Likewise, among the Black patients, there were fewer manifestations of decompensated cirrhosis, compared with the White patients. Black patients were also less likely to have had to undergo upper endoscopy and paracentesis.

The Black patients died in the hospital at a rate of 3.9%, which was not significantly higher than the 3.7% rate for the White patients (unadjusted odds ratio = 1.06; 95% confidence interval: 0.84-1.32; P = .6). But, when the researchers adjusted for age, sex, cirrhosis, risk of mortality (based on the overall number and severity of diseases), and insurance status, there were significantly higher odds of mortality among the Black patients (adjusted OR, 1.34; 95% CI: 1.05-1.71; P = .018).

They did not find any association between hospital size, location, or region with mortality.

They also found no difference in mortality between Black patients and White patients among those those with and those without cirrhosis. However, they found that Black patients were more likely to have acute kidney injury, chronic kidney disease, and congestive heart failure.

Regarding the reasons for hospitalization, the researchers found liver-related illnesses, such as hepatic failure and noninfectious hepatitis, to be most common among the White patients. Circulatory disorders, such as heart failure, and endocrine disorders, such as diabetes mellitus with complications, were found to be most common among the Black patients.

The length of time in the hospital was longer for the Black patients than the White patients (6.3 days vs. 5.6 days; P < .0001). The cost of hospitalization was higher for Black patients as well ($18,603 vs. $17,467). This suggests that Black patients were sicker overall, despite their lower rates of liver complications.

“Some of these differences are likely related to socioeconomic factors and clinical comorbidities, such as cardiac and renal disease,” Dr. Qayed said. “However, the underlying etiologies for such disparities in NASH and cirrhosis remain unclear. Further research is warranted to clarify these etiologies.”
 

NASH as part of the metabolic syndrome

“Clinicians should consider NASH as part of the metabolic syndrome,” Paul Martin, MD, chief of digestive health and liver diseases at the University of Miami, told this news organization. He was not involved in the study.

“Typically, these patients have a number of risk factors for fatty liver, including obesity and often hyperlipidemia, hypertension, and sleep apnea,” he said. “Clinicians should screen their patients for such comorbidities and then treat them.”

Genetic factors could also play a role in the difference in susceptibility to fatty liver disease found between Black and White patients, he added.

Dr. Martin noted a prevalence of fatty liver in many Hispanic populations and that it is found in Asia but sometimes in the absence of the risk factors associated with it in the United States.

Dr. Qayed and Dr. Martin reported no relevant financial relationships.

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