User login
Bringing you the latest news, research and reviews, exclusive interviews, podcasts, quizzes, and more.
div[contains(@class, 'header__large-screen')]
div[contains(@class, 'read-next-article')]
div[contains(@class, 'main-prefix')]
div[contains(@class, 'nav-primary')]
nav[contains(@class, 'nav-primary')]
section[contains(@class, 'footer-nav-section-wrapper')]
footer[@id='footer']
section[contains(@class, 'nav-hidden')]
div[contains(@class, 'ce-card-content')]
nav[contains(@class, 'nav-ce-stack')]
div[contains(@class, 'view-medstat-quiz-listing-panes')]
div[contains(@class, 'pane-article-sidebar-latest-news')]
div[contains(@class, 'medstat-accordion-set article-series')]
Drink up: Large study confirms coffee beneficial to liver health
Drinking more than three cups of caffeinated coffee a day is associated with less liver stiffness, according to an analysis of a nationally representative survey, which was recently published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
The study is likely the most rigorous look to date on the benefits of coffee on liver health in the U.S. It was based on data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), in which participants were asked about what they eat and drink. Crucially, in 2017, NHANES began to include elastography (FibroScan), of participants’ liver stiffness, not because of suspected problems with the liver but as across-the-board evaluations of all participants.
“Because it’s an unselected population for FibroScan and because of the detail, the granularity, the richness of the information from the nutritional surveys that they do, this is the closest we’re ever going to get to a linkage between what people are eating or drinking and the health of their liver, absent a longitudinal study where we set out to follow people for many, many years,” said Elliot Tapper, MD, assistant professor of gastroenterology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and the study’s senior author.
Researchers examined data from about 4,500 patients who had participated in the NHANES study in 2017-2018. The participants were aged 20 years or older, with an average age of 48; 73% were overweight, about the national average.
The researchers found no association between coffee consumption and controlled attenuation parameter (CAP), a measure of fatty liver. But they found a link between coffee and liver stiffness.
Those who drank more than three cups of coffee daily had a liver stiffness measure (LSM) that was 0.9 kilopascals (kPa) lower than others (P = .03). Drinking more than three cups a day also was found to be protective against an LSM of 9.5 kPa or higher, the threshold for advanced liver fibrosis (OR, 0.4; P = .05). Decaffeinated coffee was not found to be associated with LSM.
Caffeine is an antagonist to adenosine receptors in the liver cell that, if blocked, stops the production of scar tissue, according to the researchers. But when they looked at estimated caffeine consumption, calculated through the detailed, trained interviews performed by nutritionists, there was no association with liver stiffness. That said, Dr. Tapper noted that this could be due to the imperfection of making those estimations.
“If we had to hypothesize about a mechanism, it would most likely be caffeine, and the reason we couldn’t see that here is because these are estimated milligrams of caffeine per coffee – but the way that we brew coffee, and the beans that we’re using, are so highly variable it just can’t be captured in this kind of database,” he said.
He said the data will be reassuring to clinicians who suggest coffee-drinking to patients.
“There are hepatologists around the world who are actively recommending coffee – they’ll feel empowered by these data,” he said. “I would still like to see more robust longitudinal data before I start spending our precious time counseling patients about coffee. There are many other data-driven interventions for the management of liver disease that we should be focusing our time on.”
Moreover, he said that the data will be important for patients who are particularly interested in natural remedies.
“For patients who are very interested in a natural supplement, to feel like they’re taking an active role in the health of their liver, I will tell them to avoid carbohydrates and increase their exercise – and that it is OK to add coffee to their daily routine.”
A study based on a UK database found that coffee was associated with protection against chronic liver disease, but the association was seen for both caffeinated and decaffeinated drinks, noted Nathan Davies, PhD, professor of biochemistry at the Institute of the Liver and Digestive Health at the University College London.
Dr. Davies, a registered nutritionist who has studied coffee’s effects on the liver, said that while including elastography in the Michigan study is interesting, it “does not necessarily by itself add greatly” to the evidence base.
The outcomes from both studies do suggest a positive effect for coffee, but he said it’s important to remember that liver disease develops over years and decades.
“Looking at a snapshot moment does not necessarily reflect an individual’s behavior during the onset and development of their condition,” he said. “As such, there are a number of behavioral and nutritional factors that could be contributing to the observed effect over a period of years.”
He pointed out that while different coffee and brewing types affect the amount of caffeine in a cup, all cups of coffee in this study were treated the same way. He noted there was no apparent dose-dependent effect, which would have been expected if there is an active ingredient that affects liver stiffness.
“In general, my advice is to improve diet, take more exercise, and reduce alcohol consumption, which is likely to be more effective in preventing liver disease – and its progression – than drinking an extra cup of coffee,” Dr. Davies said. “That being said, for patients at increased risk for liver disease who currently drink three cups or more of coffee daily, it may be prudent for them to continue because this level of consumption might be actively lowering their chances of developing more serious disease.”
Dr. Tapper has done consulting for Novartis, Axcella and Allergan, has served on advisory boards for Mallinckrodt, Bausch Health, Kaleido, and Novo Nordisk, and has unrestricted research grants from Gilead and Valeant. The remaining authors disclose no conflicts. Dr. Davies reported no relevant disclosures.
Drinking more than three cups of caffeinated coffee a day is associated with less liver stiffness, according to an analysis of a nationally representative survey, which was recently published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
The study is likely the most rigorous look to date on the benefits of coffee on liver health in the U.S. It was based on data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), in which participants were asked about what they eat and drink. Crucially, in 2017, NHANES began to include elastography (FibroScan), of participants’ liver stiffness, not because of suspected problems with the liver but as across-the-board evaluations of all participants.
“Because it’s an unselected population for FibroScan and because of the detail, the granularity, the richness of the information from the nutritional surveys that they do, this is the closest we’re ever going to get to a linkage between what people are eating or drinking and the health of their liver, absent a longitudinal study where we set out to follow people for many, many years,” said Elliot Tapper, MD, assistant professor of gastroenterology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and the study’s senior author.
Researchers examined data from about 4,500 patients who had participated in the NHANES study in 2017-2018. The participants were aged 20 years or older, with an average age of 48; 73% were overweight, about the national average.
The researchers found no association between coffee consumption and controlled attenuation parameter (CAP), a measure of fatty liver. But they found a link between coffee and liver stiffness.
Those who drank more than three cups of coffee daily had a liver stiffness measure (LSM) that was 0.9 kilopascals (kPa) lower than others (P = .03). Drinking more than three cups a day also was found to be protective against an LSM of 9.5 kPa or higher, the threshold for advanced liver fibrosis (OR, 0.4; P = .05). Decaffeinated coffee was not found to be associated with LSM.
Caffeine is an antagonist to adenosine receptors in the liver cell that, if blocked, stops the production of scar tissue, according to the researchers. But when they looked at estimated caffeine consumption, calculated through the detailed, trained interviews performed by nutritionists, there was no association with liver stiffness. That said, Dr. Tapper noted that this could be due to the imperfection of making those estimations.
“If we had to hypothesize about a mechanism, it would most likely be caffeine, and the reason we couldn’t see that here is because these are estimated milligrams of caffeine per coffee – but the way that we brew coffee, and the beans that we’re using, are so highly variable it just can’t be captured in this kind of database,” he said.
He said the data will be reassuring to clinicians who suggest coffee-drinking to patients.
“There are hepatologists around the world who are actively recommending coffee – they’ll feel empowered by these data,” he said. “I would still like to see more robust longitudinal data before I start spending our precious time counseling patients about coffee. There are many other data-driven interventions for the management of liver disease that we should be focusing our time on.”
Moreover, he said that the data will be important for patients who are particularly interested in natural remedies.
“For patients who are very interested in a natural supplement, to feel like they’re taking an active role in the health of their liver, I will tell them to avoid carbohydrates and increase their exercise – and that it is OK to add coffee to their daily routine.”
A study based on a UK database found that coffee was associated with protection against chronic liver disease, but the association was seen for both caffeinated and decaffeinated drinks, noted Nathan Davies, PhD, professor of biochemistry at the Institute of the Liver and Digestive Health at the University College London.
Dr. Davies, a registered nutritionist who has studied coffee’s effects on the liver, said that while including elastography in the Michigan study is interesting, it “does not necessarily by itself add greatly” to the evidence base.
The outcomes from both studies do suggest a positive effect for coffee, but he said it’s important to remember that liver disease develops over years and decades.
“Looking at a snapshot moment does not necessarily reflect an individual’s behavior during the onset and development of their condition,” he said. “As such, there are a number of behavioral and nutritional factors that could be contributing to the observed effect over a period of years.”
He pointed out that while different coffee and brewing types affect the amount of caffeine in a cup, all cups of coffee in this study were treated the same way. He noted there was no apparent dose-dependent effect, which would have been expected if there is an active ingredient that affects liver stiffness.
“In general, my advice is to improve diet, take more exercise, and reduce alcohol consumption, which is likely to be more effective in preventing liver disease – and its progression – than drinking an extra cup of coffee,” Dr. Davies said. “That being said, for patients at increased risk for liver disease who currently drink three cups or more of coffee daily, it may be prudent for them to continue because this level of consumption might be actively lowering their chances of developing more serious disease.”
Dr. Tapper has done consulting for Novartis, Axcella and Allergan, has served on advisory boards for Mallinckrodt, Bausch Health, Kaleido, and Novo Nordisk, and has unrestricted research grants from Gilead and Valeant. The remaining authors disclose no conflicts. Dr. Davies reported no relevant disclosures.
Drinking more than three cups of caffeinated coffee a day is associated with less liver stiffness, according to an analysis of a nationally representative survey, which was recently published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
The study is likely the most rigorous look to date on the benefits of coffee on liver health in the U.S. It was based on data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), in which participants were asked about what they eat and drink. Crucially, in 2017, NHANES began to include elastography (FibroScan), of participants’ liver stiffness, not because of suspected problems with the liver but as across-the-board evaluations of all participants.
“Because it’s an unselected population for FibroScan and because of the detail, the granularity, the richness of the information from the nutritional surveys that they do, this is the closest we’re ever going to get to a linkage between what people are eating or drinking and the health of their liver, absent a longitudinal study where we set out to follow people for many, many years,” said Elliot Tapper, MD, assistant professor of gastroenterology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and the study’s senior author.
Researchers examined data from about 4,500 patients who had participated in the NHANES study in 2017-2018. The participants were aged 20 years or older, with an average age of 48; 73% were overweight, about the national average.
The researchers found no association between coffee consumption and controlled attenuation parameter (CAP), a measure of fatty liver. But they found a link between coffee and liver stiffness.
Those who drank more than three cups of coffee daily had a liver stiffness measure (LSM) that was 0.9 kilopascals (kPa) lower than others (P = .03). Drinking more than three cups a day also was found to be protective against an LSM of 9.5 kPa or higher, the threshold for advanced liver fibrosis (OR, 0.4; P = .05). Decaffeinated coffee was not found to be associated with LSM.
Caffeine is an antagonist to adenosine receptors in the liver cell that, if blocked, stops the production of scar tissue, according to the researchers. But when they looked at estimated caffeine consumption, calculated through the detailed, trained interviews performed by nutritionists, there was no association with liver stiffness. That said, Dr. Tapper noted that this could be due to the imperfection of making those estimations.
“If we had to hypothesize about a mechanism, it would most likely be caffeine, and the reason we couldn’t see that here is because these are estimated milligrams of caffeine per coffee – but the way that we brew coffee, and the beans that we’re using, are so highly variable it just can’t be captured in this kind of database,” he said.
He said the data will be reassuring to clinicians who suggest coffee-drinking to patients.
“There are hepatologists around the world who are actively recommending coffee – they’ll feel empowered by these data,” he said. “I would still like to see more robust longitudinal data before I start spending our precious time counseling patients about coffee. There are many other data-driven interventions for the management of liver disease that we should be focusing our time on.”
Moreover, he said that the data will be important for patients who are particularly interested in natural remedies.
“For patients who are very interested in a natural supplement, to feel like they’re taking an active role in the health of their liver, I will tell them to avoid carbohydrates and increase their exercise – and that it is OK to add coffee to their daily routine.”
A study based on a UK database found that coffee was associated with protection against chronic liver disease, but the association was seen for both caffeinated and decaffeinated drinks, noted Nathan Davies, PhD, professor of biochemistry at the Institute of the Liver and Digestive Health at the University College London.
Dr. Davies, a registered nutritionist who has studied coffee’s effects on the liver, said that while including elastography in the Michigan study is interesting, it “does not necessarily by itself add greatly” to the evidence base.
The outcomes from both studies do suggest a positive effect for coffee, but he said it’s important to remember that liver disease develops over years and decades.
“Looking at a snapshot moment does not necessarily reflect an individual’s behavior during the onset and development of their condition,” he said. “As such, there are a number of behavioral and nutritional factors that could be contributing to the observed effect over a period of years.”
He pointed out that while different coffee and brewing types affect the amount of caffeine in a cup, all cups of coffee in this study were treated the same way. He noted there was no apparent dose-dependent effect, which would have been expected if there is an active ingredient that affects liver stiffness.
“In general, my advice is to improve diet, take more exercise, and reduce alcohol consumption, which is likely to be more effective in preventing liver disease – and its progression – than drinking an extra cup of coffee,” Dr. Davies said. “That being said, for patients at increased risk for liver disease who currently drink three cups or more of coffee daily, it may be prudent for them to continue because this level of consumption might be actively lowering their chances of developing more serious disease.”
Dr. Tapper has done consulting for Novartis, Axcella and Allergan, has served on advisory boards for Mallinckrodt, Bausch Health, Kaleido, and Novo Nordisk, and has unrestricted research grants from Gilead and Valeant. The remaining authors disclose no conflicts. Dr. Davies reported no relevant disclosures.
FROM CLINICAL GASTROENTEROLOGY AND HEPATOLOGY
CDC panel backs COVID-19 boosters for nearly all adults
Editor’s note: This story was updated with the CDC director’s endorsement.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, has signed off on an advisory panel’s earlier unanimous vote to recommend boosters for the Moderna and Johnson and Johnson COVID vaccines.
The decision now means that millions of Americans are eligible to get a booster shot for either the Pfizer, Moderna, or J&J COVID vaccines.
“The evidence shows that all three COVID-19 vaccines authorized in the United States are safe – as demonstrated by the over 400 million vaccine doses already given. And, they are all highly effective in reducing the risk of severe disease, hospitalization, and death, even in the midst of the widely circulating Delta variant,” Dr. Walensky said in a CDC news release.
She also signed off on the panel’s suggestion that individuals can mix or match the booster from any one of the three available COVID-19 vaccines.
The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommended in a late afternoon 15-0 vote that everyone over age 18 who are at least 2 months past their Johnson & Johnson vaccine should get a booster, an endorsement that affects an estimated 13 million Americans.
Those eligible for a booster at least 6 months after their last Moderna shot are the same groups who can get a Pfizer booster.
They are:
- Anyone over age 65.
- Those over age 18 with an underlying health condition that puts them at risk of severe COVID-19.
- Those over age 18 who may be at higher risk of a COVID-19 infection because they live or work in a risky setting.
These recommendations are in line with the Food and Drug Administration’s Oct. 20 authorization of the boosters, along with the ability to mix-and-match vaccines.
There are an estimated 47 million Pfizer recipients and 39 million people vaccinated with Moderna who are now eligible for a booster dose, according to data presented by the CDC.
Questions, concerns
Before voting, some committee members expressed discomfort in broadly recommending boosters, stressing that there is very little evidence supporting the need for boosters in people younger than age 50.
“I can’t say that I am comfortable that anybody under 50 – an otherwise healthy individual – needs a booster vaccine at this time with either Moderna or Pfizer,” said ACIP member Sarah Long, MD, professor of pediatrics at Drexel University in Philadelphia.
She said she would try to mitigate any potential harm by having some kind of age restriction on the otherwise worried well.
“We don’t usually have the vaccines [for] the worried well. We give it because we have a need that’s worth the risk, and there’s a burden of severity of disease,” Dr. Long said.
The evidence to date shows that all the vaccines authorized for use in the U.S. continue to protect people well against severe COVID-19 outcomes, including hospitalization and death.
But breakthrough infections are on the rise, especially for people who initially received the Johnson and Johnson one-dose vaccine.
On Oct. 21, Pfizer released data from a study of more than 10,000 fully vaccinated people. Half were randomly assigned to get a booster of their Comirnaty vaccine, the other half were given a placebo.
Over the ensuing 2.5 months, there were 5 COVID-19 cases in the boosted group, and 109 in the group that got a placebo.
The data were posted in a press release and have not yet been peer reviewed, but are the first to show clinical effectiveness of boosters at preventing COVID-19 infections.
Data recently considered by the FDA and CDC for booster doses come from studies that were mostly shorter and smaller. These studies looked at biomarkers of immunity like the concentration of antibodies in a person’s blood and the percentage of study participants who saw a boost to those antibodies.
The studies demonstrated that boosters indeed restore high levels of antibodies, but unlike the newest Pfizer data they were not able to show that these antibodies prevented COVID-19.
These studies also weren’t powered to pick up on any less common safety problems that might arise after another dose of the shots.
“Real world” recommendations
In the end, however, the panel felt it was more important to be permissive in allowing boosters so that individuals and their doctors could be free to make their own decisions.
“The decision made by the FDA and the ACIP recommendations, I think, reflects the real world. The public is going to do what they feel driven to do. This at least adds a scientific review of the currently available data,” said Jay Varkey, MD, an infectious disease physician and associate professor at Emory University in Atlanta, who was not involved in the ACIP’s deliberations.
Dr. Varkey said he would recommend that anyone who is younger than 65, and who has no underlying medical conditions such as diabetes or obesity, speak with their doctor about their individual benefits and risks before getting a booster.
The CDC is planning to release a detailed suite of clinical considerations to help people weigh the risks and benefits of getting a booster.
Safety updates presented at the meeting show that serious adverse events after vaccination are extremely rare, but in some cases, they may rise above the risk for those problems generally seen in the population.
Those rare events include the disabling autoimmune condition Guillain-Barré syndrome and the platelet disorder thrombosis with thrombocytopenia (TTS), which causes blood clots along with the risk of excess bleeding because of a low platelet count.
Both can occur after the J&J vaccine. Out of 15.3 million doses of the vaccine given to date, there have been 47 cases of TTS and five deaths. These events are more common in younger women.
The mRNA vaccines, such as those from Pfizer and Moderna, can cause heart inflammation called myocarditis or pericarditis. This side effect is more common in men 18-24 years old. The reported rate of myocarditis after vaccination is 39 cases for every 1 million doses.
In voting to permit boosters, committee member Wilbur Chen, MD, professor at the University of Maryland’s Center for Vaccine Development, said he hoped boosters wouldn’t give Americans false confidence.
Dr. Chen stressed that ending the pandemic would depend on “a multilayered approach” that includes masking, social distancing, avoiding large crowds indoors, and convincing more Americans to take their first doses of the vaccines.
“We’re not just going to vaccinate ourselves out of this situation,” Dr. Chen said.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Editor’s note: This story was updated with the CDC director’s endorsement.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, has signed off on an advisory panel’s earlier unanimous vote to recommend boosters for the Moderna and Johnson and Johnson COVID vaccines.
The decision now means that millions of Americans are eligible to get a booster shot for either the Pfizer, Moderna, or J&J COVID vaccines.
“The evidence shows that all three COVID-19 vaccines authorized in the United States are safe – as demonstrated by the over 400 million vaccine doses already given. And, they are all highly effective in reducing the risk of severe disease, hospitalization, and death, even in the midst of the widely circulating Delta variant,” Dr. Walensky said in a CDC news release.
She also signed off on the panel’s suggestion that individuals can mix or match the booster from any one of the three available COVID-19 vaccines.
The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommended in a late afternoon 15-0 vote that everyone over age 18 who are at least 2 months past their Johnson & Johnson vaccine should get a booster, an endorsement that affects an estimated 13 million Americans.
Those eligible for a booster at least 6 months after their last Moderna shot are the same groups who can get a Pfizer booster.
They are:
- Anyone over age 65.
- Those over age 18 with an underlying health condition that puts them at risk of severe COVID-19.
- Those over age 18 who may be at higher risk of a COVID-19 infection because they live or work in a risky setting.
These recommendations are in line with the Food and Drug Administration’s Oct. 20 authorization of the boosters, along with the ability to mix-and-match vaccines.
There are an estimated 47 million Pfizer recipients and 39 million people vaccinated with Moderna who are now eligible for a booster dose, according to data presented by the CDC.
Questions, concerns
Before voting, some committee members expressed discomfort in broadly recommending boosters, stressing that there is very little evidence supporting the need for boosters in people younger than age 50.
“I can’t say that I am comfortable that anybody under 50 – an otherwise healthy individual – needs a booster vaccine at this time with either Moderna or Pfizer,” said ACIP member Sarah Long, MD, professor of pediatrics at Drexel University in Philadelphia.
She said she would try to mitigate any potential harm by having some kind of age restriction on the otherwise worried well.
“We don’t usually have the vaccines [for] the worried well. We give it because we have a need that’s worth the risk, and there’s a burden of severity of disease,” Dr. Long said.
The evidence to date shows that all the vaccines authorized for use in the U.S. continue to protect people well against severe COVID-19 outcomes, including hospitalization and death.
But breakthrough infections are on the rise, especially for people who initially received the Johnson and Johnson one-dose vaccine.
On Oct. 21, Pfizer released data from a study of more than 10,000 fully vaccinated people. Half were randomly assigned to get a booster of their Comirnaty vaccine, the other half were given a placebo.
Over the ensuing 2.5 months, there were 5 COVID-19 cases in the boosted group, and 109 in the group that got a placebo.
The data were posted in a press release and have not yet been peer reviewed, but are the first to show clinical effectiveness of boosters at preventing COVID-19 infections.
Data recently considered by the FDA and CDC for booster doses come from studies that were mostly shorter and smaller. These studies looked at biomarkers of immunity like the concentration of antibodies in a person’s blood and the percentage of study participants who saw a boost to those antibodies.
The studies demonstrated that boosters indeed restore high levels of antibodies, but unlike the newest Pfizer data they were not able to show that these antibodies prevented COVID-19.
These studies also weren’t powered to pick up on any less common safety problems that might arise after another dose of the shots.
“Real world” recommendations
In the end, however, the panel felt it was more important to be permissive in allowing boosters so that individuals and their doctors could be free to make their own decisions.
“The decision made by the FDA and the ACIP recommendations, I think, reflects the real world. The public is going to do what they feel driven to do. This at least adds a scientific review of the currently available data,” said Jay Varkey, MD, an infectious disease physician and associate professor at Emory University in Atlanta, who was not involved in the ACIP’s deliberations.
Dr. Varkey said he would recommend that anyone who is younger than 65, and who has no underlying medical conditions such as diabetes or obesity, speak with their doctor about their individual benefits and risks before getting a booster.
The CDC is planning to release a detailed suite of clinical considerations to help people weigh the risks and benefits of getting a booster.
Safety updates presented at the meeting show that serious adverse events after vaccination are extremely rare, but in some cases, they may rise above the risk for those problems generally seen in the population.
Those rare events include the disabling autoimmune condition Guillain-Barré syndrome and the platelet disorder thrombosis with thrombocytopenia (TTS), which causes blood clots along with the risk of excess bleeding because of a low platelet count.
Both can occur after the J&J vaccine. Out of 15.3 million doses of the vaccine given to date, there have been 47 cases of TTS and five deaths. These events are more common in younger women.
The mRNA vaccines, such as those from Pfizer and Moderna, can cause heart inflammation called myocarditis or pericarditis. This side effect is more common in men 18-24 years old. The reported rate of myocarditis after vaccination is 39 cases for every 1 million doses.
In voting to permit boosters, committee member Wilbur Chen, MD, professor at the University of Maryland’s Center for Vaccine Development, said he hoped boosters wouldn’t give Americans false confidence.
Dr. Chen stressed that ending the pandemic would depend on “a multilayered approach” that includes masking, social distancing, avoiding large crowds indoors, and convincing more Americans to take their first doses of the vaccines.
“We’re not just going to vaccinate ourselves out of this situation,” Dr. Chen said.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Editor’s note: This story was updated with the CDC director’s endorsement.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, has signed off on an advisory panel’s earlier unanimous vote to recommend boosters for the Moderna and Johnson and Johnson COVID vaccines.
The decision now means that millions of Americans are eligible to get a booster shot for either the Pfizer, Moderna, or J&J COVID vaccines.
“The evidence shows that all three COVID-19 vaccines authorized in the United States are safe – as demonstrated by the over 400 million vaccine doses already given. And, they are all highly effective in reducing the risk of severe disease, hospitalization, and death, even in the midst of the widely circulating Delta variant,” Dr. Walensky said in a CDC news release.
She also signed off on the panel’s suggestion that individuals can mix or match the booster from any one of the three available COVID-19 vaccines.
The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommended in a late afternoon 15-0 vote that everyone over age 18 who are at least 2 months past their Johnson & Johnson vaccine should get a booster, an endorsement that affects an estimated 13 million Americans.
Those eligible for a booster at least 6 months after their last Moderna shot are the same groups who can get a Pfizer booster.
They are:
- Anyone over age 65.
- Those over age 18 with an underlying health condition that puts them at risk of severe COVID-19.
- Those over age 18 who may be at higher risk of a COVID-19 infection because they live or work in a risky setting.
These recommendations are in line with the Food and Drug Administration’s Oct. 20 authorization of the boosters, along with the ability to mix-and-match vaccines.
There are an estimated 47 million Pfizer recipients and 39 million people vaccinated with Moderna who are now eligible for a booster dose, according to data presented by the CDC.
Questions, concerns
Before voting, some committee members expressed discomfort in broadly recommending boosters, stressing that there is very little evidence supporting the need for boosters in people younger than age 50.
“I can’t say that I am comfortable that anybody under 50 – an otherwise healthy individual – needs a booster vaccine at this time with either Moderna or Pfizer,” said ACIP member Sarah Long, MD, professor of pediatrics at Drexel University in Philadelphia.
She said she would try to mitigate any potential harm by having some kind of age restriction on the otherwise worried well.
“We don’t usually have the vaccines [for] the worried well. We give it because we have a need that’s worth the risk, and there’s a burden of severity of disease,” Dr. Long said.
The evidence to date shows that all the vaccines authorized for use in the U.S. continue to protect people well against severe COVID-19 outcomes, including hospitalization and death.
But breakthrough infections are on the rise, especially for people who initially received the Johnson and Johnson one-dose vaccine.
On Oct. 21, Pfizer released data from a study of more than 10,000 fully vaccinated people. Half were randomly assigned to get a booster of their Comirnaty vaccine, the other half were given a placebo.
Over the ensuing 2.5 months, there were 5 COVID-19 cases in the boosted group, and 109 in the group that got a placebo.
The data were posted in a press release and have not yet been peer reviewed, but are the first to show clinical effectiveness of boosters at preventing COVID-19 infections.
Data recently considered by the FDA and CDC for booster doses come from studies that were mostly shorter and smaller. These studies looked at biomarkers of immunity like the concentration of antibodies in a person’s blood and the percentage of study participants who saw a boost to those antibodies.
The studies demonstrated that boosters indeed restore high levels of antibodies, but unlike the newest Pfizer data they were not able to show that these antibodies prevented COVID-19.
These studies also weren’t powered to pick up on any less common safety problems that might arise after another dose of the shots.
“Real world” recommendations
In the end, however, the panel felt it was more important to be permissive in allowing boosters so that individuals and their doctors could be free to make their own decisions.
“The decision made by the FDA and the ACIP recommendations, I think, reflects the real world. The public is going to do what they feel driven to do. This at least adds a scientific review of the currently available data,” said Jay Varkey, MD, an infectious disease physician and associate professor at Emory University in Atlanta, who was not involved in the ACIP’s deliberations.
Dr. Varkey said he would recommend that anyone who is younger than 65, and who has no underlying medical conditions such as diabetes or obesity, speak with their doctor about their individual benefits and risks before getting a booster.
The CDC is planning to release a detailed suite of clinical considerations to help people weigh the risks and benefits of getting a booster.
Safety updates presented at the meeting show that serious adverse events after vaccination are extremely rare, but in some cases, they may rise above the risk for those problems generally seen in the population.
Those rare events include the disabling autoimmune condition Guillain-Barré syndrome and the platelet disorder thrombosis with thrombocytopenia (TTS), which causes blood clots along with the risk of excess bleeding because of a low platelet count.
Both can occur after the J&J vaccine. Out of 15.3 million doses of the vaccine given to date, there have been 47 cases of TTS and five deaths. These events are more common in younger women.
The mRNA vaccines, such as those from Pfizer and Moderna, can cause heart inflammation called myocarditis or pericarditis. This side effect is more common in men 18-24 years old. The reported rate of myocarditis after vaccination is 39 cases for every 1 million doses.
In voting to permit boosters, committee member Wilbur Chen, MD, professor at the University of Maryland’s Center for Vaccine Development, said he hoped boosters wouldn’t give Americans false confidence.
Dr. Chen stressed that ending the pandemic would depend on “a multilayered approach” that includes masking, social distancing, avoiding large crowds indoors, and convincing more Americans to take their first doses of the vaccines.
“We’re not just going to vaccinate ourselves out of this situation,” Dr. Chen said.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
The compass that points toward food
The new breakfast of champions
We love a good ranking system here at LOTME world headquarters, especially the food-based ones. Luckily for us (and our readers), a new study published in Nature Food offers a food-based ranking system.
Sadly, unlike the last food-related ranking we covered, the Food Compass doesn’t tell you how much life you gain or lose from each food you eat down to the precise minute. Instead, it favors a more simple rating system from 1 to 100, with healthier foods scoring higher, and even incorporates mixed foods, not just single ingredients. This makes it better at assessing and comparing food combinations, rather than trying to mix and match the many ingredients that go into even relatively simple recipes.
The top and bottom of the rankings contain the usual suspects. Legumes and nuts, at 78.6, had the highest average score among the broad food groups, followed by fruits and then vegetables. Rounding out the bottom were sweets and savory snacks at 16.4. Among the individual foods, there were perfect scores in both directions: 100 for raw raspberries, while instant noodle soup and nonchocolate, ready-to-eat, nonfat pudding (very specific there) each earned a 1.
There are a few surprises in between. Nonfat cappuccino received a green light from the investigators, great news for the coffee drinkers out there. A serving of sweet potato chips scored better than a simple grilled chicken breast, and a slice of pizza, loaded up with extra meat and a thick crust, is still more nutritious than a bowl of corn flakes.
Neither is good for you, of course, but we’re still going to take this as a sign that pizza is the ideal breakfast food. Add that to your morning coffee, and you’re ready to start the day. Move over Wheaties, there’s a new breakfast of champions.
COVID-19 resisters, please step forward
Some people have all the luck with good genes, both inside and out.
Genetically speaking, humans are 99.9% the same, but that 0.1% is where things get interesting. Because of that 0.1% difference, some people are more likely to contract diseases such as HIV, while others might be more resistant. These small differences in genetic code could be the key to finding treatments for COVID-19.
“The introduction of SARS-CoV-2 to a naive population, on a global scale, has provided yet another demonstration of the remarkable clinical variability between individuals in the course of infection, ranging from asymptomatic infections to life-threatening disease,” the researchers said in Nature Immunology.
The investigators have been scouring the world to find people who might be resistant to SARS-CoV-2 and have enrolled over 400 individuals in a “dedicated resistance study cohort,” according to ScienceAlert.
The investigators are looking at households in which families were infected but one member did not show severe symptoms, or for individuals who have been around the virus multiple times and haven’t contracted it. They are also looking at blood types.
Enrollment is ongoing, so if you’ve been in contact with COVID-19 multiple times and have not gotten sick, scientists would like to hear from you.
Better living through parasitization
How would you like to triple your life span, while maintaining a youthful appearance and gaining special social standing and privileges?
Sounds pretty good, right, so what’s the catch? Well, you have to be infected with a tapeworm ... and you have to be an ant.
If you are an ant, here’s the deal: Workers of the species Temnothorax nylanderi that have tapeworms live much longer than uninfected workers, and while living out those longer lives they do less work and receive gifts of food.
In a study conducted at Johannes Gutenberg University in Mainz, Germany, infected ants’ metabolic rates and lipid levels were similar to those of younger ants, and they appeared to remain in a permanent juvenile stage as a result of the infection, the investigators reported.
They tracked Temnothorax colonies for 3 years, at which point 95% of the uninfected workers had died but over half of the infected ants were still alive. Pretty great, right? Wrong. There was no joy in antville, for the uninfected workers had struck out. “Strained by the additional burden of their wormed-up nestmates, they seemed to be shunting care away from their queen. They were dying sooner than they might have if the colonies had remained parasite-free,” according to an article in the Atlantic.
Does this situation seem just a wee bit familiar? A small group lives longer, healthier lives and enjoys special privileges while the majority of that society works harder to support them? We’ll put it into the form of a chicken-and-egg argument: Which came first, the tapeworms or the one-percenters?
Laughing the pandemic stress away
Doomscrolling on social media has become one of the world’s favorite pastimes during the pandemic, but research shows that those memes about COVID-19 might combat the doom and gloom of the outside world.
A study recently published in Psychology of Popular Media showed that viewing memes, specifically those that were COVID-19 related, actually lessened the stress of the pandemic.
The researchers conducted a survey of 748 people aged 18-88 years. Each participant viewed three memes with text or three memes with text but no images. All three memes had similar cuteness levels (baby or adult), subject (animal or human), and caption (COVID-19–related or not). The participants were then asked to report on their stress levels and feelings before and after the memes.
The people who looked at memes felt less stressed and a higher humor level, especially the participants who received the COVID-19 memes. Study Finds said that they had more “pandemic-coping confidence” than those who got regular memes.
“While the World Health Organization recommended that people avoid too much COVID-related media for the benefit of their mental health, our research reveals that memes about COVID-19 could help people feel more confident in their ability to deal with the pandemic,” lead author Jessica Gall Myrick, PhD, said in a written statement. “The positive emotions associated with this type of content may make people feel psychologically safer and therefore better able to pay attention to the underlying messages related to health threats.”
So if you think you’ve been wasting time looking at memes during this pandemic, think again. It actually might keep you sane. Keep on scrolling!
Giving the gift of stress reduction
It’s a big week here at LOTME. You’ve just read our 100th edition, and to help celebrate that milestone – along with Count Your Buttons Day, Celebration of the Mind Day, and the International Day of the Nacho – we’re presenting an extra-special bonus feature, courtesy of Sad and Useless: The most depressive humor site on the Internet.
We hope you’ll stop your doomscrolling long enough to enjoy this stress-reducing meme. Thanks for reading!
The new breakfast of champions
We love a good ranking system here at LOTME world headquarters, especially the food-based ones. Luckily for us (and our readers), a new study published in Nature Food offers a food-based ranking system.
Sadly, unlike the last food-related ranking we covered, the Food Compass doesn’t tell you how much life you gain or lose from each food you eat down to the precise minute. Instead, it favors a more simple rating system from 1 to 100, with healthier foods scoring higher, and even incorporates mixed foods, not just single ingredients. This makes it better at assessing and comparing food combinations, rather than trying to mix and match the many ingredients that go into even relatively simple recipes.
The top and bottom of the rankings contain the usual suspects. Legumes and nuts, at 78.6, had the highest average score among the broad food groups, followed by fruits and then vegetables. Rounding out the bottom were sweets and savory snacks at 16.4. Among the individual foods, there were perfect scores in both directions: 100 for raw raspberries, while instant noodle soup and nonchocolate, ready-to-eat, nonfat pudding (very specific there) each earned a 1.
There are a few surprises in between. Nonfat cappuccino received a green light from the investigators, great news for the coffee drinkers out there. A serving of sweet potato chips scored better than a simple grilled chicken breast, and a slice of pizza, loaded up with extra meat and a thick crust, is still more nutritious than a bowl of corn flakes.
Neither is good for you, of course, but we’re still going to take this as a sign that pizza is the ideal breakfast food. Add that to your morning coffee, and you’re ready to start the day. Move over Wheaties, there’s a new breakfast of champions.
COVID-19 resisters, please step forward
Some people have all the luck with good genes, both inside and out.
Genetically speaking, humans are 99.9% the same, but that 0.1% is where things get interesting. Because of that 0.1% difference, some people are more likely to contract diseases such as HIV, while others might be more resistant. These small differences in genetic code could be the key to finding treatments for COVID-19.
“The introduction of SARS-CoV-2 to a naive population, on a global scale, has provided yet another demonstration of the remarkable clinical variability between individuals in the course of infection, ranging from asymptomatic infections to life-threatening disease,” the researchers said in Nature Immunology.
The investigators have been scouring the world to find people who might be resistant to SARS-CoV-2 and have enrolled over 400 individuals in a “dedicated resistance study cohort,” according to ScienceAlert.
The investigators are looking at households in which families were infected but one member did not show severe symptoms, or for individuals who have been around the virus multiple times and haven’t contracted it. They are also looking at blood types.
Enrollment is ongoing, so if you’ve been in contact with COVID-19 multiple times and have not gotten sick, scientists would like to hear from you.
Better living through parasitization
How would you like to triple your life span, while maintaining a youthful appearance and gaining special social standing and privileges?
Sounds pretty good, right, so what’s the catch? Well, you have to be infected with a tapeworm ... and you have to be an ant.
If you are an ant, here’s the deal: Workers of the species Temnothorax nylanderi that have tapeworms live much longer than uninfected workers, and while living out those longer lives they do less work and receive gifts of food.
In a study conducted at Johannes Gutenberg University in Mainz, Germany, infected ants’ metabolic rates and lipid levels were similar to those of younger ants, and they appeared to remain in a permanent juvenile stage as a result of the infection, the investigators reported.
They tracked Temnothorax colonies for 3 years, at which point 95% of the uninfected workers had died but over half of the infected ants were still alive. Pretty great, right? Wrong. There was no joy in antville, for the uninfected workers had struck out. “Strained by the additional burden of their wormed-up nestmates, they seemed to be shunting care away from their queen. They were dying sooner than they might have if the colonies had remained parasite-free,” according to an article in the Atlantic.
Does this situation seem just a wee bit familiar? A small group lives longer, healthier lives and enjoys special privileges while the majority of that society works harder to support them? We’ll put it into the form of a chicken-and-egg argument: Which came first, the tapeworms or the one-percenters?
Laughing the pandemic stress away
Doomscrolling on social media has become one of the world’s favorite pastimes during the pandemic, but research shows that those memes about COVID-19 might combat the doom and gloom of the outside world.
A study recently published in Psychology of Popular Media showed that viewing memes, specifically those that were COVID-19 related, actually lessened the stress of the pandemic.
The researchers conducted a survey of 748 people aged 18-88 years. Each participant viewed three memes with text or three memes with text but no images. All three memes had similar cuteness levels (baby or adult), subject (animal or human), and caption (COVID-19–related or not). The participants were then asked to report on their stress levels and feelings before and after the memes.
The people who looked at memes felt less stressed and a higher humor level, especially the participants who received the COVID-19 memes. Study Finds said that they had more “pandemic-coping confidence” than those who got regular memes.
“While the World Health Organization recommended that people avoid too much COVID-related media for the benefit of their mental health, our research reveals that memes about COVID-19 could help people feel more confident in their ability to deal with the pandemic,” lead author Jessica Gall Myrick, PhD, said in a written statement. “The positive emotions associated with this type of content may make people feel psychologically safer and therefore better able to pay attention to the underlying messages related to health threats.”
So if you think you’ve been wasting time looking at memes during this pandemic, think again. It actually might keep you sane. Keep on scrolling!
Giving the gift of stress reduction
It’s a big week here at LOTME. You’ve just read our 100th edition, and to help celebrate that milestone – along with Count Your Buttons Day, Celebration of the Mind Day, and the International Day of the Nacho – we’re presenting an extra-special bonus feature, courtesy of Sad and Useless: The most depressive humor site on the Internet.
We hope you’ll stop your doomscrolling long enough to enjoy this stress-reducing meme. Thanks for reading!
The new breakfast of champions
We love a good ranking system here at LOTME world headquarters, especially the food-based ones. Luckily for us (and our readers), a new study published in Nature Food offers a food-based ranking system.
Sadly, unlike the last food-related ranking we covered, the Food Compass doesn’t tell you how much life you gain or lose from each food you eat down to the precise minute. Instead, it favors a more simple rating system from 1 to 100, with healthier foods scoring higher, and even incorporates mixed foods, not just single ingredients. This makes it better at assessing and comparing food combinations, rather than trying to mix and match the many ingredients that go into even relatively simple recipes.
The top and bottom of the rankings contain the usual suspects. Legumes and nuts, at 78.6, had the highest average score among the broad food groups, followed by fruits and then vegetables. Rounding out the bottom were sweets and savory snacks at 16.4. Among the individual foods, there were perfect scores in both directions: 100 for raw raspberries, while instant noodle soup and nonchocolate, ready-to-eat, nonfat pudding (very specific there) each earned a 1.
There are a few surprises in between. Nonfat cappuccino received a green light from the investigators, great news for the coffee drinkers out there. A serving of sweet potato chips scored better than a simple grilled chicken breast, and a slice of pizza, loaded up with extra meat and a thick crust, is still more nutritious than a bowl of corn flakes.
Neither is good for you, of course, but we’re still going to take this as a sign that pizza is the ideal breakfast food. Add that to your morning coffee, and you’re ready to start the day. Move over Wheaties, there’s a new breakfast of champions.
COVID-19 resisters, please step forward
Some people have all the luck with good genes, both inside and out.
Genetically speaking, humans are 99.9% the same, but that 0.1% is where things get interesting. Because of that 0.1% difference, some people are more likely to contract diseases such as HIV, while others might be more resistant. These small differences in genetic code could be the key to finding treatments for COVID-19.
“The introduction of SARS-CoV-2 to a naive population, on a global scale, has provided yet another demonstration of the remarkable clinical variability between individuals in the course of infection, ranging from asymptomatic infections to life-threatening disease,” the researchers said in Nature Immunology.
The investigators have been scouring the world to find people who might be resistant to SARS-CoV-2 and have enrolled over 400 individuals in a “dedicated resistance study cohort,” according to ScienceAlert.
The investigators are looking at households in which families were infected but one member did not show severe symptoms, or for individuals who have been around the virus multiple times and haven’t contracted it. They are also looking at blood types.
Enrollment is ongoing, so if you’ve been in contact with COVID-19 multiple times and have not gotten sick, scientists would like to hear from you.
Better living through parasitization
How would you like to triple your life span, while maintaining a youthful appearance and gaining special social standing and privileges?
Sounds pretty good, right, so what’s the catch? Well, you have to be infected with a tapeworm ... and you have to be an ant.
If you are an ant, here’s the deal: Workers of the species Temnothorax nylanderi that have tapeworms live much longer than uninfected workers, and while living out those longer lives they do less work and receive gifts of food.
In a study conducted at Johannes Gutenberg University in Mainz, Germany, infected ants’ metabolic rates and lipid levels were similar to those of younger ants, and they appeared to remain in a permanent juvenile stage as a result of the infection, the investigators reported.
They tracked Temnothorax colonies for 3 years, at which point 95% of the uninfected workers had died but over half of the infected ants were still alive. Pretty great, right? Wrong. There was no joy in antville, for the uninfected workers had struck out. “Strained by the additional burden of their wormed-up nestmates, they seemed to be shunting care away from their queen. They were dying sooner than they might have if the colonies had remained parasite-free,” according to an article in the Atlantic.
Does this situation seem just a wee bit familiar? A small group lives longer, healthier lives and enjoys special privileges while the majority of that society works harder to support them? We’ll put it into the form of a chicken-and-egg argument: Which came first, the tapeworms or the one-percenters?
Laughing the pandemic stress away
Doomscrolling on social media has become one of the world’s favorite pastimes during the pandemic, but research shows that those memes about COVID-19 might combat the doom and gloom of the outside world.
A study recently published in Psychology of Popular Media showed that viewing memes, specifically those that were COVID-19 related, actually lessened the stress of the pandemic.
The researchers conducted a survey of 748 people aged 18-88 years. Each participant viewed three memes with text or three memes with text but no images. All three memes had similar cuteness levels (baby or adult), subject (animal or human), and caption (COVID-19–related or not). The participants were then asked to report on their stress levels and feelings before and after the memes.
The people who looked at memes felt less stressed and a higher humor level, especially the participants who received the COVID-19 memes. Study Finds said that they had more “pandemic-coping confidence” than those who got regular memes.
“While the World Health Organization recommended that people avoid too much COVID-related media for the benefit of their mental health, our research reveals that memes about COVID-19 could help people feel more confident in their ability to deal with the pandemic,” lead author Jessica Gall Myrick, PhD, said in a written statement. “The positive emotions associated with this type of content may make people feel psychologically safer and therefore better able to pay attention to the underlying messages related to health threats.”
So if you think you’ve been wasting time looking at memes during this pandemic, think again. It actually might keep you sane. Keep on scrolling!
Giving the gift of stress reduction
It’s a big week here at LOTME. You’ve just read our 100th edition, and to help celebrate that milestone – along with Count Your Buttons Day, Celebration of the Mind Day, and the International Day of the Nacho – we’re presenting an extra-special bonus feature, courtesy of Sad and Useless: The most depressive humor site on the Internet.
We hope you’ll stop your doomscrolling long enough to enjoy this stress-reducing meme. Thanks for reading!
FDA authorizes boosters for Moderna, J&J, allows mix-and-match
in people who are eligible to get them.
The move to amend the Emergency Use Authorization for these vaccines gives the vaccine experts on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices latitude to recommend a mix-and-match strategy if they feel the science supports it.
The committee convenes Oct. 21 for a day-long meeting to make its recommendations for additional doses.
People who’ve previously received two doses of the Moderna mRNA vaccine, which is now called Spikevax, are eligible for a third dose of any COVID-19 vaccine if they are 6 months past their second dose and are:
- 65 years of age or older
- 18 to 64 years of age, but at high risk for severe COVID-19 because of an underlying health condition
- 18 to 64 years of age and at high risk for exposure to the SARS-CoV-2 virus because they live in a group setting, such as a prison or care home, or work in a risky occupation, such as healthcare
People who’ve previously received a dose of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine are eligible for a second dose of any COVID-19 vaccine if they are over the age of 18 and at least 2 months past their vaccination.
“Today’s actions demonstrate our commitment to public health in proactively fighting against the COVID-19 pandemic,” said Acting FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock, MD, in a news release. “As the pandemic continues to impact the country, science has shown that vaccination continues to be the safest and most effective way to prevent COVID-19, including the most serious consequences of the disease, such as hospitalization and death.
“The available data suggest waning immunity in some populations who are fully vaccinated. The availability of these authorized boosters is important for continued protection against COVID-19 disease.”
A version of this article was first published on Medscape.com.
in people who are eligible to get them.
The move to amend the Emergency Use Authorization for these vaccines gives the vaccine experts on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices latitude to recommend a mix-and-match strategy if they feel the science supports it.
The committee convenes Oct. 21 for a day-long meeting to make its recommendations for additional doses.
People who’ve previously received two doses of the Moderna mRNA vaccine, which is now called Spikevax, are eligible for a third dose of any COVID-19 vaccine if they are 6 months past their second dose and are:
- 65 years of age or older
- 18 to 64 years of age, but at high risk for severe COVID-19 because of an underlying health condition
- 18 to 64 years of age and at high risk for exposure to the SARS-CoV-2 virus because they live in a group setting, such as a prison or care home, or work in a risky occupation, such as healthcare
People who’ve previously received a dose of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine are eligible for a second dose of any COVID-19 vaccine if they are over the age of 18 and at least 2 months past their vaccination.
“Today’s actions demonstrate our commitment to public health in proactively fighting against the COVID-19 pandemic,” said Acting FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock, MD, in a news release. “As the pandemic continues to impact the country, science has shown that vaccination continues to be the safest and most effective way to prevent COVID-19, including the most serious consequences of the disease, such as hospitalization and death.
“The available data suggest waning immunity in some populations who are fully vaccinated. The availability of these authorized boosters is important for continued protection against COVID-19 disease.”
A version of this article was first published on Medscape.com.
in people who are eligible to get them.
The move to amend the Emergency Use Authorization for these vaccines gives the vaccine experts on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices latitude to recommend a mix-and-match strategy if they feel the science supports it.
The committee convenes Oct. 21 for a day-long meeting to make its recommendations for additional doses.
People who’ve previously received two doses of the Moderna mRNA vaccine, which is now called Spikevax, are eligible for a third dose of any COVID-19 vaccine if they are 6 months past their second dose and are:
- 65 years of age or older
- 18 to 64 years of age, but at high risk for severe COVID-19 because of an underlying health condition
- 18 to 64 years of age and at high risk for exposure to the SARS-CoV-2 virus because they live in a group setting, such as a prison or care home, or work in a risky occupation, such as healthcare
People who’ve previously received a dose of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine are eligible for a second dose of any COVID-19 vaccine if they are over the age of 18 and at least 2 months past their vaccination.
“Today’s actions demonstrate our commitment to public health in proactively fighting against the COVID-19 pandemic,” said Acting FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock, MD, in a news release. “As the pandemic continues to impact the country, science has shown that vaccination continues to be the safest and most effective way to prevent COVID-19, including the most serious consequences of the disease, such as hospitalization and death.
“The available data suggest waning immunity in some populations who are fully vaccinated. The availability of these authorized boosters is important for continued protection against COVID-19 disease.”
A version of this article was first published on Medscape.com.
Bone risk: Is time since menopause a better predictor than age?
Although early menopause is linked to increased risks in bone loss and fracture, new research indicates that, even among the majority of women who have menopause after age 45, the time since the final menstrual period can be a stronger predictor than chronological age for key risks in bone health and fracture.
In a large longitudinal cohort, the number of years since a woman’s final menstrual period specifically showed a stronger association with femoral neck bone mineral density (BMD) than chronological age, while an earlier age at menopause – even among those over 45 years, was linked to an increased risk of fracture.
“Most of our clinical tools to predict osteoporosis-related outcomes use chronological age,” first author Albert Shieh, MD, told this news organization.
“Our findings suggest that more research should be done to examine whether ovarian age (time since final menstrual period) should be used in these tools as well.”
An increased focus on the significance of age at the time of the final menstrual period, compared with chronological age, has gained interest in risk assessment because of the known acceleration in the decline of BMD that occurs 1 year prior to the final menstrual period and continues at a rapid pace for 3 years afterwards before slowing.
To further investigate the association with BMD, Dr. Shieh, an endocrinologist specializing in osteoporosis at the University of California, Los Angeles, and his colleagues turned to data from the Study of Women’s Health Across the Nation (SWAN), a longitudinal cohort study of ambulatory women with pre- or early perimenopausal baseline data and 15 annual follow-up assessments.
Outcomes regarding postmenopausal lumbar spine (LS) or femoral neck (FN) BMD were evaluated in 1,038 women, while the time to fracture in relation to the final menstrual period was separately evaluated in 1,554 women.
In both cohorts, the women had a known final menstrual period at age 45 or older, and on average, their final menstrual period occurred at age 52.
After a multivariate adjustment for age, body mass index, and various other factors, they found that each additional year after a woman’s final menstrual period was associated with a significant (0.006 g/cm2) reduction in postmenopausal lumbar spine BMD and a 0.004 g/cm2 reduction femoral neck BMD (both P < .0001).
Conversely, chronological age was not associated with a change in femoral neck BMD when evaluated independently of years since the final menstrual period, the researchers reported in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism.
Regarding lumbar spine BMD, chronological age was unexpectedly associated not just with change, but in fact with increases in lumbar spine BMD (P < .0001 per year). However, the authors speculate the change “is likely a reflection of age-associated degenerative changes causing false elevations in BMD measured by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry.”
Fracture risk with earlier menopause
In terms of the fracture risk analysis, despite the women all being aged 45 or older, earlier age at menopause was still tied to an increased risk of incident fracture, with a 5% increase in risk for each earlier year in age at the time of the final menstrual period (P = .02).
Compared with women who had their final menstrual period at age 55, for instance, those who finished menstruating at age 47 had a 6.3% greater 20-year cumulative fracture risk, the authors note.
While previous findings from the Malmo Perimenopausal Study showed menopause prior to the age of 47 to be associated with an 83% and 59% greater risk of densitometric osteoporosis and fracture, respectively, by age 77, the authors note that the new study is unique in including only women who had a final menstrual period over the age of 45, therefore reducing the potential confounding of data on women under 45.
The new results “add to a growing body of literature suggesting that the endocrine changes that occur during the menopause transition trigger a pathophysiologic cascade that leads to organ dysfunction,” the authors note.
In terms of implications in risk assessment, “future studies should examine whether years since the final menstrual period predicts major osteoporotic fractures and hip fractures, specifically, and, if so, whether replacing chronological age with years since the final menstrual period improves the performance of clinical prediction tools, such as FRAX [Fracture Risk Assessment Tool],” they add.
Addition to guidelines?
Commenting on the findings, Peter Ebeling, MD, the current president of the American Society of Bone and Mineral Research, noted that the study importantly “confirms what we had previously anticipated, that in women with menopause who are 45 years of age or older a lower age of final menstrual period is associated with lower spine and hip BMD and more fractures.”
“We had already known this for women with premature ovarian insufficiency or an early menopause, and this extends the observation to the vast majority of women – more than 90% – with a normal menopause age,” said Dr. Ebeling, professor of medicine at Monash Health, Monash University, in Melbourne.
Despite the known importance of the time since final menstrual period, guidelines still focus on age in terms of chronology, rather than biology, emphasizing the risk among women over 50, in general, rather than the time since the last menstrual period, he noted.
“There is an important difference [between those two], as shown by this study,” he said. “Guidelines could be easily adapted to reflect this.”
Specifically, the association between lower age of final menstrual period and lower spine and hip BMD and more fractures requires “more formal assessment to determine whether adding age of final menstrual period to existing fracture risk calculator tools, like FRAX, can improve absolute fracture risk prediction,” Dr. Ebeling noted.
The authors and Dr. Ebeling had no disclosures to report.
Although early menopause is linked to increased risks in bone loss and fracture, new research indicates that, even among the majority of women who have menopause after age 45, the time since the final menstrual period can be a stronger predictor than chronological age for key risks in bone health and fracture.
In a large longitudinal cohort, the number of years since a woman’s final menstrual period specifically showed a stronger association with femoral neck bone mineral density (BMD) than chronological age, while an earlier age at menopause – even among those over 45 years, was linked to an increased risk of fracture.
“Most of our clinical tools to predict osteoporosis-related outcomes use chronological age,” first author Albert Shieh, MD, told this news organization.
“Our findings suggest that more research should be done to examine whether ovarian age (time since final menstrual period) should be used in these tools as well.”
An increased focus on the significance of age at the time of the final menstrual period, compared with chronological age, has gained interest in risk assessment because of the known acceleration in the decline of BMD that occurs 1 year prior to the final menstrual period and continues at a rapid pace for 3 years afterwards before slowing.
To further investigate the association with BMD, Dr. Shieh, an endocrinologist specializing in osteoporosis at the University of California, Los Angeles, and his colleagues turned to data from the Study of Women’s Health Across the Nation (SWAN), a longitudinal cohort study of ambulatory women with pre- or early perimenopausal baseline data and 15 annual follow-up assessments.
Outcomes regarding postmenopausal lumbar spine (LS) or femoral neck (FN) BMD were evaluated in 1,038 women, while the time to fracture in relation to the final menstrual period was separately evaluated in 1,554 women.
In both cohorts, the women had a known final menstrual period at age 45 or older, and on average, their final menstrual period occurred at age 52.
After a multivariate adjustment for age, body mass index, and various other factors, they found that each additional year after a woman’s final menstrual period was associated with a significant (0.006 g/cm2) reduction in postmenopausal lumbar spine BMD and a 0.004 g/cm2 reduction femoral neck BMD (both P < .0001).
Conversely, chronological age was not associated with a change in femoral neck BMD when evaluated independently of years since the final menstrual period, the researchers reported in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism.
Regarding lumbar spine BMD, chronological age was unexpectedly associated not just with change, but in fact with increases in lumbar spine BMD (P < .0001 per year). However, the authors speculate the change “is likely a reflection of age-associated degenerative changes causing false elevations in BMD measured by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry.”
Fracture risk with earlier menopause
In terms of the fracture risk analysis, despite the women all being aged 45 or older, earlier age at menopause was still tied to an increased risk of incident fracture, with a 5% increase in risk for each earlier year in age at the time of the final menstrual period (P = .02).
Compared with women who had their final menstrual period at age 55, for instance, those who finished menstruating at age 47 had a 6.3% greater 20-year cumulative fracture risk, the authors note.
While previous findings from the Malmo Perimenopausal Study showed menopause prior to the age of 47 to be associated with an 83% and 59% greater risk of densitometric osteoporosis and fracture, respectively, by age 77, the authors note that the new study is unique in including only women who had a final menstrual period over the age of 45, therefore reducing the potential confounding of data on women under 45.
The new results “add to a growing body of literature suggesting that the endocrine changes that occur during the menopause transition trigger a pathophysiologic cascade that leads to organ dysfunction,” the authors note.
In terms of implications in risk assessment, “future studies should examine whether years since the final menstrual period predicts major osteoporotic fractures and hip fractures, specifically, and, if so, whether replacing chronological age with years since the final menstrual period improves the performance of clinical prediction tools, such as FRAX [Fracture Risk Assessment Tool],” they add.
Addition to guidelines?
Commenting on the findings, Peter Ebeling, MD, the current president of the American Society of Bone and Mineral Research, noted that the study importantly “confirms what we had previously anticipated, that in women with menopause who are 45 years of age or older a lower age of final menstrual period is associated with lower spine and hip BMD and more fractures.”
“We had already known this for women with premature ovarian insufficiency or an early menopause, and this extends the observation to the vast majority of women – more than 90% – with a normal menopause age,” said Dr. Ebeling, professor of medicine at Monash Health, Monash University, in Melbourne.
Despite the known importance of the time since final menstrual period, guidelines still focus on age in terms of chronology, rather than biology, emphasizing the risk among women over 50, in general, rather than the time since the last menstrual period, he noted.
“There is an important difference [between those two], as shown by this study,” he said. “Guidelines could be easily adapted to reflect this.”
Specifically, the association between lower age of final menstrual period and lower spine and hip BMD and more fractures requires “more formal assessment to determine whether adding age of final menstrual period to existing fracture risk calculator tools, like FRAX, can improve absolute fracture risk prediction,” Dr. Ebeling noted.
The authors and Dr. Ebeling had no disclosures to report.
Although early menopause is linked to increased risks in bone loss and fracture, new research indicates that, even among the majority of women who have menopause after age 45, the time since the final menstrual period can be a stronger predictor than chronological age for key risks in bone health and fracture.
In a large longitudinal cohort, the number of years since a woman’s final menstrual period specifically showed a stronger association with femoral neck bone mineral density (BMD) than chronological age, while an earlier age at menopause – even among those over 45 years, was linked to an increased risk of fracture.
“Most of our clinical tools to predict osteoporosis-related outcomes use chronological age,” first author Albert Shieh, MD, told this news organization.
“Our findings suggest that more research should be done to examine whether ovarian age (time since final menstrual period) should be used in these tools as well.”
An increased focus on the significance of age at the time of the final menstrual period, compared with chronological age, has gained interest in risk assessment because of the known acceleration in the decline of BMD that occurs 1 year prior to the final menstrual period and continues at a rapid pace for 3 years afterwards before slowing.
To further investigate the association with BMD, Dr. Shieh, an endocrinologist specializing in osteoporosis at the University of California, Los Angeles, and his colleagues turned to data from the Study of Women’s Health Across the Nation (SWAN), a longitudinal cohort study of ambulatory women with pre- or early perimenopausal baseline data and 15 annual follow-up assessments.
Outcomes regarding postmenopausal lumbar spine (LS) or femoral neck (FN) BMD were evaluated in 1,038 women, while the time to fracture in relation to the final menstrual period was separately evaluated in 1,554 women.
In both cohorts, the women had a known final menstrual period at age 45 or older, and on average, their final menstrual period occurred at age 52.
After a multivariate adjustment for age, body mass index, and various other factors, they found that each additional year after a woman’s final menstrual period was associated with a significant (0.006 g/cm2) reduction in postmenopausal lumbar spine BMD and a 0.004 g/cm2 reduction femoral neck BMD (both P < .0001).
Conversely, chronological age was not associated with a change in femoral neck BMD when evaluated independently of years since the final menstrual period, the researchers reported in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism.
Regarding lumbar spine BMD, chronological age was unexpectedly associated not just with change, but in fact with increases in lumbar spine BMD (P < .0001 per year). However, the authors speculate the change “is likely a reflection of age-associated degenerative changes causing false elevations in BMD measured by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry.”
Fracture risk with earlier menopause
In terms of the fracture risk analysis, despite the women all being aged 45 or older, earlier age at menopause was still tied to an increased risk of incident fracture, with a 5% increase in risk for each earlier year in age at the time of the final menstrual period (P = .02).
Compared with women who had their final menstrual period at age 55, for instance, those who finished menstruating at age 47 had a 6.3% greater 20-year cumulative fracture risk, the authors note.
While previous findings from the Malmo Perimenopausal Study showed menopause prior to the age of 47 to be associated with an 83% and 59% greater risk of densitometric osteoporosis and fracture, respectively, by age 77, the authors note that the new study is unique in including only women who had a final menstrual period over the age of 45, therefore reducing the potential confounding of data on women under 45.
The new results “add to a growing body of literature suggesting that the endocrine changes that occur during the menopause transition trigger a pathophysiologic cascade that leads to organ dysfunction,” the authors note.
In terms of implications in risk assessment, “future studies should examine whether years since the final menstrual period predicts major osteoporotic fractures and hip fractures, specifically, and, if so, whether replacing chronological age with years since the final menstrual period improves the performance of clinical prediction tools, such as FRAX [Fracture Risk Assessment Tool],” they add.
Addition to guidelines?
Commenting on the findings, Peter Ebeling, MD, the current president of the American Society of Bone and Mineral Research, noted that the study importantly “confirms what we had previously anticipated, that in women with menopause who are 45 years of age or older a lower age of final menstrual period is associated with lower spine and hip BMD and more fractures.”
“We had already known this for women with premature ovarian insufficiency or an early menopause, and this extends the observation to the vast majority of women – more than 90% – with a normal menopause age,” said Dr. Ebeling, professor of medicine at Monash Health, Monash University, in Melbourne.
Despite the known importance of the time since final menstrual period, guidelines still focus on age in terms of chronology, rather than biology, emphasizing the risk among women over 50, in general, rather than the time since the last menstrual period, he noted.
“There is an important difference [between those two], as shown by this study,” he said. “Guidelines could be easily adapted to reflect this.”
Specifically, the association between lower age of final menstrual period and lower spine and hip BMD and more fractures requires “more formal assessment to determine whether adding age of final menstrual period to existing fracture risk calculator tools, like FRAX, can improve absolute fracture risk prediction,” Dr. Ebeling noted.
The authors and Dr. Ebeling had no disclosures to report.
FROM JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ENDOCRINOLOGY AND METABOLISM
Guidelines for managing hypo- and hyperparathyroidism
A large international team of experts has developed two comprehensive guidelines for diagnosing, evaluating, and managing hypoparathyroidism and hyperparathyroidism, which replace guidelines issued 5 and 7 years ago.
Aliya A. Khan, MD, presented an overview of the hypoparathyroidism guidelines and John P. Bilezikian, MD, presented key aspects of the hyperparathyroidism guidelines at the American Society of Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR) 2021 Annual Meeting.
The guidelines will be published as 17 articles in two issues of the society’s Journal of Bone and Mineral Research in 2022 – one on hypoparathyroidism and the other on hyperparathyroidism.
The work represents an “unprecedented effort” by more than 100 experts from 16 countries (United States, Canada, Australia, Brazil, China, Denmark, France, Germany, India, Italy, Israel, Lebanon, Singapore, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom), Dr. Bilezikian told this news organization in an interview.
More than 100 international and national endocrine and osteoporosis organizations, societies, and patient advocacy groups from more than 50 countries have expressed interest in endorsing the guidelines.
Management of hypoparathyroidism
The new guidelines on hypoparathyroidism replace the guidelines issued in 2016 that were developed at the First International Conference on the Management of Hypoparathyroidism, Dr. Khan, from McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., said in an email.
There was a need for new hypoparathyroidism guidelines, she explained, because of the better understanding of associated complications, how to predict who will develop hypoparathyroidism postoperatively (and how to prevent this), how and when to investigate a genetic cause further, when to consider parathyroid hormone (PTH) replacement therapy (and the benefits of the various molecules available today as well as those being evaluated in clinical research), and how to diagnose and manage hypoparathyroidism during pregnancy and lactation.
The experts in hypoparathyroidism were divided into four task forces that covered epidemiology and financial burden, etiology and pathophysiology, genetics and diagnosis, and patient evaluation and management.
The guidelines, developed over the past 18 months, provide detailed evidence-based graded (strong to weak) as well as ungraded (current practice) recommendations.
Summarizing a few key takeaways, Dr. Khan noted the guidelines recommend that clinicians treating patients with hypoparathyroidism should:
- Diagnose hypoparathyroidism if serum calcium corrected for albumin is low in the presence of a low or inappropriately normal PTH confirmed on two occasions 2 weeks apart (which may be supported by other specified abnormalities).
- Determine the cause for the hypoparathyroidism (which includes postsurgery, genetic variant, autoimmune, radiation, or idiopathic causes).
- Evaluate target organ damage.
- Try to achieve treatment goals and minimize risks for long-term complications.
- Consider PTH replacement therapy if patients have inadequate control, with symptoms of hypocalcemia or hypercalcemia, high phosphate, kidney disease, or high urine calcium, or poor quality of life.
The guideline strongly recommends using PTH measurements after total thyroidectomy to try to predict which patients will develop permanent postsurgical hypoparathyroidism.
It provides a clinical approach for establishing the genetic etiology of hypoparathyroidism.
A meta-analysis of 81 studies identified that the most common symptoms/complications of chronic hypoparathyroidism were, in descending order, cataract (24%), infection (18%), nephrolithiasis, renal insufficiency, seizures, depression, ischemic heart disease, and arrhythmias.
Based on the best available evidence, the guideline advises that “clinicians need to carefully determine why a patient has hypoparathyroidism and develop an individualized treatment plan with conventional therapy consisting of calcium, active vitamin D, hydrochlorothiazide, and plain vitamin D,” Dr. Khan continued.
“If a patient has poorly controlled hypoparathyroidism with many symptoms or is not doing well, then clinicians must consider PTH replacement therapy, since this will replace the missing hormone, lower the urine calcium losses, bring the serum calcium back up to the normal reference range, and lower phosphate (which appears to be associated with kidney calcification and may also contribute to basal ganglia calcification and calcium deposits in the eye),” she noted.
The guideline also discusses the optimal way to monitor and treat patients during pregnancy, delivery, and breastfeeding to optimize outcomes for mother and baby. The key points are closer patient monitoring with normalization of calcium, urine calcium, phosphate, and vitamin D.
Management of primary hyperparathyroidism
There was a need to update the previous 2014 guidelines developed at the Fourth International Workshop on the Management of Primary Hyperparathyroidism because, among other things, recent studies have provided new evidence about the different clinical phenotypes of primary hyperparathyroidism and ways the disease affects the skeleton and kidneys, Dr. Bilezikian, from the College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York, explained.
The experts in hyperparathyroidism were divided into four task forces that covered epidemiology, pathophysiology and genetics; classical and nonclassical disease manifestations; surgical aspects; and patient evaluation and management.
As part of these topics, the experts reviewed biochemical, skeletal, and renal findings, nonclassical features (such as neurocognitive complaints), nutritional and pharmacologic approaches, and disease course with or without surgical or medical intervention.
They made recommendations for diagnosis of hypercalcemic and normocalcemic phenotypes, differential diagnosis, evaluation of the skeleton and the kidney, indications for surgery, role of parathyroid imaging, indications for pharmacologic intervention, and monitoring.
“Consider the way this disease has appeared to change in the last 50 years,” said Dr. Bilezikian. In the 1940s, 50s, and 60s, patients with hyperparathyroidism were really sick and had severe bone disease and kidney disease. Then in the 70s, 80s, and 90s, the disease was more often discovered because of a screening test; high serum calcium was a hallmark of finding asymptomatic hyperparathyroidism.
In recent years, hyperparathyroidism is often discovered incidentally, when examining the skeleton or kidneys, he continued.
Primary hyperparathyroidism can now be subdivided into three types: patients who have target organ (kidney, bone) involvement, patients who don’t have this, and patients who have normocalcemic primary hyperparathyroidism.
The guideline discusses new medications that have become available for hyperparathyroidism, as well as surgery (the only cure), including how preoperative imaging can identify the overactive parathyroid gland, and the guidelines go into detail about how to monitor a patient and why a clinician would or would not recommend surgery, Dr. Bilezikian explained.
In the end, treatment is tailored to the individual.
Last, the guideline identifies eight areas where more research is needed.
The guidelines were funded by unrestricted educational grants from Amolyt, Ascendis, Calcilytix, and Takeda. Dr. Khan has reported participating on advisory boards for Alexion, Amgen, Amolyt, and Takeda, being a consultant for Amgen, receiving grants from Alexion, Amgen, Takeda, and Ascendis, being an investigator for Alexion, Amgen, Takeda, Ascendis, and Chugai, and being a speaker for Alexion, Amgen, Takeda, and Ultragenyx. Dr. Bilezikian has reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A large international team of experts has developed two comprehensive guidelines for diagnosing, evaluating, and managing hypoparathyroidism and hyperparathyroidism, which replace guidelines issued 5 and 7 years ago.
Aliya A. Khan, MD, presented an overview of the hypoparathyroidism guidelines and John P. Bilezikian, MD, presented key aspects of the hyperparathyroidism guidelines at the American Society of Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR) 2021 Annual Meeting.
The guidelines will be published as 17 articles in two issues of the society’s Journal of Bone and Mineral Research in 2022 – one on hypoparathyroidism and the other on hyperparathyroidism.
The work represents an “unprecedented effort” by more than 100 experts from 16 countries (United States, Canada, Australia, Brazil, China, Denmark, France, Germany, India, Italy, Israel, Lebanon, Singapore, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom), Dr. Bilezikian told this news organization in an interview.
More than 100 international and national endocrine and osteoporosis organizations, societies, and patient advocacy groups from more than 50 countries have expressed interest in endorsing the guidelines.
Management of hypoparathyroidism
The new guidelines on hypoparathyroidism replace the guidelines issued in 2016 that were developed at the First International Conference on the Management of Hypoparathyroidism, Dr. Khan, from McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., said in an email.
There was a need for new hypoparathyroidism guidelines, she explained, because of the better understanding of associated complications, how to predict who will develop hypoparathyroidism postoperatively (and how to prevent this), how and when to investigate a genetic cause further, when to consider parathyroid hormone (PTH) replacement therapy (and the benefits of the various molecules available today as well as those being evaluated in clinical research), and how to diagnose and manage hypoparathyroidism during pregnancy and lactation.
The experts in hypoparathyroidism were divided into four task forces that covered epidemiology and financial burden, etiology and pathophysiology, genetics and diagnosis, and patient evaluation and management.
The guidelines, developed over the past 18 months, provide detailed evidence-based graded (strong to weak) as well as ungraded (current practice) recommendations.
Summarizing a few key takeaways, Dr. Khan noted the guidelines recommend that clinicians treating patients with hypoparathyroidism should:
- Diagnose hypoparathyroidism if serum calcium corrected for albumin is low in the presence of a low or inappropriately normal PTH confirmed on two occasions 2 weeks apart (which may be supported by other specified abnormalities).
- Determine the cause for the hypoparathyroidism (which includes postsurgery, genetic variant, autoimmune, radiation, or idiopathic causes).
- Evaluate target organ damage.
- Try to achieve treatment goals and minimize risks for long-term complications.
- Consider PTH replacement therapy if patients have inadequate control, with symptoms of hypocalcemia or hypercalcemia, high phosphate, kidney disease, or high urine calcium, or poor quality of life.
The guideline strongly recommends using PTH measurements after total thyroidectomy to try to predict which patients will develop permanent postsurgical hypoparathyroidism.
It provides a clinical approach for establishing the genetic etiology of hypoparathyroidism.
A meta-analysis of 81 studies identified that the most common symptoms/complications of chronic hypoparathyroidism were, in descending order, cataract (24%), infection (18%), nephrolithiasis, renal insufficiency, seizures, depression, ischemic heart disease, and arrhythmias.
Based on the best available evidence, the guideline advises that “clinicians need to carefully determine why a patient has hypoparathyroidism and develop an individualized treatment plan with conventional therapy consisting of calcium, active vitamin D, hydrochlorothiazide, and plain vitamin D,” Dr. Khan continued.
“If a patient has poorly controlled hypoparathyroidism with many symptoms or is not doing well, then clinicians must consider PTH replacement therapy, since this will replace the missing hormone, lower the urine calcium losses, bring the serum calcium back up to the normal reference range, and lower phosphate (which appears to be associated with kidney calcification and may also contribute to basal ganglia calcification and calcium deposits in the eye),” she noted.
The guideline also discusses the optimal way to monitor and treat patients during pregnancy, delivery, and breastfeeding to optimize outcomes for mother and baby. The key points are closer patient monitoring with normalization of calcium, urine calcium, phosphate, and vitamin D.
Management of primary hyperparathyroidism
There was a need to update the previous 2014 guidelines developed at the Fourth International Workshop on the Management of Primary Hyperparathyroidism because, among other things, recent studies have provided new evidence about the different clinical phenotypes of primary hyperparathyroidism and ways the disease affects the skeleton and kidneys, Dr. Bilezikian, from the College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York, explained.
The experts in hyperparathyroidism were divided into four task forces that covered epidemiology, pathophysiology and genetics; classical and nonclassical disease manifestations; surgical aspects; and patient evaluation and management.
As part of these topics, the experts reviewed biochemical, skeletal, and renal findings, nonclassical features (such as neurocognitive complaints), nutritional and pharmacologic approaches, and disease course with or without surgical or medical intervention.
They made recommendations for diagnosis of hypercalcemic and normocalcemic phenotypes, differential diagnosis, evaluation of the skeleton and the kidney, indications for surgery, role of parathyroid imaging, indications for pharmacologic intervention, and monitoring.
“Consider the way this disease has appeared to change in the last 50 years,” said Dr. Bilezikian. In the 1940s, 50s, and 60s, patients with hyperparathyroidism were really sick and had severe bone disease and kidney disease. Then in the 70s, 80s, and 90s, the disease was more often discovered because of a screening test; high serum calcium was a hallmark of finding asymptomatic hyperparathyroidism.
In recent years, hyperparathyroidism is often discovered incidentally, when examining the skeleton or kidneys, he continued.
Primary hyperparathyroidism can now be subdivided into three types: patients who have target organ (kidney, bone) involvement, patients who don’t have this, and patients who have normocalcemic primary hyperparathyroidism.
The guideline discusses new medications that have become available for hyperparathyroidism, as well as surgery (the only cure), including how preoperative imaging can identify the overactive parathyroid gland, and the guidelines go into detail about how to monitor a patient and why a clinician would or would not recommend surgery, Dr. Bilezikian explained.
In the end, treatment is tailored to the individual.
Last, the guideline identifies eight areas where more research is needed.
The guidelines were funded by unrestricted educational grants from Amolyt, Ascendis, Calcilytix, and Takeda. Dr. Khan has reported participating on advisory boards for Alexion, Amgen, Amolyt, and Takeda, being a consultant for Amgen, receiving grants from Alexion, Amgen, Takeda, and Ascendis, being an investigator for Alexion, Amgen, Takeda, Ascendis, and Chugai, and being a speaker for Alexion, Amgen, Takeda, and Ultragenyx. Dr. Bilezikian has reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A large international team of experts has developed two comprehensive guidelines for diagnosing, evaluating, and managing hypoparathyroidism and hyperparathyroidism, which replace guidelines issued 5 and 7 years ago.
Aliya A. Khan, MD, presented an overview of the hypoparathyroidism guidelines and John P. Bilezikian, MD, presented key aspects of the hyperparathyroidism guidelines at the American Society of Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR) 2021 Annual Meeting.
The guidelines will be published as 17 articles in two issues of the society’s Journal of Bone and Mineral Research in 2022 – one on hypoparathyroidism and the other on hyperparathyroidism.
The work represents an “unprecedented effort” by more than 100 experts from 16 countries (United States, Canada, Australia, Brazil, China, Denmark, France, Germany, India, Italy, Israel, Lebanon, Singapore, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom), Dr. Bilezikian told this news organization in an interview.
More than 100 international and national endocrine and osteoporosis organizations, societies, and patient advocacy groups from more than 50 countries have expressed interest in endorsing the guidelines.
Management of hypoparathyroidism
The new guidelines on hypoparathyroidism replace the guidelines issued in 2016 that were developed at the First International Conference on the Management of Hypoparathyroidism, Dr. Khan, from McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., said in an email.
There was a need for new hypoparathyroidism guidelines, she explained, because of the better understanding of associated complications, how to predict who will develop hypoparathyroidism postoperatively (and how to prevent this), how and when to investigate a genetic cause further, when to consider parathyroid hormone (PTH) replacement therapy (and the benefits of the various molecules available today as well as those being evaluated in clinical research), and how to diagnose and manage hypoparathyroidism during pregnancy and lactation.
The experts in hypoparathyroidism were divided into four task forces that covered epidemiology and financial burden, etiology and pathophysiology, genetics and diagnosis, and patient evaluation and management.
The guidelines, developed over the past 18 months, provide detailed evidence-based graded (strong to weak) as well as ungraded (current practice) recommendations.
Summarizing a few key takeaways, Dr. Khan noted the guidelines recommend that clinicians treating patients with hypoparathyroidism should:
- Diagnose hypoparathyroidism if serum calcium corrected for albumin is low in the presence of a low or inappropriately normal PTH confirmed on two occasions 2 weeks apart (which may be supported by other specified abnormalities).
- Determine the cause for the hypoparathyroidism (which includes postsurgery, genetic variant, autoimmune, radiation, or idiopathic causes).
- Evaluate target organ damage.
- Try to achieve treatment goals and minimize risks for long-term complications.
- Consider PTH replacement therapy if patients have inadequate control, with symptoms of hypocalcemia or hypercalcemia, high phosphate, kidney disease, or high urine calcium, or poor quality of life.
The guideline strongly recommends using PTH measurements after total thyroidectomy to try to predict which patients will develop permanent postsurgical hypoparathyroidism.
It provides a clinical approach for establishing the genetic etiology of hypoparathyroidism.
A meta-analysis of 81 studies identified that the most common symptoms/complications of chronic hypoparathyroidism were, in descending order, cataract (24%), infection (18%), nephrolithiasis, renal insufficiency, seizures, depression, ischemic heart disease, and arrhythmias.
Based on the best available evidence, the guideline advises that “clinicians need to carefully determine why a patient has hypoparathyroidism and develop an individualized treatment plan with conventional therapy consisting of calcium, active vitamin D, hydrochlorothiazide, and plain vitamin D,” Dr. Khan continued.
“If a patient has poorly controlled hypoparathyroidism with many symptoms or is not doing well, then clinicians must consider PTH replacement therapy, since this will replace the missing hormone, lower the urine calcium losses, bring the serum calcium back up to the normal reference range, and lower phosphate (which appears to be associated with kidney calcification and may also contribute to basal ganglia calcification and calcium deposits in the eye),” she noted.
The guideline also discusses the optimal way to monitor and treat patients during pregnancy, delivery, and breastfeeding to optimize outcomes for mother and baby. The key points are closer patient monitoring with normalization of calcium, urine calcium, phosphate, and vitamin D.
Management of primary hyperparathyroidism
There was a need to update the previous 2014 guidelines developed at the Fourth International Workshop on the Management of Primary Hyperparathyroidism because, among other things, recent studies have provided new evidence about the different clinical phenotypes of primary hyperparathyroidism and ways the disease affects the skeleton and kidneys, Dr. Bilezikian, from the College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York, explained.
The experts in hyperparathyroidism were divided into four task forces that covered epidemiology, pathophysiology and genetics; classical and nonclassical disease manifestations; surgical aspects; and patient evaluation and management.
As part of these topics, the experts reviewed biochemical, skeletal, and renal findings, nonclassical features (such as neurocognitive complaints), nutritional and pharmacologic approaches, and disease course with or without surgical or medical intervention.
They made recommendations for diagnosis of hypercalcemic and normocalcemic phenotypes, differential diagnosis, evaluation of the skeleton and the kidney, indications for surgery, role of parathyroid imaging, indications for pharmacologic intervention, and monitoring.
“Consider the way this disease has appeared to change in the last 50 years,” said Dr. Bilezikian. In the 1940s, 50s, and 60s, patients with hyperparathyroidism were really sick and had severe bone disease and kidney disease. Then in the 70s, 80s, and 90s, the disease was more often discovered because of a screening test; high serum calcium was a hallmark of finding asymptomatic hyperparathyroidism.
In recent years, hyperparathyroidism is often discovered incidentally, when examining the skeleton or kidneys, he continued.
Primary hyperparathyroidism can now be subdivided into three types: patients who have target organ (kidney, bone) involvement, patients who don’t have this, and patients who have normocalcemic primary hyperparathyroidism.
The guideline discusses new medications that have become available for hyperparathyroidism, as well as surgery (the only cure), including how preoperative imaging can identify the overactive parathyroid gland, and the guidelines go into detail about how to monitor a patient and why a clinician would or would not recommend surgery, Dr. Bilezikian explained.
In the end, treatment is tailored to the individual.
Last, the guideline identifies eight areas where more research is needed.
The guidelines were funded by unrestricted educational grants from Amolyt, Ascendis, Calcilytix, and Takeda. Dr. Khan has reported participating on advisory boards for Alexion, Amgen, Amolyt, and Takeda, being a consultant for Amgen, receiving grants from Alexion, Amgen, Takeda, and Ascendis, being an investigator for Alexion, Amgen, Takeda, Ascendis, and Chugai, and being a speaker for Alexion, Amgen, Takeda, and Ultragenyx. Dr. Bilezikian has reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA approves combo pill for severe, acute pain
enough to require an opioid analgesic and for which alternative treatments fail to provide adequate pain relief.
Celecoxib is a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug and tramadol is an opioid agonist. Seglentis contains 56 mg of celecoxib and 44 mg of tramadol.
“The unique co-crystal formulation of Seglentis provides effective pain relief via a multimodal approach,” Craig A. Sponseller, MD, chief medical officer of Kowa Pharmaceuticals America, said in a news release.
Esteve Pharmaceuticals has entered into an agreement with Kowa Pharmaceuticals America to commercialize the pain medicine in the United States, with a launch planned for early 2022.
“Seglentis uses four different and complementary mechanisms of analgesia and offers healthcare providers an important option to treat acute pain in adults that is severe enough to require opioid treatment and for which alternative treatments are inadequate,” Dr. Sponseller said.
Because of the risks of addiction, abuse, and misuse with opioids, even at recommended doses, the FDA will require a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) for Seglentis.
The label states that the drug should be initiated as two tablets every 12 hours as needed and should be prescribed for the shortest duration consistent with individual patient treatment goals.
Patients should be monitored for respiratory depression, especially within the first 24 to 72 hours of initiating therapy with Seglentis.
Prescribers should discuss naloxone (Narcan) with patients and consider prescribing the opioid antagonist naloxone based on the patient’s risk factors for overdose.
Full prescribing information is available online.
A version of this article was first published on Medscape.com.
enough to require an opioid analgesic and for which alternative treatments fail to provide adequate pain relief.
Celecoxib is a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug and tramadol is an opioid agonist. Seglentis contains 56 mg of celecoxib and 44 mg of tramadol.
“The unique co-crystal formulation of Seglentis provides effective pain relief via a multimodal approach,” Craig A. Sponseller, MD, chief medical officer of Kowa Pharmaceuticals America, said in a news release.
Esteve Pharmaceuticals has entered into an agreement with Kowa Pharmaceuticals America to commercialize the pain medicine in the United States, with a launch planned for early 2022.
“Seglentis uses four different and complementary mechanisms of analgesia and offers healthcare providers an important option to treat acute pain in adults that is severe enough to require opioid treatment and for which alternative treatments are inadequate,” Dr. Sponseller said.
Because of the risks of addiction, abuse, and misuse with opioids, even at recommended doses, the FDA will require a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) for Seglentis.
The label states that the drug should be initiated as two tablets every 12 hours as needed and should be prescribed for the shortest duration consistent with individual patient treatment goals.
Patients should be monitored for respiratory depression, especially within the first 24 to 72 hours of initiating therapy with Seglentis.
Prescribers should discuss naloxone (Narcan) with patients and consider prescribing the opioid antagonist naloxone based on the patient’s risk factors for overdose.
Full prescribing information is available online.
A version of this article was first published on Medscape.com.
enough to require an opioid analgesic and for which alternative treatments fail to provide adequate pain relief.
Celecoxib is a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug and tramadol is an opioid agonist. Seglentis contains 56 mg of celecoxib and 44 mg of tramadol.
“The unique co-crystal formulation of Seglentis provides effective pain relief via a multimodal approach,” Craig A. Sponseller, MD, chief medical officer of Kowa Pharmaceuticals America, said in a news release.
Esteve Pharmaceuticals has entered into an agreement with Kowa Pharmaceuticals America to commercialize the pain medicine in the United States, with a launch planned for early 2022.
“Seglentis uses four different and complementary mechanisms of analgesia and offers healthcare providers an important option to treat acute pain in adults that is severe enough to require opioid treatment and for which alternative treatments are inadequate,” Dr. Sponseller said.
Because of the risks of addiction, abuse, and misuse with opioids, even at recommended doses, the FDA will require a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) for Seglentis.
The label states that the drug should be initiated as two tablets every 12 hours as needed and should be prescribed for the shortest duration consistent with individual patient treatment goals.
Patients should be monitored for respiratory depression, especially within the first 24 to 72 hours of initiating therapy with Seglentis.
Prescribers should discuss naloxone (Narcan) with patients and consider prescribing the opioid antagonist naloxone based on the patient’s risk factors for overdose.
Full prescribing information is available online.
A version of this article was first published on Medscape.com.
Tramadol linked to higher risk of mortality, compared with codeine
Tramadol is increasingly used to manage chronic noncancer pain, but as compared with opioids, it appears to be linked to a higher risk for adverse outcomes, according to new data.
Among a cohort of patients who received a prescription for either tramadol or codeine for orthopedic-related pain, tramadol was significantly associated with a higher risk of mortality, cardiovascular events, and fractures.
However, there was no significant difference in the risk of falls, delirium, constipation, opioid abuse/dependence, or sleep disorders between the two drugs.
“However, this is a retrospective cohort study, and despite it providing information that would otherwise be impossible to gather – such as from randomized controlled trials – clinicians should not solely base their decision on this study,” cautioned lead author Carlen Reyes, MD, PhD, of the Institut Universitari d’Investigació en Atenció Primària (IDIAP Jordi Gol), Barcelona.
Dr. Reyes noted that the intake of tramadol and codeine was analyzed using the number of “packages” that were dispensed, as an approximation of the real intake. “Logically we could think that the more packages dispensed of one drug, the more dose the patient is taking, but this is not always true given the availability of different doses commercialized of tramadol and different doses prescribed,” she said. “Given that we did not account for the real dose prescribed, we can only suspect an increased risk of these outcomes and reinforce the need for further prospective studies with more specific dose-response analysis comparing tramadol and codeine.”
The paper was published Oct. 19 in JAMA.
Tramadol has been considered to be a relatively safe opioid and was even strongly recommended by the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons for patients experiencing symptomatic knee osteoarthritis. The authors point out that studies looking at opioid use from 2019 to 2020 show that tramadol was the most prescribed opioid in England, the Netherlands, and Spain.
In the United States, the age-adjusted rate of drug overdose deaths from synthetic opioids rose from 1.0 per 100 000 in 2013 to 11.4 in 2019. Most of these deaths were attributable to fentanyl but some were also related to tramadol.
But despite its wide use in managing chronic noncancer pain, results of recent studies suggest adverse outcomes as compared with other agents. Last year, one study found that older patients who received tramadol had a significant increase in the risk of hip fracture vs. those using NSAIDs or codeine. Another study, also published in 2020, showed that patients with osteoarthritis who were treated with tramadol had a 20%-50% higher risk of dying during the first year of treatment than did patients who were treated with NSAIDs.
In the current paper, Dr. Reyes and colleagues evaluated the association of tramadol with mortality and other adverse clinical outcomes in outpatient settings, compared with codeine.
They conducted a retrospective, population-based, propensity score–matched cohort study using a primary care database that routinely collects medical records and pharmacy dispensations for more than 80% of the population of Catalonia, Spain. The cohort included people 18 years or older who had been prescribed tramadol or codeine from 2007 to 2017 and were followed up to Dec. 31, 2017.
After propensity score matching, the final analysis included 368,960 participants: 184,480 in the tramadol arm and 184,480 in the codeine arm.
The mean age of patients was 52.7 years in the tramadol arm and 53.5 years in the codeine arm, and the prevalence of cancer was 3.2% and 3.3%, respectively. The most common diagnoses in this cohort were back pain (47.5% vs. 48.5%), neck/shoulder pain (28.6% vs. 29.5%), and osteoarthritis (15.3% vs. 15.5%). The most commonly used drugs were ibuprofen (34.4% vs. 34.3%) and paracetamol/acetaminophen (37.1% vs. 36.8%)
Higher risk of adverse outcomes
As compared with codeine, tramadol use was significantly associated with a higher risk of mortality (13.00 vs. 5.61 per 1,000 person-years; hazard ratio, 2.31; 95% confidence interval, 2.08-2.56); absolute rate differences (7.37 per 1,000 person-years; 95% CI, 6.09-8.78), cardiovascular events (10.03 vs. 8.67 per 1,000 person-years; HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.05-1.27; ARD, 1.36 per 1,000 person-years; 95% CI, 0.45-2.36), and fractures (12.26 vs. 8.13 per 1,000 person-years; HR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.37-1.65; ARD, 4.10 per 1,000 person-years; 95% CI, 3.02-5.29).
A subgroup and sensitivity analysis showed that the increased mortality risk associated with tramadol was significantly higher in younger persons vs. older ones (HR, 3.14; 95% CI, 1.82-5.41 vs. 2.39; 95% CI, 2.20-2.60]; P < .001 for interaction). In addition, women had a significantly greater risk of cardiovascular events versus men (HR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.19-1.46] vs. 1.03; 95% CI, 0.9-1.13]; P < .001 for interaction).
Potential for confounding
Weighing in on the data, Daniel Solomon, MD, MPH, chief of clinical sciences, division of rheumatology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and professor of medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, noted that because it is extremely unlikely that anyone will ever conduct a large, head-to-head safety trial comparing different opioids, the results of this paper are important to consider.
“However, as the authors appropriately caution, this type of analysis is limited by the strong potential for residual confounding,” he said. “In other words, even though the authors used state-of-the-art methods to limit imbalances between the patients initiating tramadol versus codeine, there is strong reason to believe that imbalances that may account for the differences in adverse events exist.”
For example, he noted that if one looks at the distribution of comorbid conditions in the before-matching group, tramadol initiators demonstrate a higher frequency of chronic kidney disease, diabetes, and overall chronic comorbid diseases. “This suggests to me that prescribers apply selection criteria when choosing who to prescribe which opioid,” Dr. Solomon explained.
“While the authors’ use of propensity score matching limits confounding, it only can improve balance for measured confounders,” he said. “Other factors not measured in this type of data set – blood pressure, pain, physical activity, tobacco use, body mass index – may still demonstrate imbalances even after matching.”
But after these limitations are taken into consideration, the results remain concerning, Dr. Solomon emphasized, particularly the all-cause mortality excess of tramadol versus codeine users. “This study did not include cause of death, which would help the reader understand why users of tramadol were dying more frequently,” he added. “It also might help in understanding whether this is a true biologic effect or residual confounding.”
Perceived safety
In an accompanying editorial, Howard S. Kim, MD, MS, and colleagues from Northwestern University, Chicago, write that the greatest risk of tramadol may involve the perception that it is “inherently safer than other opioids.”
“In actuality, the mechanisms of action and variable metabolism of tramadol in a given population create considerable therapeutic uncertainty and introduce additional risk exposure,” they say, as demonstrated in the current study.
Therefore, when clinicians determine that an opioid is needed for pain relief, it may be a better option to select a pure opioid agonist that has a more predictable therapeutic effect and known adverse effect profile, such as morphine or hydrocodone. “This would allow clinicians and patients to more properly weigh the risks and benefits of initiating opioid therapy through shared decision-making and prompt the level of counseling on safe use, storage, and disposal practices that all opioids deserve,” write the editorialists.
The study was funded by the Fundació Institut Universitari per a la recerca a l’Atenció Primària de Salut Jordi Gol i Gurina. The research was supported by the National Institute for Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research Centre. Dr. Reyes has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Solomon disclosed salary support from research contracts to his hospital from Amgen, AbbVie, Moderna, the Rheumatology Research Foundation, and National Institutes of Health; and royalties from UpToDate. Dr. Kim reported unrelated grant support from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Tramadol is increasingly used to manage chronic noncancer pain, but as compared with opioids, it appears to be linked to a higher risk for adverse outcomes, according to new data.
Among a cohort of patients who received a prescription for either tramadol or codeine for orthopedic-related pain, tramadol was significantly associated with a higher risk of mortality, cardiovascular events, and fractures.
However, there was no significant difference in the risk of falls, delirium, constipation, opioid abuse/dependence, or sleep disorders between the two drugs.
“However, this is a retrospective cohort study, and despite it providing information that would otherwise be impossible to gather – such as from randomized controlled trials – clinicians should not solely base their decision on this study,” cautioned lead author Carlen Reyes, MD, PhD, of the Institut Universitari d’Investigació en Atenció Primària (IDIAP Jordi Gol), Barcelona.
Dr. Reyes noted that the intake of tramadol and codeine was analyzed using the number of “packages” that were dispensed, as an approximation of the real intake. “Logically we could think that the more packages dispensed of one drug, the more dose the patient is taking, but this is not always true given the availability of different doses commercialized of tramadol and different doses prescribed,” she said. “Given that we did not account for the real dose prescribed, we can only suspect an increased risk of these outcomes and reinforce the need for further prospective studies with more specific dose-response analysis comparing tramadol and codeine.”
The paper was published Oct. 19 in JAMA.
Tramadol has been considered to be a relatively safe opioid and was even strongly recommended by the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons for patients experiencing symptomatic knee osteoarthritis. The authors point out that studies looking at opioid use from 2019 to 2020 show that tramadol was the most prescribed opioid in England, the Netherlands, and Spain.
In the United States, the age-adjusted rate of drug overdose deaths from synthetic opioids rose from 1.0 per 100 000 in 2013 to 11.4 in 2019. Most of these deaths were attributable to fentanyl but some were also related to tramadol.
But despite its wide use in managing chronic noncancer pain, results of recent studies suggest adverse outcomes as compared with other agents. Last year, one study found that older patients who received tramadol had a significant increase in the risk of hip fracture vs. those using NSAIDs or codeine. Another study, also published in 2020, showed that patients with osteoarthritis who were treated with tramadol had a 20%-50% higher risk of dying during the first year of treatment than did patients who were treated with NSAIDs.
In the current paper, Dr. Reyes and colleagues evaluated the association of tramadol with mortality and other adverse clinical outcomes in outpatient settings, compared with codeine.
They conducted a retrospective, population-based, propensity score–matched cohort study using a primary care database that routinely collects medical records and pharmacy dispensations for more than 80% of the population of Catalonia, Spain. The cohort included people 18 years or older who had been prescribed tramadol or codeine from 2007 to 2017 and were followed up to Dec. 31, 2017.
After propensity score matching, the final analysis included 368,960 participants: 184,480 in the tramadol arm and 184,480 in the codeine arm.
The mean age of patients was 52.7 years in the tramadol arm and 53.5 years in the codeine arm, and the prevalence of cancer was 3.2% and 3.3%, respectively. The most common diagnoses in this cohort were back pain (47.5% vs. 48.5%), neck/shoulder pain (28.6% vs. 29.5%), and osteoarthritis (15.3% vs. 15.5%). The most commonly used drugs were ibuprofen (34.4% vs. 34.3%) and paracetamol/acetaminophen (37.1% vs. 36.8%)
Higher risk of adverse outcomes
As compared with codeine, tramadol use was significantly associated with a higher risk of mortality (13.00 vs. 5.61 per 1,000 person-years; hazard ratio, 2.31; 95% confidence interval, 2.08-2.56); absolute rate differences (7.37 per 1,000 person-years; 95% CI, 6.09-8.78), cardiovascular events (10.03 vs. 8.67 per 1,000 person-years; HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.05-1.27; ARD, 1.36 per 1,000 person-years; 95% CI, 0.45-2.36), and fractures (12.26 vs. 8.13 per 1,000 person-years; HR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.37-1.65; ARD, 4.10 per 1,000 person-years; 95% CI, 3.02-5.29).
A subgroup and sensitivity analysis showed that the increased mortality risk associated with tramadol was significantly higher in younger persons vs. older ones (HR, 3.14; 95% CI, 1.82-5.41 vs. 2.39; 95% CI, 2.20-2.60]; P < .001 for interaction). In addition, women had a significantly greater risk of cardiovascular events versus men (HR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.19-1.46] vs. 1.03; 95% CI, 0.9-1.13]; P < .001 for interaction).
Potential for confounding
Weighing in on the data, Daniel Solomon, MD, MPH, chief of clinical sciences, division of rheumatology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and professor of medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, noted that because it is extremely unlikely that anyone will ever conduct a large, head-to-head safety trial comparing different opioids, the results of this paper are important to consider.
“However, as the authors appropriately caution, this type of analysis is limited by the strong potential for residual confounding,” he said. “In other words, even though the authors used state-of-the-art methods to limit imbalances between the patients initiating tramadol versus codeine, there is strong reason to believe that imbalances that may account for the differences in adverse events exist.”
For example, he noted that if one looks at the distribution of comorbid conditions in the before-matching group, tramadol initiators demonstrate a higher frequency of chronic kidney disease, diabetes, and overall chronic comorbid diseases. “This suggests to me that prescribers apply selection criteria when choosing who to prescribe which opioid,” Dr. Solomon explained.
“While the authors’ use of propensity score matching limits confounding, it only can improve balance for measured confounders,” he said. “Other factors not measured in this type of data set – blood pressure, pain, physical activity, tobacco use, body mass index – may still demonstrate imbalances even after matching.”
But after these limitations are taken into consideration, the results remain concerning, Dr. Solomon emphasized, particularly the all-cause mortality excess of tramadol versus codeine users. “This study did not include cause of death, which would help the reader understand why users of tramadol were dying more frequently,” he added. “It also might help in understanding whether this is a true biologic effect or residual confounding.”
Perceived safety
In an accompanying editorial, Howard S. Kim, MD, MS, and colleagues from Northwestern University, Chicago, write that the greatest risk of tramadol may involve the perception that it is “inherently safer than other opioids.”
“In actuality, the mechanisms of action and variable metabolism of tramadol in a given population create considerable therapeutic uncertainty and introduce additional risk exposure,” they say, as demonstrated in the current study.
Therefore, when clinicians determine that an opioid is needed for pain relief, it may be a better option to select a pure opioid agonist that has a more predictable therapeutic effect and known adverse effect profile, such as morphine or hydrocodone. “This would allow clinicians and patients to more properly weigh the risks and benefits of initiating opioid therapy through shared decision-making and prompt the level of counseling on safe use, storage, and disposal practices that all opioids deserve,” write the editorialists.
The study was funded by the Fundació Institut Universitari per a la recerca a l’Atenció Primària de Salut Jordi Gol i Gurina. The research was supported by the National Institute for Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research Centre. Dr. Reyes has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Solomon disclosed salary support from research contracts to his hospital from Amgen, AbbVie, Moderna, the Rheumatology Research Foundation, and National Institutes of Health; and royalties from UpToDate. Dr. Kim reported unrelated grant support from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Tramadol is increasingly used to manage chronic noncancer pain, but as compared with opioids, it appears to be linked to a higher risk for adverse outcomes, according to new data.
Among a cohort of patients who received a prescription for either tramadol or codeine for orthopedic-related pain, tramadol was significantly associated with a higher risk of mortality, cardiovascular events, and fractures.
However, there was no significant difference in the risk of falls, delirium, constipation, opioid abuse/dependence, or sleep disorders between the two drugs.
“However, this is a retrospective cohort study, and despite it providing information that would otherwise be impossible to gather – such as from randomized controlled trials – clinicians should not solely base their decision on this study,” cautioned lead author Carlen Reyes, MD, PhD, of the Institut Universitari d’Investigació en Atenció Primària (IDIAP Jordi Gol), Barcelona.
Dr. Reyes noted that the intake of tramadol and codeine was analyzed using the number of “packages” that were dispensed, as an approximation of the real intake. “Logically we could think that the more packages dispensed of one drug, the more dose the patient is taking, but this is not always true given the availability of different doses commercialized of tramadol and different doses prescribed,” she said. “Given that we did not account for the real dose prescribed, we can only suspect an increased risk of these outcomes and reinforce the need for further prospective studies with more specific dose-response analysis comparing tramadol and codeine.”
The paper was published Oct. 19 in JAMA.
Tramadol has been considered to be a relatively safe opioid and was even strongly recommended by the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons for patients experiencing symptomatic knee osteoarthritis. The authors point out that studies looking at opioid use from 2019 to 2020 show that tramadol was the most prescribed opioid in England, the Netherlands, and Spain.
In the United States, the age-adjusted rate of drug overdose deaths from synthetic opioids rose from 1.0 per 100 000 in 2013 to 11.4 in 2019. Most of these deaths were attributable to fentanyl but some were also related to tramadol.
But despite its wide use in managing chronic noncancer pain, results of recent studies suggest adverse outcomes as compared with other agents. Last year, one study found that older patients who received tramadol had a significant increase in the risk of hip fracture vs. those using NSAIDs or codeine. Another study, also published in 2020, showed that patients with osteoarthritis who were treated with tramadol had a 20%-50% higher risk of dying during the first year of treatment than did patients who were treated with NSAIDs.
In the current paper, Dr. Reyes and colleagues evaluated the association of tramadol with mortality and other adverse clinical outcomes in outpatient settings, compared with codeine.
They conducted a retrospective, population-based, propensity score–matched cohort study using a primary care database that routinely collects medical records and pharmacy dispensations for more than 80% of the population of Catalonia, Spain. The cohort included people 18 years or older who had been prescribed tramadol or codeine from 2007 to 2017 and were followed up to Dec. 31, 2017.
After propensity score matching, the final analysis included 368,960 participants: 184,480 in the tramadol arm and 184,480 in the codeine arm.
The mean age of patients was 52.7 years in the tramadol arm and 53.5 years in the codeine arm, and the prevalence of cancer was 3.2% and 3.3%, respectively. The most common diagnoses in this cohort were back pain (47.5% vs. 48.5%), neck/shoulder pain (28.6% vs. 29.5%), and osteoarthritis (15.3% vs. 15.5%). The most commonly used drugs were ibuprofen (34.4% vs. 34.3%) and paracetamol/acetaminophen (37.1% vs. 36.8%)
Higher risk of adverse outcomes
As compared with codeine, tramadol use was significantly associated with a higher risk of mortality (13.00 vs. 5.61 per 1,000 person-years; hazard ratio, 2.31; 95% confidence interval, 2.08-2.56); absolute rate differences (7.37 per 1,000 person-years; 95% CI, 6.09-8.78), cardiovascular events (10.03 vs. 8.67 per 1,000 person-years; HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.05-1.27; ARD, 1.36 per 1,000 person-years; 95% CI, 0.45-2.36), and fractures (12.26 vs. 8.13 per 1,000 person-years; HR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.37-1.65; ARD, 4.10 per 1,000 person-years; 95% CI, 3.02-5.29).
A subgroup and sensitivity analysis showed that the increased mortality risk associated with tramadol was significantly higher in younger persons vs. older ones (HR, 3.14; 95% CI, 1.82-5.41 vs. 2.39; 95% CI, 2.20-2.60]; P < .001 for interaction). In addition, women had a significantly greater risk of cardiovascular events versus men (HR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.19-1.46] vs. 1.03; 95% CI, 0.9-1.13]; P < .001 for interaction).
Potential for confounding
Weighing in on the data, Daniel Solomon, MD, MPH, chief of clinical sciences, division of rheumatology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and professor of medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, noted that because it is extremely unlikely that anyone will ever conduct a large, head-to-head safety trial comparing different opioids, the results of this paper are important to consider.
“However, as the authors appropriately caution, this type of analysis is limited by the strong potential for residual confounding,” he said. “In other words, even though the authors used state-of-the-art methods to limit imbalances between the patients initiating tramadol versus codeine, there is strong reason to believe that imbalances that may account for the differences in adverse events exist.”
For example, he noted that if one looks at the distribution of comorbid conditions in the before-matching group, tramadol initiators demonstrate a higher frequency of chronic kidney disease, diabetes, and overall chronic comorbid diseases. “This suggests to me that prescribers apply selection criteria when choosing who to prescribe which opioid,” Dr. Solomon explained.
“While the authors’ use of propensity score matching limits confounding, it only can improve balance for measured confounders,” he said. “Other factors not measured in this type of data set – blood pressure, pain, physical activity, tobacco use, body mass index – may still demonstrate imbalances even after matching.”
But after these limitations are taken into consideration, the results remain concerning, Dr. Solomon emphasized, particularly the all-cause mortality excess of tramadol versus codeine users. “This study did not include cause of death, which would help the reader understand why users of tramadol were dying more frequently,” he added. “It also might help in understanding whether this is a true biologic effect or residual confounding.”
Perceived safety
In an accompanying editorial, Howard S. Kim, MD, MS, and colleagues from Northwestern University, Chicago, write that the greatest risk of tramadol may involve the perception that it is “inherently safer than other opioids.”
“In actuality, the mechanisms of action and variable metabolism of tramadol in a given population create considerable therapeutic uncertainty and introduce additional risk exposure,” they say, as demonstrated in the current study.
Therefore, when clinicians determine that an opioid is needed for pain relief, it may be a better option to select a pure opioid agonist that has a more predictable therapeutic effect and known adverse effect profile, such as morphine or hydrocodone. “This would allow clinicians and patients to more properly weigh the risks and benefits of initiating opioid therapy through shared decision-making and prompt the level of counseling on safe use, storage, and disposal practices that all opioids deserve,” write the editorialists.
The study was funded by the Fundació Institut Universitari per a la recerca a l’Atenció Primària de Salut Jordi Gol i Gurina. The research was supported by the National Institute for Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research Centre. Dr. Reyes has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Solomon disclosed salary support from research contracts to his hospital from Amgen, AbbVie, Moderna, the Rheumatology Research Foundation, and National Institutes of Health; and royalties from UpToDate. Dr. Kim reported unrelated grant support from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Aspirin lowered preeclampsia risk in real-world lupus study
Women with systemic lupus erythematous (SLE) who are at risk for preeclampsia may benefit from timely treatment with low-dose aspirin and perhaps hydroxychloroquine, according to German researchers.
In a prospective, real-world study of 190 pregnancies in 148 women (average age, 30 years), the use of low-dose aspirin starting around the 16th week of gestation was associated with a lower risk for preeclampsia than was no aspirin use (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.21; P < .05).
The use of hydroxychloroquine starting in the first trimester had a “moderating effect,” said Isabell Haase, MD, a senior clinician scientist in the department of rheumatology at Hiller-Research Unit, Düsseldorf, Germany. Although this was not a statistically significant effect (aOR, 0.47; P = .21), the association strengthened if only high-risk pregnancies were considered (aOR, 0.28; P = .075).
“I think this once more shows us that counseling and risk assessment in our lupus patients is very important to find out those with the highest risk and treat them as good as possible,” Dr. Haase said at an international congress on systemic lupus erythematosus.
Preeclampsia and lupus
“Women with SLE face a high risk of preeclampsia because of their autoimmune disease,” Dr. Haase explained. “This [risk] can be further increased if a woman carries additional risk factors, like hypertension or lupus nephritis.”
Low-dose aspirin is known to protect against the development of preeclampsia in women without autoimmune disease if started before the 16th gestational week of pregnancy, Dr. Haase added. That is why it’s recommended by both the American College of Rheumatology and the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology.
“For hydroxychloroquine, we only have some small studies and its mechanism of action that lead us to the idea that it could also have a beneficial effect on preeclampsia in lupus patients,” she said.
Study design and results
The aim of the study was to see in a real-world cohort whether there was any beneficial effect of either aspirin or hydroxychloroquine regarding the development of preeclampsia.
The researchers used prospectively collected data from pregnancies seen at an outpatient pregnancy clinic during 1995-2019. They used multiple logistic regression to determine whether there was any effect of four treatments on the development of preeclampsia: aspirin (n = 39 patients) or hydroxychloroquine (n = 39) alone, in combination (n = 43), or neither drug (n = 69).
Overall, 56% of the women had significant risk factors for preeclampsia, including a prior history, multifetal gestation, chronic hypertension, lupus nephritis, or antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL). A further 28% had moderate risk factors, including not having had children, a body mass index >30 kg/m2, and being older than 35 years.
The overall rate of preeclampsia in the study population was 13.2%, “which is in line with other studies in lupus pregnancies,” Dr. Haase said. Rates in each of the four treatment groups were 15.4% with aspirin alone, 7.7% with hydroxychloroquine alone, 14% with both drugs, and 14.5% with neither.
The odds of developing preeclampsia were lower with both aspirin and hydroxychloroquine. Factors that raised the odds were high disease activity in the first trimester (aOR, 4.55), a BMI of >30 kg/m2 (aOR, 6.14), having high-risk aPL or antiphospholipid syndrome (aOR, 8.02), and a history of preeclampsia (aOR, 9.78).
Only high disease activity in the first trimester and BMI >30 kg/m2 remained independent predictors of preeclampsia when the researchers considered only high-risk pregnancies (aOR, 7.74 for high disease activity in first trimester and 10.04 for a high BMI).
The results are “really impressive,” said Angela Tincani, MD, senior consultant at the Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology Unit of ASST–Spedali Civili di Brescia, in Italy.
Dr. Tincani observed that the study had covered a “large number of years” (1995-2020).
“I think that our attitude in looking after lupus patients [changed] during this time,” she said.
“As an example, I think that we probably use less corticosteroids now than in the 90s,” she said.
When asked whether changes in practices have influenced the findings, she acknowledged, “You can see that the prescription of the different medications has changed a lot. We also thought that we have to take into account the years as a confounder, but we haven’t statistically analyzed that, but it’s definitely something that we are going to do next.”
The study received no outside funding. Dr. Haase has received travel fees from AbbVie, Celgene, Chugai, Janssen-Cilag, Eli Lilly, and Medac. Dr. Tincani has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Women with systemic lupus erythematous (SLE) who are at risk for preeclampsia may benefit from timely treatment with low-dose aspirin and perhaps hydroxychloroquine, according to German researchers.
In a prospective, real-world study of 190 pregnancies in 148 women (average age, 30 years), the use of low-dose aspirin starting around the 16th week of gestation was associated with a lower risk for preeclampsia than was no aspirin use (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.21; P < .05).
The use of hydroxychloroquine starting in the first trimester had a “moderating effect,” said Isabell Haase, MD, a senior clinician scientist in the department of rheumatology at Hiller-Research Unit, Düsseldorf, Germany. Although this was not a statistically significant effect (aOR, 0.47; P = .21), the association strengthened if only high-risk pregnancies were considered (aOR, 0.28; P = .075).
“I think this once more shows us that counseling and risk assessment in our lupus patients is very important to find out those with the highest risk and treat them as good as possible,” Dr. Haase said at an international congress on systemic lupus erythematosus.
Preeclampsia and lupus
“Women with SLE face a high risk of preeclampsia because of their autoimmune disease,” Dr. Haase explained. “This [risk] can be further increased if a woman carries additional risk factors, like hypertension or lupus nephritis.”
Low-dose aspirin is known to protect against the development of preeclampsia in women without autoimmune disease if started before the 16th gestational week of pregnancy, Dr. Haase added. That is why it’s recommended by both the American College of Rheumatology and the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology.
“For hydroxychloroquine, we only have some small studies and its mechanism of action that lead us to the idea that it could also have a beneficial effect on preeclampsia in lupus patients,” she said.
Study design and results
The aim of the study was to see in a real-world cohort whether there was any beneficial effect of either aspirin or hydroxychloroquine regarding the development of preeclampsia.
The researchers used prospectively collected data from pregnancies seen at an outpatient pregnancy clinic during 1995-2019. They used multiple logistic regression to determine whether there was any effect of four treatments on the development of preeclampsia: aspirin (n = 39 patients) or hydroxychloroquine (n = 39) alone, in combination (n = 43), or neither drug (n = 69).
Overall, 56% of the women had significant risk factors for preeclampsia, including a prior history, multifetal gestation, chronic hypertension, lupus nephritis, or antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL). A further 28% had moderate risk factors, including not having had children, a body mass index >30 kg/m2, and being older than 35 years.
The overall rate of preeclampsia in the study population was 13.2%, “which is in line with other studies in lupus pregnancies,” Dr. Haase said. Rates in each of the four treatment groups were 15.4% with aspirin alone, 7.7% with hydroxychloroquine alone, 14% with both drugs, and 14.5% with neither.
The odds of developing preeclampsia were lower with both aspirin and hydroxychloroquine. Factors that raised the odds were high disease activity in the first trimester (aOR, 4.55), a BMI of >30 kg/m2 (aOR, 6.14), having high-risk aPL or antiphospholipid syndrome (aOR, 8.02), and a history of preeclampsia (aOR, 9.78).
Only high disease activity in the first trimester and BMI >30 kg/m2 remained independent predictors of preeclampsia when the researchers considered only high-risk pregnancies (aOR, 7.74 for high disease activity in first trimester and 10.04 for a high BMI).
The results are “really impressive,” said Angela Tincani, MD, senior consultant at the Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology Unit of ASST–Spedali Civili di Brescia, in Italy.
Dr. Tincani observed that the study had covered a “large number of years” (1995-2020).
“I think that our attitude in looking after lupus patients [changed] during this time,” she said.
“As an example, I think that we probably use less corticosteroids now than in the 90s,” she said.
When asked whether changes in practices have influenced the findings, she acknowledged, “You can see that the prescription of the different medications has changed a lot. We also thought that we have to take into account the years as a confounder, but we haven’t statistically analyzed that, but it’s definitely something that we are going to do next.”
The study received no outside funding. Dr. Haase has received travel fees from AbbVie, Celgene, Chugai, Janssen-Cilag, Eli Lilly, and Medac. Dr. Tincani has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Women with systemic lupus erythematous (SLE) who are at risk for preeclampsia may benefit from timely treatment with low-dose aspirin and perhaps hydroxychloroquine, according to German researchers.
In a prospective, real-world study of 190 pregnancies in 148 women (average age, 30 years), the use of low-dose aspirin starting around the 16th week of gestation was associated with a lower risk for preeclampsia than was no aspirin use (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.21; P < .05).
The use of hydroxychloroquine starting in the first trimester had a “moderating effect,” said Isabell Haase, MD, a senior clinician scientist in the department of rheumatology at Hiller-Research Unit, Düsseldorf, Germany. Although this was not a statistically significant effect (aOR, 0.47; P = .21), the association strengthened if only high-risk pregnancies were considered (aOR, 0.28; P = .075).
“I think this once more shows us that counseling and risk assessment in our lupus patients is very important to find out those with the highest risk and treat them as good as possible,” Dr. Haase said at an international congress on systemic lupus erythematosus.
Preeclampsia and lupus
“Women with SLE face a high risk of preeclampsia because of their autoimmune disease,” Dr. Haase explained. “This [risk] can be further increased if a woman carries additional risk factors, like hypertension or lupus nephritis.”
Low-dose aspirin is known to protect against the development of preeclampsia in women without autoimmune disease if started before the 16th gestational week of pregnancy, Dr. Haase added. That is why it’s recommended by both the American College of Rheumatology and the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology.
“For hydroxychloroquine, we only have some small studies and its mechanism of action that lead us to the idea that it could also have a beneficial effect on preeclampsia in lupus patients,” she said.
Study design and results
The aim of the study was to see in a real-world cohort whether there was any beneficial effect of either aspirin or hydroxychloroquine regarding the development of preeclampsia.
The researchers used prospectively collected data from pregnancies seen at an outpatient pregnancy clinic during 1995-2019. They used multiple logistic regression to determine whether there was any effect of four treatments on the development of preeclampsia: aspirin (n = 39 patients) or hydroxychloroquine (n = 39) alone, in combination (n = 43), or neither drug (n = 69).
Overall, 56% of the women had significant risk factors for preeclampsia, including a prior history, multifetal gestation, chronic hypertension, lupus nephritis, or antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL). A further 28% had moderate risk factors, including not having had children, a body mass index >30 kg/m2, and being older than 35 years.
The overall rate of preeclampsia in the study population was 13.2%, “which is in line with other studies in lupus pregnancies,” Dr. Haase said. Rates in each of the four treatment groups were 15.4% with aspirin alone, 7.7% with hydroxychloroquine alone, 14% with both drugs, and 14.5% with neither.
The odds of developing preeclampsia were lower with both aspirin and hydroxychloroquine. Factors that raised the odds were high disease activity in the first trimester (aOR, 4.55), a BMI of >30 kg/m2 (aOR, 6.14), having high-risk aPL or antiphospholipid syndrome (aOR, 8.02), and a history of preeclampsia (aOR, 9.78).
Only high disease activity in the first trimester and BMI >30 kg/m2 remained independent predictors of preeclampsia when the researchers considered only high-risk pregnancies (aOR, 7.74 for high disease activity in first trimester and 10.04 for a high BMI).
The results are “really impressive,” said Angela Tincani, MD, senior consultant at the Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology Unit of ASST–Spedali Civili di Brescia, in Italy.
Dr. Tincani observed that the study had covered a “large number of years” (1995-2020).
“I think that our attitude in looking after lupus patients [changed] during this time,” she said.
“As an example, I think that we probably use less corticosteroids now than in the 90s,” she said.
When asked whether changes in practices have influenced the findings, she acknowledged, “You can see that the prescription of the different medications has changed a lot. We also thought that we have to take into account the years as a confounder, but we haven’t statistically analyzed that, but it’s definitely something that we are going to do next.”
The study received no outside funding. Dr. Haase has received travel fees from AbbVie, Celgene, Chugai, Janssen-Cilag, Eli Lilly, and Medac. Dr. Tincani has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM LUPUS 2021
Timeless stories
Let me tell you a story. In 5 billion years the sun will run out of hydrogen, the fuel it is currently burning to power my solar panels amongst other things. At that time, the sun will no longer be able to keep its core contracted and will expand into a fiery, red giant, engulfing earth and obliterating any sign that we ever existed. No buildings. No blog posts. No mausoleums. No stories. Nothing of us will remain.
Well, here for a moment anyway, I’ve gotten you to think about something other than COVID. You’re welcome.
Fascinatingly, the image in your mind’s eye right now of a barren scorched landscape was put there by me. Simply by placing a few words together I have caused new thoughts in your head. You might even share this story with someone else – I would have actually changed your behavior through the power of language. This miraculous phenomenon seems to be unique to us humans; we are the only ones who can create whole worlds in another individual’s head just by making a few sounds. We in medicine have the privilege of experiencing this miracle every day.
Last week, a 97-year-old pale, frail, white man saw me for a basal cell carcinoma on his cheek. While performing a simple electrodesiccation and curettage, I asked if he remembers getting a lot of sunburns when he was young. He certainly remembered one. On a blustery sunny day, he fell asleep for hours on the deck of the USS West Virginia while in the Philippines. As a radio man, he was exhausted from days of conflict and he recalled how warm breezes lulled him asleep. He was so sunburned that for days he forgot how afraid he was of the Japanese.
After listening to his story, I had an image in my mind of palm trees swaying in the tropical winds while hundreds of hulking gray castles sat hidden in the vast surrounding oceans awaiting one of the greatest naval conflicts in history. I got to hear it from surely one of the last remaining people in existence to be able to tell that story. Listening to a patient’s tales is one of the benefits of being a physician. Not only do they help bond us with our patients, but also help lessen our burden of having to make diagnosis after diagnosis and write note after note for hours on end. Somehow performing yet another biopsy that day is made just a bit easier if I’m also learning about what it was like at the Battle of Leyte Gulf.
Encouraging patients to talk more can be risky. No physician, not even allergists, can afford to be waylaid by a retiree with nothing else to do today. But meaningful encounters can not only be a vaccine against burnout, they also lead to better patient adherence and satisfaction. Sometimes, there is simply not time. But often there is a little window during a procedure or when you’re reasonably caught up and don’t expect delays ahead. And like every story, they literally transform us, the listener. In a true physical sense, their stories live on in me, and now that I’ve shared this one in writing, also with you for perpetuity. That is at least for the next 5 billion years when it, too, will be swallowed by the sun, leaving only a crispy, smoking rock where we once existed.
Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at [email protected].
Let me tell you a story. In 5 billion years the sun will run out of hydrogen, the fuel it is currently burning to power my solar panels amongst other things. At that time, the sun will no longer be able to keep its core contracted and will expand into a fiery, red giant, engulfing earth and obliterating any sign that we ever existed. No buildings. No blog posts. No mausoleums. No stories. Nothing of us will remain.
Well, here for a moment anyway, I’ve gotten you to think about something other than COVID. You’re welcome.
Fascinatingly, the image in your mind’s eye right now of a barren scorched landscape was put there by me. Simply by placing a few words together I have caused new thoughts in your head. You might even share this story with someone else – I would have actually changed your behavior through the power of language. This miraculous phenomenon seems to be unique to us humans; we are the only ones who can create whole worlds in another individual’s head just by making a few sounds. We in medicine have the privilege of experiencing this miracle every day.
Last week, a 97-year-old pale, frail, white man saw me for a basal cell carcinoma on his cheek. While performing a simple electrodesiccation and curettage, I asked if he remembers getting a lot of sunburns when he was young. He certainly remembered one. On a blustery sunny day, he fell asleep for hours on the deck of the USS West Virginia while in the Philippines. As a radio man, he was exhausted from days of conflict and he recalled how warm breezes lulled him asleep. He was so sunburned that for days he forgot how afraid he was of the Japanese.
After listening to his story, I had an image in my mind of palm trees swaying in the tropical winds while hundreds of hulking gray castles sat hidden in the vast surrounding oceans awaiting one of the greatest naval conflicts in history. I got to hear it from surely one of the last remaining people in existence to be able to tell that story. Listening to a patient’s tales is one of the benefits of being a physician. Not only do they help bond us with our patients, but also help lessen our burden of having to make diagnosis after diagnosis and write note after note for hours on end. Somehow performing yet another biopsy that day is made just a bit easier if I’m also learning about what it was like at the Battle of Leyte Gulf.
Encouraging patients to talk more can be risky. No physician, not even allergists, can afford to be waylaid by a retiree with nothing else to do today. But meaningful encounters can not only be a vaccine against burnout, they also lead to better patient adherence and satisfaction. Sometimes, there is simply not time. But often there is a little window during a procedure or when you’re reasonably caught up and don’t expect delays ahead. And like every story, they literally transform us, the listener. In a true physical sense, their stories live on in me, and now that I’ve shared this one in writing, also with you for perpetuity. That is at least for the next 5 billion years when it, too, will be swallowed by the sun, leaving only a crispy, smoking rock where we once existed.
Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at [email protected].
Let me tell you a story. In 5 billion years the sun will run out of hydrogen, the fuel it is currently burning to power my solar panels amongst other things. At that time, the sun will no longer be able to keep its core contracted and will expand into a fiery, red giant, engulfing earth and obliterating any sign that we ever existed. No buildings. No blog posts. No mausoleums. No stories. Nothing of us will remain.
Well, here for a moment anyway, I’ve gotten you to think about something other than COVID. You’re welcome.
Fascinatingly, the image in your mind’s eye right now of a barren scorched landscape was put there by me. Simply by placing a few words together I have caused new thoughts in your head. You might even share this story with someone else – I would have actually changed your behavior through the power of language. This miraculous phenomenon seems to be unique to us humans; we are the only ones who can create whole worlds in another individual’s head just by making a few sounds. We in medicine have the privilege of experiencing this miracle every day.
Last week, a 97-year-old pale, frail, white man saw me for a basal cell carcinoma on his cheek. While performing a simple electrodesiccation and curettage, I asked if he remembers getting a lot of sunburns when he was young. He certainly remembered one. On a blustery sunny day, he fell asleep for hours on the deck of the USS West Virginia while in the Philippines. As a radio man, he was exhausted from days of conflict and he recalled how warm breezes lulled him asleep. He was so sunburned that for days he forgot how afraid he was of the Japanese.
After listening to his story, I had an image in my mind of palm trees swaying in the tropical winds while hundreds of hulking gray castles sat hidden in the vast surrounding oceans awaiting one of the greatest naval conflicts in history. I got to hear it from surely one of the last remaining people in existence to be able to tell that story. Listening to a patient’s tales is one of the benefits of being a physician. Not only do they help bond us with our patients, but also help lessen our burden of having to make diagnosis after diagnosis and write note after note for hours on end. Somehow performing yet another biopsy that day is made just a bit easier if I’m also learning about what it was like at the Battle of Leyte Gulf.
Encouraging patients to talk more can be risky. No physician, not even allergists, can afford to be waylaid by a retiree with nothing else to do today. But meaningful encounters can not only be a vaccine against burnout, they also lead to better patient adherence and satisfaction. Sometimes, there is simply not time. But often there is a little window during a procedure or when you’re reasonably caught up and don’t expect delays ahead. And like every story, they literally transform us, the listener. In a true physical sense, their stories live on in me, and now that I’ve shared this one in writing, also with you for perpetuity. That is at least for the next 5 billion years when it, too, will be swallowed by the sun, leaving only a crispy, smoking rock where we once existed.
Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at [email protected].