User login
It’s all about the brains: Guilt placebos, transplants, and negative feelings
Guilt reduction, now in deceptive and open-secret forms
Guilt plagues a lot of us, sometimes regularly. Maybe you felt bad about eating the leftovers that your partner was looking forward to eating at the end of the day. Or for not saving a seat for your friend who was running late to the movies. Maybe even hiding a secret that you know would hurt a person’s feelings. We’ve all felt it, and it doesn’t feel good.
But what if there was a pill that would make those feelings seem to hurt less? There’s already a pill for almost everything, right?
Well, researchers from the University of Basel are on the case and have conducted a study suggesting that a placebo might work. They asked participants to write down a time they felt super guilty about something, just to stir up those feelings again, then they were divided into three groups. One group was told they would receive real medication that was actually a placebo, one was told they would get a placebo, and one got nothing. The subjects’ guilty feelings were reduced in both the medication-that-was-really-a-placebo group and placebo-that-was-a-placebo group.
“Our study therefore supports the intriguing finding that placebos work even when they are administered openly, and that explanation of the treatment is key to its effectiveness,” lead author Dilan Sezer said in a written statement.
More research is needed, but the human mind is a very interesting place. It seems like we can convince ourselves of just about anything. Especially to feel less guilty.
It’s a mad, mad, mad, mad scientist’s world
Mad scientists. Life’s just more interesting with a few of them running around, but they’re mostly relegated to works of fiction. Real life is boring; we don’t actually have neurosurgeons going around claiming human brain transplant is technically feasible.
Best of all, this isn’t even Dr. Sergio Canavero’s first rodeo with mad science: In 2015 he claimed human head transplants were technically feasible, and in the past few years has claimed to have rehearsed head transplants on cadavers and successfully repaired spinal cord injuries in animals. Lots of claims in there, but precious little evidence. And contrary to what everyone at the head enhancement clinic says, people will notice if you start going around with a new head.
But let’s get back to brains. Ignoring the fact that brain transplant sounds like a zombie with a PhD nibbling on your skull, the article does appear in a peer-reviewed journal. So surely there’s some level of legitimacy. After all, it’s not like Dr. Canavero is an editor for this journal. [Editor’s note: By that we mean he is an editor for the journal.]
Man, he’s taking all the fun out of this.
Anyway, now that we’ve prefaced this with the mother of all caveats, what exactly is Dr. Canavero proposing with his brain transplant? It’s pretty simple: Just have a robot scoop out the first brain and place it into a fresh body, either a donated but moribund younger body or a cloned body. Reconnect all the nerves and vasculature and you’re good to go. Enjoy your wine and laugh in the face of death.
Naturally, such a … bold proposal is lacking in the details, but who cares about details, anyway? This is mad science, not respectable science. Professionals have standards. And if we hear that a human brain transplant was successfully completed on a non–dark and stormy night and the doctor didn’t cackle madly “It’s alive! It’s alive!” then honestly, what even was the point?
Ambivalence rules!
As the office’s unofficial Sith lord/Star Wars nerd, LOTME takes notice when science extols the benefits of unhappiness: “It’s good to be grumpy: Bad moods make us more detail-oriented, study shows.”
The investigators manipulated the emotions of participants by having them watch a clip from “Sophie’s Choice” or one from “Friends.” Then the subjects listened to short, emotionally neutral stories, some of which contained inconsistencies, with the text displayed on a computer screen. Sorry to say, gang at Central Perk, but round one went to the sad movie.
“When people are in a negative mood, they are more careful and analytical. They scrutinize what’s actually stated in a text, and they don’t just fall back on their default world knowledge,” lead author Vicky Lai, PhD, of the University of Arizona said in a statement from the school.
Negative mood. Careful and analytical. Grumpy is good.
You’ve fallen into Darth Science’s little trap, and we have you now.
A study conducted at the University of Geneva offers a slightly different conclusion. And by slightly different, we mean completely different. People over age 65 who watched a series of short TV clips depicting people in a state of emotional suffering experienced excessive modification of their neuronal connections, compared with those who watched emotionally neutral videos.
The brains of these subjects remained “frozen in a negative state by relating the suffering of others to their own emotional memories,” lead author Sebastian Baez Lugo said in a written release from the university.
Emotional suffering. Frozen brains. Grumpy is … not good?
So there you have it. Darth Science’s lesson for the day: A negative mood makes you careful and analytical, but negative thoughts are bad for your brain.
Guilt reduction, now in deceptive and open-secret forms
Guilt plagues a lot of us, sometimes regularly. Maybe you felt bad about eating the leftovers that your partner was looking forward to eating at the end of the day. Or for not saving a seat for your friend who was running late to the movies. Maybe even hiding a secret that you know would hurt a person’s feelings. We’ve all felt it, and it doesn’t feel good.
But what if there was a pill that would make those feelings seem to hurt less? There’s already a pill for almost everything, right?
Well, researchers from the University of Basel are on the case and have conducted a study suggesting that a placebo might work. They asked participants to write down a time they felt super guilty about something, just to stir up those feelings again, then they were divided into three groups. One group was told they would receive real medication that was actually a placebo, one was told they would get a placebo, and one got nothing. The subjects’ guilty feelings were reduced in both the medication-that-was-really-a-placebo group and placebo-that-was-a-placebo group.
“Our study therefore supports the intriguing finding that placebos work even when they are administered openly, and that explanation of the treatment is key to its effectiveness,” lead author Dilan Sezer said in a written statement.
More research is needed, but the human mind is a very interesting place. It seems like we can convince ourselves of just about anything. Especially to feel less guilty.
It’s a mad, mad, mad, mad scientist’s world
Mad scientists. Life’s just more interesting with a few of them running around, but they’re mostly relegated to works of fiction. Real life is boring; we don’t actually have neurosurgeons going around claiming human brain transplant is technically feasible.
Best of all, this isn’t even Dr. Sergio Canavero’s first rodeo with mad science: In 2015 he claimed human head transplants were technically feasible, and in the past few years has claimed to have rehearsed head transplants on cadavers and successfully repaired spinal cord injuries in animals. Lots of claims in there, but precious little evidence. And contrary to what everyone at the head enhancement clinic says, people will notice if you start going around with a new head.
But let’s get back to brains. Ignoring the fact that brain transplant sounds like a zombie with a PhD nibbling on your skull, the article does appear in a peer-reviewed journal. So surely there’s some level of legitimacy. After all, it’s not like Dr. Canavero is an editor for this journal. [Editor’s note: By that we mean he is an editor for the journal.]
Man, he’s taking all the fun out of this.
Anyway, now that we’ve prefaced this with the mother of all caveats, what exactly is Dr. Canavero proposing with his brain transplant? It’s pretty simple: Just have a robot scoop out the first brain and place it into a fresh body, either a donated but moribund younger body or a cloned body. Reconnect all the nerves and vasculature and you’re good to go. Enjoy your wine and laugh in the face of death.
Naturally, such a … bold proposal is lacking in the details, but who cares about details, anyway? This is mad science, not respectable science. Professionals have standards. And if we hear that a human brain transplant was successfully completed on a non–dark and stormy night and the doctor didn’t cackle madly “It’s alive! It’s alive!” then honestly, what even was the point?
Ambivalence rules!
As the office’s unofficial Sith lord/Star Wars nerd, LOTME takes notice when science extols the benefits of unhappiness: “It’s good to be grumpy: Bad moods make us more detail-oriented, study shows.”
The investigators manipulated the emotions of participants by having them watch a clip from “Sophie’s Choice” or one from “Friends.” Then the subjects listened to short, emotionally neutral stories, some of which contained inconsistencies, with the text displayed on a computer screen. Sorry to say, gang at Central Perk, but round one went to the sad movie.
“When people are in a negative mood, they are more careful and analytical. They scrutinize what’s actually stated in a text, and they don’t just fall back on their default world knowledge,” lead author Vicky Lai, PhD, of the University of Arizona said in a statement from the school.
Negative mood. Careful and analytical. Grumpy is good.
You’ve fallen into Darth Science’s little trap, and we have you now.
A study conducted at the University of Geneva offers a slightly different conclusion. And by slightly different, we mean completely different. People over age 65 who watched a series of short TV clips depicting people in a state of emotional suffering experienced excessive modification of their neuronal connections, compared with those who watched emotionally neutral videos.
The brains of these subjects remained “frozen in a negative state by relating the suffering of others to their own emotional memories,” lead author Sebastian Baez Lugo said in a written release from the university.
Emotional suffering. Frozen brains. Grumpy is … not good?
So there you have it. Darth Science’s lesson for the day: A negative mood makes you careful and analytical, but negative thoughts are bad for your brain.
Guilt reduction, now in deceptive and open-secret forms
Guilt plagues a lot of us, sometimes regularly. Maybe you felt bad about eating the leftovers that your partner was looking forward to eating at the end of the day. Or for not saving a seat for your friend who was running late to the movies. Maybe even hiding a secret that you know would hurt a person’s feelings. We’ve all felt it, and it doesn’t feel good.
But what if there was a pill that would make those feelings seem to hurt less? There’s already a pill for almost everything, right?
Well, researchers from the University of Basel are on the case and have conducted a study suggesting that a placebo might work. They asked participants to write down a time they felt super guilty about something, just to stir up those feelings again, then they were divided into three groups. One group was told they would receive real medication that was actually a placebo, one was told they would get a placebo, and one got nothing. The subjects’ guilty feelings were reduced in both the medication-that-was-really-a-placebo group and placebo-that-was-a-placebo group.
“Our study therefore supports the intriguing finding that placebos work even when they are administered openly, and that explanation of the treatment is key to its effectiveness,” lead author Dilan Sezer said in a written statement.
More research is needed, but the human mind is a very interesting place. It seems like we can convince ourselves of just about anything. Especially to feel less guilty.
It’s a mad, mad, mad, mad scientist’s world
Mad scientists. Life’s just more interesting with a few of them running around, but they’re mostly relegated to works of fiction. Real life is boring; we don’t actually have neurosurgeons going around claiming human brain transplant is technically feasible.
Best of all, this isn’t even Dr. Sergio Canavero’s first rodeo with mad science: In 2015 he claimed human head transplants were technically feasible, and in the past few years has claimed to have rehearsed head transplants on cadavers and successfully repaired spinal cord injuries in animals. Lots of claims in there, but precious little evidence. And contrary to what everyone at the head enhancement clinic says, people will notice if you start going around with a new head.
But let’s get back to brains. Ignoring the fact that brain transplant sounds like a zombie with a PhD nibbling on your skull, the article does appear in a peer-reviewed journal. So surely there’s some level of legitimacy. After all, it’s not like Dr. Canavero is an editor for this journal. [Editor’s note: By that we mean he is an editor for the journal.]
Man, he’s taking all the fun out of this.
Anyway, now that we’ve prefaced this with the mother of all caveats, what exactly is Dr. Canavero proposing with his brain transplant? It’s pretty simple: Just have a robot scoop out the first brain and place it into a fresh body, either a donated but moribund younger body or a cloned body. Reconnect all the nerves and vasculature and you’re good to go. Enjoy your wine and laugh in the face of death.
Naturally, such a … bold proposal is lacking in the details, but who cares about details, anyway? This is mad science, not respectable science. Professionals have standards. And if we hear that a human brain transplant was successfully completed on a non–dark and stormy night and the doctor didn’t cackle madly “It’s alive! It’s alive!” then honestly, what even was the point?
Ambivalence rules!
As the office’s unofficial Sith lord/Star Wars nerd, LOTME takes notice when science extols the benefits of unhappiness: “It’s good to be grumpy: Bad moods make us more detail-oriented, study shows.”
The investigators manipulated the emotions of participants by having them watch a clip from “Sophie’s Choice” or one from “Friends.” Then the subjects listened to short, emotionally neutral stories, some of which contained inconsistencies, with the text displayed on a computer screen. Sorry to say, gang at Central Perk, but round one went to the sad movie.
“When people are in a negative mood, they are more careful and analytical. They scrutinize what’s actually stated in a text, and they don’t just fall back on their default world knowledge,” lead author Vicky Lai, PhD, of the University of Arizona said in a statement from the school.
Negative mood. Careful and analytical. Grumpy is good.
You’ve fallen into Darth Science’s little trap, and we have you now.
A study conducted at the University of Geneva offers a slightly different conclusion. And by slightly different, we mean completely different. People over age 65 who watched a series of short TV clips depicting people in a state of emotional suffering experienced excessive modification of their neuronal connections, compared with those who watched emotionally neutral videos.
The brains of these subjects remained “frozen in a negative state by relating the suffering of others to their own emotional memories,” lead author Sebastian Baez Lugo said in a written release from the university.
Emotional suffering. Frozen brains. Grumpy is … not good?
So there you have it. Darth Science’s lesson for the day: A negative mood makes you careful and analytical, but negative thoughts are bad for your brain.
Renowned stroke expert Ralph L. Sacco, MD, dies
Ralph L. Sacco, MD, the first neurologist to serve as president of the American Heart Association and the only physician to serve as president of both the AHA and the American Academy of Neurology, died Jan. 17 at the age of 65.
He died of a brain tumor at his home in Amagansett, N.Y., according to an obituary published in Neurology, Circulation, and Stroke.
“Ralph was one of a kind,” Nancy Brown, chief executive officer for the AHA and American Stroke Association, said in a statement. “His leadership was unparalleled, and his warm, generous heart and care transcended his research and clinic to every person fortunate to meet him and likely become a friend,” Ms. Brown said.
In a tweet, Natalia S. Rost, MD, professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School, Boston, called him, “a dear friend, an inspiring colleague, a generous mentor, an astute scientist, a consummate advocate for brain health worldwide.”
Dedicated to improving stroke care
Dr. Sacco was chair of the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine in the department of neurology; the Olemberg Family Chair in Neurological Disorders; professor of neurology, public health sciences, human genetics, and neurosurgery; executive director of the Evelyn F. McKnight Brain Institute; director and multi-principal investigator of the Miami Clinical and Translational Science Institute; and senior associate dean for clinical and translational science.
Dr. Sacco was a population-based researcher in the field of cerebrovascular diseases.
As founder of the Northern Manhattan Study, he paved the way for examining the differences in stroke risk related to race, ethnicity, sex, and neighborhood, and realizing the impact of modifiable lifestyle behaviors, such as alcohol consumption and physical activity, on stroke risk.
Dr. Sacco’s work led to more targeted stroke prevention programs and his “drive and dedication fueled changes that improved stroke research and fostered the development of targeted stroke care delivery, ultimately improving stroke recovery and post-stroke quality of life for many,” the AHA statement said.
Dr. Sacco was also founder and executive director of the Florida Stroke Registry, which consists of 167 Florida stroke centers. He was a member of the National Academy of Medicine.
In an obituary written by Orly Avitzur, MD, current president of the AAN, she notes that he “was the only physician to have become both the president of the AHA (2010-2011) and the AAN (2017-2019), positions that reflected the respect and admiration of professional colleagues earned over the years.”
During his tenure as AAN president, Dr. Sacco led an initiative to ensure that academic neurology, from department chairs to professors to students, knew about the abundance of academy resources available to them, the AAN noted in a statement.
Dr. Sacco was a “strong proponent of enlarging the neurology workforce through the academic pipeline and promoted the concept of the ‘newrologist’ to get people excited in careers in neurology, moving beyond just diagnosis and treatments to include interventions, preventative care, and the future of regenerative care,” the AAN said.
Dr. Sacco received numerous awards throughout his career, most recently the AHA 2022 Distinguished Scientist award. He also received the 2015 Gold Heart Award, the 2011 Distinguished National Leadership Award, and the 2006 William Feinberg Award.
In addition to his husband, Scott Dutcher, Dr. Sacco is survived by his father, Anthony P. Sacco, and his father’s wife, Rosemary; and his four siblings and their families, along with many nieces and nephews.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Ralph L. Sacco, MD, the first neurologist to serve as president of the American Heart Association and the only physician to serve as president of both the AHA and the American Academy of Neurology, died Jan. 17 at the age of 65.
He died of a brain tumor at his home in Amagansett, N.Y., according to an obituary published in Neurology, Circulation, and Stroke.
“Ralph was one of a kind,” Nancy Brown, chief executive officer for the AHA and American Stroke Association, said in a statement. “His leadership was unparalleled, and his warm, generous heart and care transcended his research and clinic to every person fortunate to meet him and likely become a friend,” Ms. Brown said.
In a tweet, Natalia S. Rost, MD, professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School, Boston, called him, “a dear friend, an inspiring colleague, a generous mentor, an astute scientist, a consummate advocate for brain health worldwide.”
Dedicated to improving stroke care
Dr. Sacco was chair of the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine in the department of neurology; the Olemberg Family Chair in Neurological Disorders; professor of neurology, public health sciences, human genetics, and neurosurgery; executive director of the Evelyn F. McKnight Brain Institute; director and multi-principal investigator of the Miami Clinical and Translational Science Institute; and senior associate dean for clinical and translational science.
Dr. Sacco was a population-based researcher in the field of cerebrovascular diseases.
As founder of the Northern Manhattan Study, he paved the way for examining the differences in stroke risk related to race, ethnicity, sex, and neighborhood, and realizing the impact of modifiable lifestyle behaviors, such as alcohol consumption and physical activity, on stroke risk.
Dr. Sacco’s work led to more targeted stroke prevention programs and his “drive and dedication fueled changes that improved stroke research and fostered the development of targeted stroke care delivery, ultimately improving stroke recovery and post-stroke quality of life for many,” the AHA statement said.
Dr. Sacco was also founder and executive director of the Florida Stroke Registry, which consists of 167 Florida stroke centers. He was a member of the National Academy of Medicine.
In an obituary written by Orly Avitzur, MD, current president of the AAN, she notes that he “was the only physician to have become both the president of the AHA (2010-2011) and the AAN (2017-2019), positions that reflected the respect and admiration of professional colleagues earned over the years.”
During his tenure as AAN president, Dr. Sacco led an initiative to ensure that academic neurology, from department chairs to professors to students, knew about the abundance of academy resources available to them, the AAN noted in a statement.
Dr. Sacco was a “strong proponent of enlarging the neurology workforce through the academic pipeline and promoted the concept of the ‘newrologist’ to get people excited in careers in neurology, moving beyond just diagnosis and treatments to include interventions, preventative care, and the future of regenerative care,” the AAN said.
Dr. Sacco received numerous awards throughout his career, most recently the AHA 2022 Distinguished Scientist award. He also received the 2015 Gold Heart Award, the 2011 Distinguished National Leadership Award, and the 2006 William Feinberg Award.
In addition to his husband, Scott Dutcher, Dr. Sacco is survived by his father, Anthony P. Sacco, and his father’s wife, Rosemary; and his four siblings and their families, along with many nieces and nephews.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Ralph L. Sacco, MD, the first neurologist to serve as president of the American Heart Association and the only physician to serve as president of both the AHA and the American Academy of Neurology, died Jan. 17 at the age of 65.
He died of a brain tumor at his home in Amagansett, N.Y., according to an obituary published in Neurology, Circulation, and Stroke.
“Ralph was one of a kind,” Nancy Brown, chief executive officer for the AHA and American Stroke Association, said in a statement. “His leadership was unparalleled, and his warm, generous heart and care transcended his research and clinic to every person fortunate to meet him and likely become a friend,” Ms. Brown said.
In a tweet, Natalia S. Rost, MD, professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School, Boston, called him, “a dear friend, an inspiring colleague, a generous mentor, an astute scientist, a consummate advocate for brain health worldwide.”
Dedicated to improving stroke care
Dr. Sacco was chair of the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine in the department of neurology; the Olemberg Family Chair in Neurological Disorders; professor of neurology, public health sciences, human genetics, and neurosurgery; executive director of the Evelyn F. McKnight Brain Institute; director and multi-principal investigator of the Miami Clinical and Translational Science Institute; and senior associate dean for clinical and translational science.
Dr. Sacco was a population-based researcher in the field of cerebrovascular diseases.
As founder of the Northern Manhattan Study, he paved the way for examining the differences in stroke risk related to race, ethnicity, sex, and neighborhood, and realizing the impact of modifiable lifestyle behaviors, such as alcohol consumption and physical activity, on stroke risk.
Dr. Sacco’s work led to more targeted stroke prevention programs and his “drive and dedication fueled changes that improved stroke research and fostered the development of targeted stroke care delivery, ultimately improving stroke recovery and post-stroke quality of life for many,” the AHA statement said.
Dr. Sacco was also founder and executive director of the Florida Stroke Registry, which consists of 167 Florida stroke centers. He was a member of the National Academy of Medicine.
In an obituary written by Orly Avitzur, MD, current president of the AAN, she notes that he “was the only physician to have become both the president of the AHA (2010-2011) and the AAN (2017-2019), positions that reflected the respect and admiration of professional colleagues earned over the years.”
During his tenure as AAN president, Dr. Sacco led an initiative to ensure that academic neurology, from department chairs to professors to students, knew about the abundance of academy resources available to them, the AAN noted in a statement.
Dr. Sacco was a “strong proponent of enlarging the neurology workforce through the academic pipeline and promoted the concept of the ‘newrologist’ to get people excited in careers in neurology, moving beyond just diagnosis and treatments to include interventions, preventative care, and the future of regenerative care,” the AAN said.
Dr. Sacco received numerous awards throughout his career, most recently the AHA 2022 Distinguished Scientist award. He also received the 2015 Gold Heart Award, the 2011 Distinguished National Leadership Award, and the 2006 William Feinberg Award.
In addition to his husband, Scott Dutcher, Dr. Sacco is survived by his father, Anthony P. Sacco, and his father’s wife, Rosemary; and his four siblings and their families, along with many nieces and nephews.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Adverse events reported in one-quarter of inpatient admissions
as indicated from data from 2,809 admissions at 11 hospitals.
The 1991 Harvard Medical Practice Study, which focused on medical injury and litigation, documented an adverse event rate of 3.7 events per 100 admissions; 28% of those events were attributed to negligence, write David W. Bates, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and colleagues.
Although patient safety has changed significantly since 1991, documenting improvements has been challenging, the researchers say. Several reports have shown a decrease in health care–associated infections. However, other aspects of safety – notably, adverse drug events, defined as injuries resulting from drugs taken – are not easily measured and tracked, the researchers say.
“We have not had good estimates of how much harm is being caused by care in hospitals in an ongoing way that looked across all types of adverse events,” and the current review is therefore important, Dr. Bates said in an interview.
In a study recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine, the researchers analyzed a random sample of 2,809 hospital admissions from 11 hospitals in Massachusetts during the 2018 calendar year. The hospitals ranged in size from fewer than 100 beds to more than 700 beds; all patients were aged 18 years and older. A panel of nine nurses reviewed the admissions records to identify potential adverse events, and eight physicians reviewed the adverse event summaries and either agreed or disagreed with the adverse event type. The severity of each event was ranked using a general severity scale into categories of significant, serious, life-threatening, or fatal.
Overall, at least one adverse event was identified in 23.6% of the hospital admissions. A total of 978 adverse events were deemed to have occurred during the index admission, and 222 of these (22.7%) were deemed preventable. Among the preventable adverse events, 19.7% were classified as serious, 3.3% as life-threatening, and 0.5% as fatal.
A total of 523 admissions (18.6%) involved at least one significant adverse event, defined as an event that caused unnecessary harm but from which recovery was rapid. A total of 211 admissions involved a serious adverse event, defined as harm resulting in substantial intervention or prolonged recovery; 34 included at least one life-threatening event; and seven admissions involved a fatal adverse event.
A total of 191 admissions involved at least one adverse event deemed preventable. Of those, 29 involved at least one preventable adverse event that was serious, life-threatening, or fatal, the researchers write. Of the seven deaths in the study population, one was deemed preventable.
The most common adverse events were adverse drug events, which accounted for 39.0% of the adverse events; surgical or other procedural events accounted for 30.4%; patient care events (including falls and pressure ulcers) accounted for 15.0%; and health care–associated infections accounted for 11.9%.
Overcoming barriers to better safety
“The overall level of harm, with nearly 1 in 4 patients suffering an adverse event, was higher than I expected it might be,” Dr. Bates told this news organization. However, techniques for identifying adverse events have improved, and “it is easier to find them in electronic records than in paper records,” he noted.
“Hospitals have many issues they are currently dealing with since COVID, and one issue is simply prioritization,” Dr. Bates said. “But it is now possible to measure harm for all patients using electronic tools, and if hospitals know how much harm they are having in specific areas, they can make choices about which ones to focus on.”
“We now have effective prevention strategies for most of the main kinds of harm,” he said. Generally, rates of harm are high because these strategies are not being used effectively, he said. “In addition, there are new tools that can be used – for example, to identify patients who are decompensating earlier,” he noted.
As for additional research, some specific types of harm that have been resistant to interventions, such as pressure ulcers, deserve more attention, said Dr. Bates. “In addition, diagnostic errors appear to cause a great deal of harm, but we don’t yet have good strategies for preventing these,” he said.
The study findings were limited by several factors, including the use of data from hospitals that might not represent hospitals at large and by the inclusion mainly of patients with private insurance, the researchers write. Other limitations include the likelihood that some adverse events were missed and the level of agreement on adverse events between adjudicators was only fair.
However, the findings serve as a reminder to health care professionals of the need for continued attention to improving patient safety, and measuring adverse events remains a critical part of guiding these improvements, the researchers conclude.
Timely reassessment and opportunities to improve
In the decades since the publication of the report, “To Err Is Human,” by the National Academies in 2000, significant attention has been paid to improving patient safety during hospitalizations, and health care systems have increased in both system and disease complexity, Said Suman Pal, MBBS, a specialist in hospital medicine at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, said in an interview. “Therefore, this study is important in reassessing the safety of inpatient care at the current time,” he said.
“The findings of this study showing preventable adverse events in approximately 7% of all admissions; while concerning, is not surprising, as it is consistent with other studies over time, as the authors have also noted in their discussion,” said Dr. Pal. The current findings “underscore the importance of continuous quality improvement efforts to increase the safety of patient care for hospitalized patients,” he noted.
“The increasing complexity of medical care, fragmentation of health care, structural inequities of health systems, and more recent widespread public health challenges such as the COVID-19 pandemic have been, in my opinion, barriers to improving patient safety,” Dr. Pal said. “The use of innovation and an interdisciplinary approach to patient safety and quality improvement in hospital-based care, such as the use of machine learning to monitor trends and predict the individualized risk of harm, could be a potential way out” to help reduce barriers and improve safety, he said.
“Additional research is needed to understand the key drivers of preventable harm for hospitalized patients in the United States,” said Dr. Pal. “When planning for change, keen attention must be paid to understanding how these [drivers] may differ for patients who have been historically marginalized or are otherwise underserved so as to not exacerbate health care inequities,” he added.
The study was funded by the Controlled Risk Insurance Company and the Risk Management Foundation of the Harvard Medical Institutions. Dr. Bates owns stock options with AESOP, Clew, FeelBetter, Guided Clinical Solutions, MDClone, and ValeraHealth and has grants/contracts from IBM Watson and EarlySense. He has also served as a consultant for CDI Negev. Dr. Pal has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
as indicated from data from 2,809 admissions at 11 hospitals.
The 1991 Harvard Medical Practice Study, which focused on medical injury and litigation, documented an adverse event rate of 3.7 events per 100 admissions; 28% of those events were attributed to negligence, write David W. Bates, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and colleagues.
Although patient safety has changed significantly since 1991, documenting improvements has been challenging, the researchers say. Several reports have shown a decrease in health care–associated infections. However, other aspects of safety – notably, adverse drug events, defined as injuries resulting from drugs taken – are not easily measured and tracked, the researchers say.
“We have not had good estimates of how much harm is being caused by care in hospitals in an ongoing way that looked across all types of adverse events,” and the current review is therefore important, Dr. Bates said in an interview.
In a study recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine, the researchers analyzed a random sample of 2,809 hospital admissions from 11 hospitals in Massachusetts during the 2018 calendar year. The hospitals ranged in size from fewer than 100 beds to more than 700 beds; all patients were aged 18 years and older. A panel of nine nurses reviewed the admissions records to identify potential adverse events, and eight physicians reviewed the adverse event summaries and either agreed or disagreed with the adverse event type. The severity of each event was ranked using a general severity scale into categories of significant, serious, life-threatening, or fatal.
Overall, at least one adverse event was identified in 23.6% of the hospital admissions. A total of 978 adverse events were deemed to have occurred during the index admission, and 222 of these (22.7%) were deemed preventable. Among the preventable adverse events, 19.7% were classified as serious, 3.3% as life-threatening, and 0.5% as fatal.
A total of 523 admissions (18.6%) involved at least one significant adverse event, defined as an event that caused unnecessary harm but from which recovery was rapid. A total of 211 admissions involved a serious adverse event, defined as harm resulting in substantial intervention or prolonged recovery; 34 included at least one life-threatening event; and seven admissions involved a fatal adverse event.
A total of 191 admissions involved at least one adverse event deemed preventable. Of those, 29 involved at least one preventable adverse event that was serious, life-threatening, or fatal, the researchers write. Of the seven deaths in the study population, one was deemed preventable.
The most common adverse events were adverse drug events, which accounted for 39.0% of the adverse events; surgical or other procedural events accounted for 30.4%; patient care events (including falls and pressure ulcers) accounted for 15.0%; and health care–associated infections accounted for 11.9%.
Overcoming barriers to better safety
“The overall level of harm, with nearly 1 in 4 patients suffering an adverse event, was higher than I expected it might be,” Dr. Bates told this news organization. However, techniques for identifying adverse events have improved, and “it is easier to find them in electronic records than in paper records,” he noted.
“Hospitals have many issues they are currently dealing with since COVID, and one issue is simply prioritization,” Dr. Bates said. “But it is now possible to measure harm for all patients using electronic tools, and if hospitals know how much harm they are having in specific areas, they can make choices about which ones to focus on.”
“We now have effective prevention strategies for most of the main kinds of harm,” he said. Generally, rates of harm are high because these strategies are not being used effectively, he said. “In addition, there are new tools that can be used – for example, to identify patients who are decompensating earlier,” he noted.
As for additional research, some specific types of harm that have been resistant to interventions, such as pressure ulcers, deserve more attention, said Dr. Bates. “In addition, diagnostic errors appear to cause a great deal of harm, but we don’t yet have good strategies for preventing these,” he said.
The study findings were limited by several factors, including the use of data from hospitals that might not represent hospitals at large and by the inclusion mainly of patients with private insurance, the researchers write. Other limitations include the likelihood that some adverse events were missed and the level of agreement on adverse events between adjudicators was only fair.
However, the findings serve as a reminder to health care professionals of the need for continued attention to improving patient safety, and measuring adverse events remains a critical part of guiding these improvements, the researchers conclude.
Timely reassessment and opportunities to improve
In the decades since the publication of the report, “To Err Is Human,” by the National Academies in 2000, significant attention has been paid to improving patient safety during hospitalizations, and health care systems have increased in both system and disease complexity, Said Suman Pal, MBBS, a specialist in hospital medicine at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, said in an interview. “Therefore, this study is important in reassessing the safety of inpatient care at the current time,” he said.
“The findings of this study showing preventable adverse events in approximately 7% of all admissions; while concerning, is not surprising, as it is consistent with other studies over time, as the authors have also noted in their discussion,” said Dr. Pal. The current findings “underscore the importance of continuous quality improvement efforts to increase the safety of patient care for hospitalized patients,” he noted.
“The increasing complexity of medical care, fragmentation of health care, structural inequities of health systems, and more recent widespread public health challenges such as the COVID-19 pandemic have been, in my opinion, barriers to improving patient safety,” Dr. Pal said. “The use of innovation and an interdisciplinary approach to patient safety and quality improvement in hospital-based care, such as the use of machine learning to monitor trends and predict the individualized risk of harm, could be a potential way out” to help reduce barriers and improve safety, he said.
“Additional research is needed to understand the key drivers of preventable harm for hospitalized patients in the United States,” said Dr. Pal. “When planning for change, keen attention must be paid to understanding how these [drivers] may differ for patients who have been historically marginalized or are otherwise underserved so as to not exacerbate health care inequities,” he added.
The study was funded by the Controlled Risk Insurance Company and the Risk Management Foundation of the Harvard Medical Institutions. Dr. Bates owns stock options with AESOP, Clew, FeelBetter, Guided Clinical Solutions, MDClone, and ValeraHealth and has grants/contracts from IBM Watson and EarlySense. He has also served as a consultant for CDI Negev. Dr. Pal has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
as indicated from data from 2,809 admissions at 11 hospitals.
The 1991 Harvard Medical Practice Study, which focused on medical injury and litigation, documented an adverse event rate of 3.7 events per 100 admissions; 28% of those events were attributed to negligence, write David W. Bates, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and colleagues.
Although patient safety has changed significantly since 1991, documenting improvements has been challenging, the researchers say. Several reports have shown a decrease in health care–associated infections. However, other aspects of safety – notably, adverse drug events, defined as injuries resulting from drugs taken – are not easily measured and tracked, the researchers say.
“We have not had good estimates of how much harm is being caused by care in hospitals in an ongoing way that looked across all types of adverse events,” and the current review is therefore important, Dr. Bates said in an interview.
In a study recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine, the researchers analyzed a random sample of 2,809 hospital admissions from 11 hospitals in Massachusetts during the 2018 calendar year. The hospitals ranged in size from fewer than 100 beds to more than 700 beds; all patients were aged 18 years and older. A panel of nine nurses reviewed the admissions records to identify potential adverse events, and eight physicians reviewed the adverse event summaries and either agreed or disagreed with the adverse event type. The severity of each event was ranked using a general severity scale into categories of significant, serious, life-threatening, or fatal.
Overall, at least one adverse event was identified in 23.6% of the hospital admissions. A total of 978 adverse events were deemed to have occurred during the index admission, and 222 of these (22.7%) were deemed preventable. Among the preventable adverse events, 19.7% were classified as serious, 3.3% as life-threatening, and 0.5% as fatal.
A total of 523 admissions (18.6%) involved at least one significant adverse event, defined as an event that caused unnecessary harm but from which recovery was rapid. A total of 211 admissions involved a serious adverse event, defined as harm resulting in substantial intervention or prolonged recovery; 34 included at least one life-threatening event; and seven admissions involved a fatal adverse event.
A total of 191 admissions involved at least one adverse event deemed preventable. Of those, 29 involved at least one preventable adverse event that was serious, life-threatening, or fatal, the researchers write. Of the seven deaths in the study population, one was deemed preventable.
The most common adverse events were adverse drug events, which accounted for 39.0% of the adverse events; surgical or other procedural events accounted for 30.4%; patient care events (including falls and pressure ulcers) accounted for 15.0%; and health care–associated infections accounted for 11.9%.
Overcoming barriers to better safety
“The overall level of harm, with nearly 1 in 4 patients suffering an adverse event, was higher than I expected it might be,” Dr. Bates told this news organization. However, techniques for identifying adverse events have improved, and “it is easier to find them in electronic records than in paper records,” he noted.
“Hospitals have many issues they are currently dealing with since COVID, and one issue is simply prioritization,” Dr. Bates said. “But it is now possible to measure harm for all patients using electronic tools, and if hospitals know how much harm they are having in specific areas, they can make choices about which ones to focus on.”
“We now have effective prevention strategies for most of the main kinds of harm,” he said. Generally, rates of harm are high because these strategies are not being used effectively, he said. “In addition, there are new tools that can be used – for example, to identify patients who are decompensating earlier,” he noted.
As for additional research, some specific types of harm that have been resistant to interventions, such as pressure ulcers, deserve more attention, said Dr. Bates. “In addition, diagnostic errors appear to cause a great deal of harm, but we don’t yet have good strategies for preventing these,” he said.
The study findings were limited by several factors, including the use of data from hospitals that might not represent hospitals at large and by the inclusion mainly of patients with private insurance, the researchers write. Other limitations include the likelihood that some adverse events were missed and the level of agreement on adverse events between adjudicators was only fair.
However, the findings serve as a reminder to health care professionals of the need for continued attention to improving patient safety, and measuring adverse events remains a critical part of guiding these improvements, the researchers conclude.
Timely reassessment and opportunities to improve
In the decades since the publication of the report, “To Err Is Human,” by the National Academies in 2000, significant attention has been paid to improving patient safety during hospitalizations, and health care systems have increased in both system and disease complexity, Said Suman Pal, MBBS, a specialist in hospital medicine at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, said in an interview. “Therefore, this study is important in reassessing the safety of inpatient care at the current time,” he said.
“The findings of this study showing preventable adverse events in approximately 7% of all admissions; while concerning, is not surprising, as it is consistent with other studies over time, as the authors have also noted in their discussion,” said Dr. Pal. The current findings “underscore the importance of continuous quality improvement efforts to increase the safety of patient care for hospitalized patients,” he noted.
“The increasing complexity of medical care, fragmentation of health care, structural inequities of health systems, and more recent widespread public health challenges such as the COVID-19 pandemic have been, in my opinion, barriers to improving patient safety,” Dr. Pal said. “The use of innovation and an interdisciplinary approach to patient safety and quality improvement in hospital-based care, such as the use of machine learning to monitor trends and predict the individualized risk of harm, could be a potential way out” to help reduce barriers and improve safety, he said.
“Additional research is needed to understand the key drivers of preventable harm for hospitalized patients in the United States,” said Dr. Pal. “When planning for change, keen attention must be paid to understanding how these [drivers] may differ for patients who have been historically marginalized or are otherwise underserved so as to not exacerbate health care inequities,” he added.
The study was funded by the Controlled Risk Insurance Company and the Risk Management Foundation of the Harvard Medical Institutions. Dr. Bates owns stock options with AESOP, Clew, FeelBetter, Guided Clinical Solutions, MDClone, and ValeraHealth and has grants/contracts from IBM Watson and EarlySense. He has also served as a consultant for CDI Negev. Dr. Pal has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE
HRT may prevent Alzheimer’s in high-risk women
new research suggests.
Results from a cohort study of almost 1,200 women showed that use of HRT was associated with higher delayed memory scores and larger entorhinal and hippocampal brain volumes – areas that are affected early by Alzheimer’s disease (AD) pathology.
HRT was also found to be most effective, as seen by larger hippocampal volume, when introduced during early perimenopause.
“Clinicians are very much aware of the susceptibility of women to cognitive disturbances during menopause,” lead author Rasha Saleh, MD, senior research associate, University of East Anglia (England), said in an interview.
“Identifying the at-risk APOE4 women and early HRT introduction can be of benefit. Confirming our findings in a clinical trial would be the next step forward,” Dr. Saleh said.
The findings were published online in Alzheimer’s Research and Therapy.
Personalized approaches
Dr. Saleh noted that estrogen receptors are localized in various areas of the brain, including cognition-related areas. Estrogen regulates such things as neuroinflammatory status, glucose utilization, and lipid metabolism.
“The decline of estrogen during menopause can lead to disturbance in these functions, which can accelerate AD-related pathology,” she said.
HRT during the menopausal transition and afterward is “being considered as a strategy to mitigate cognitive decline,” the investigators wrote. Early observational studies have suggested that oral estrogen “may be protective against dementia,” but results of clinical trials have been inconsistent, and some have even shown “harmful effects.”
The current researchers were “interested in the personalized approaches in the prevention of AD,” Dr. Saleh said. Preclinical and pilot data from her group have shown that women with APOE4 have “better cognitive test scores with nutritional and hormonal interventions.”
This led Dr. Saleh to hypothesize that HRT would be of more cognitive benefit for those with versus without APOE4, particularly when introduced early during the menopausal transition.
To investigate this hypothesis, the researchers analyzed baseline data from participants in the European Prevention of Alzheimer’s Dementia (EPAD) cohort. This project was initiated in 2015 with the aim of developing longitudinal models over the entire course of AD prior to dementia clinical diagnosis.
Participants were recruited from 10 European countries. All were required to be at least 50 years old, to have not been diagnosed with dementia at baseline, and to have no medical or psychiatric illness that could potentially exclude them from further research.
The current study included 1,178 women (mean age, 65.1 years), who were divided by genotype into non-APOE4 and APOE4 groups. HRT treatment for current or previous users included estrogen alone or estrogen plus progestogens via oral or transdermal administration routes, and at different doses.
The four tests used to assess cognition were the Mini-Mental State Examination dot counting to evaluate verbal working memory, the Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS) total score, the Four Mountain Test, and the supermarket trolley virtual reality test.
Brain MRI data were collected. The researchers focused on the medial temporal lobe as the “main brain region regulating cognition and memory processing.” This lobe includes the hippocampus, the parahippocampus, the entorhinal cortex, and the amygdala.
‘Critical window’
The researchers found a “trend” toward an APOE-HRT interaction (P-interaction = .097) for the total RBANS score. In particular, it was significant for the RBANS delayed memory index, where scores were consistently higher for women with APOE4 who had received HRT, compared with all other groups (P-interaction = .009).
Within-genotype group comparisons showed that HRT users had a higher RBANS total scale score and delayed memory index (P = .045 and P = .002, respectively), but only among APOE4 carriers. Effect size analyses showed a large effect of HRT use on the Four Mountain Test score and the supermarket trolley virtual reality test score (Cohen’s d = 0.988 and 1.2, respectively).
“This large effect was found only in APOE4 carriers,” the investigators noted.
Similarly, a moderate to large effect of HRT on the left entorhinal volume was observed in APOE4 carriers (Cohen’s d = 0.63).
In members of the APOE4 group who received HRT, the left entorhinal and left and right amygdala volumes were larger, compared with both no-APOE4 and non-HRT users (P-interaction = .002, .003, and .005, respectively). Similar trends were observed for the right entorhinal volume (P = .074).
In addition, among HRT users, the left entorhinal volume was larger (P = .03); the right and left anterior cingulate gyrus volumes were smaller (P = .003 and .062, respectively); and the left superior frontal gyrus volume was larger (P = .009) in comparison with women who did not receive HRT, independently of their APOE genotype.
Early use of HRT among APOE4 carriers was associated with larger right and left hippocampal volume (P = .035 and P = .028, respectively) – an association not found in non-APOE4 carriers. The association was also not significant when participants were not stratified by APOE genotype.
“The key important point here is the timing, or the ‘critical window,’ when HRT can be of most benefit,” Dr. Saleh said. “This is most beneficial when introduced early, before the neuropathology becomes irreversible.”
Study limitations include its cross-sectional design, which precludes the establishment of a causal relationship, and the fact that information regarding the type and dose of estrogen was not available for all participants.
HRT is not without risk, Dr. Saleh noted. She recommended that clinicians “carry out various screening tests to make sure that a woman is eligible for HRT and not at risk of hypercoagulability, for instance.”
Risk-benefit ratio
In a comment, Howard Fillit, MD, cofounder and chief science officer at the Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation, called the study “exactly the kind of work that needs to be done.”
Dr. Fillit, who was not involved with the current research, is a clinical professor of geriatric medicine, palliative care medicine, and neuroscience at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York.
He compared the process with that of osteoporosis. “We know that if women are treated [with HRT] at the time of the menopause, you can prevent the rapid bone loss that occurs with rapid estrogen loss. But if you wait 5, 10 years out, once the bone loss has occurred, the HRT doesn’t really have any impact on osteoporosis risk because the horse is already out of the barn,” he said.
Although HRT carries risks, “they can clearly be managed; and if it’s proven that estrogen or hormone replacement around the time of the menopause can be protective [against AD], the risk-benefit ratio of HRT could be in favor of treatment,” Dr. Fillit added.
The study was conducted as part of the Medical Research Council NuBrain Consortium. The investigators and Dr. Fillit reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
new research suggests.
Results from a cohort study of almost 1,200 women showed that use of HRT was associated with higher delayed memory scores and larger entorhinal and hippocampal brain volumes – areas that are affected early by Alzheimer’s disease (AD) pathology.
HRT was also found to be most effective, as seen by larger hippocampal volume, when introduced during early perimenopause.
“Clinicians are very much aware of the susceptibility of women to cognitive disturbances during menopause,” lead author Rasha Saleh, MD, senior research associate, University of East Anglia (England), said in an interview.
“Identifying the at-risk APOE4 women and early HRT introduction can be of benefit. Confirming our findings in a clinical trial would be the next step forward,” Dr. Saleh said.
The findings were published online in Alzheimer’s Research and Therapy.
Personalized approaches
Dr. Saleh noted that estrogen receptors are localized in various areas of the brain, including cognition-related areas. Estrogen regulates such things as neuroinflammatory status, glucose utilization, and lipid metabolism.
“The decline of estrogen during menopause can lead to disturbance in these functions, which can accelerate AD-related pathology,” she said.
HRT during the menopausal transition and afterward is “being considered as a strategy to mitigate cognitive decline,” the investigators wrote. Early observational studies have suggested that oral estrogen “may be protective against dementia,” but results of clinical trials have been inconsistent, and some have even shown “harmful effects.”
The current researchers were “interested in the personalized approaches in the prevention of AD,” Dr. Saleh said. Preclinical and pilot data from her group have shown that women with APOE4 have “better cognitive test scores with nutritional and hormonal interventions.”
This led Dr. Saleh to hypothesize that HRT would be of more cognitive benefit for those with versus without APOE4, particularly when introduced early during the menopausal transition.
To investigate this hypothesis, the researchers analyzed baseline data from participants in the European Prevention of Alzheimer’s Dementia (EPAD) cohort. This project was initiated in 2015 with the aim of developing longitudinal models over the entire course of AD prior to dementia clinical diagnosis.
Participants were recruited from 10 European countries. All were required to be at least 50 years old, to have not been diagnosed with dementia at baseline, and to have no medical or psychiatric illness that could potentially exclude them from further research.
The current study included 1,178 women (mean age, 65.1 years), who were divided by genotype into non-APOE4 and APOE4 groups. HRT treatment for current or previous users included estrogen alone or estrogen plus progestogens via oral or transdermal administration routes, and at different doses.
The four tests used to assess cognition were the Mini-Mental State Examination dot counting to evaluate verbal working memory, the Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS) total score, the Four Mountain Test, and the supermarket trolley virtual reality test.
Brain MRI data were collected. The researchers focused on the medial temporal lobe as the “main brain region regulating cognition and memory processing.” This lobe includes the hippocampus, the parahippocampus, the entorhinal cortex, and the amygdala.
‘Critical window’
The researchers found a “trend” toward an APOE-HRT interaction (P-interaction = .097) for the total RBANS score. In particular, it was significant for the RBANS delayed memory index, where scores were consistently higher for women with APOE4 who had received HRT, compared with all other groups (P-interaction = .009).
Within-genotype group comparisons showed that HRT users had a higher RBANS total scale score and delayed memory index (P = .045 and P = .002, respectively), but only among APOE4 carriers. Effect size analyses showed a large effect of HRT use on the Four Mountain Test score and the supermarket trolley virtual reality test score (Cohen’s d = 0.988 and 1.2, respectively).
“This large effect was found only in APOE4 carriers,” the investigators noted.
Similarly, a moderate to large effect of HRT on the left entorhinal volume was observed in APOE4 carriers (Cohen’s d = 0.63).
In members of the APOE4 group who received HRT, the left entorhinal and left and right amygdala volumes were larger, compared with both no-APOE4 and non-HRT users (P-interaction = .002, .003, and .005, respectively). Similar trends were observed for the right entorhinal volume (P = .074).
In addition, among HRT users, the left entorhinal volume was larger (P = .03); the right and left anterior cingulate gyrus volumes were smaller (P = .003 and .062, respectively); and the left superior frontal gyrus volume was larger (P = .009) in comparison with women who did not receive HRT, independently of their APOE genotype.
Early use of HRT among APOE4 carriers was associated with larger right and left hippocampal volume (P = .035 and P = .028, respectively) – an association not found in non-APOE4 carriers. The association was also not significant when participants were not stratified by APOE genotype.
“The key important point here is the timing, or the ‘critical window,’ when HRT can be of most benefit,” Dr. Saleh said. “This is most beneficial when introduced early, before the neuropathology becomes irreversible.”
Study limitations include its cross-sectional design, which precludes the establishment of a causal relationship, and the fact that information regarding the type and dose of estrogen was not available for all participants.
HRT is not without risk, Dr. Saleh noted. She recommended that clinicians “carry out various screening tests to make sure that a woman is eligible for HRT and not at risk of hypercoagulability, for instance.”
Risk-benefit ratio
In a comment, Howard Fillit, MD, cofounder and chief science officer at the Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation, called the study “exactly the kind of work that needs to be done.”
Dr. Fillit, who was not involved with the current research, is a clinical professor of geriatric medicine, palliative care medicine, and neuroscience at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York.
He compared the process with that of osteoporosis. “We know that if women are treated [with HRT] at the time of the menopause, you can prevent the rapid bone loss that occurs with rapid estrogen loss. But if you wait 5, 10 years out, once the bone loss has occurred, the HRT doesn’t really have any impact on osteoporosis risk because the horse is already out of the barn,” he said.
Although HRT carries risks, “they can clearly be managed; and if it’s proven that estrogen or hormone replacement around the time of the menopause can be protective [against AD], the risk-benefit ratio of HRT could be in favor of treatment,” Dr. Fillit added.
The study was conducted as part of the Medical Research Council NuBrain Consortium. The investigators and Dr. Fillit reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
new research suggests.
Results from a cohort study of almost 1,200 women showed that use of HRT was associated with higher delayed memory scores and larger entorhinal and hippocampal brain volumes – areas that are affected early by Alzheimer’s disease (AD) pathology.
HRT was also found to be most effective, as seen by larger hippocampal volume, when introduced during early perimenopause.
“Clinicians are very much aware of the susceptibility of women to cognitive disturbances during menopause,” lead author Rasha Saleh, MD, senior research associate, University of East Anglia (England), said in an interview.
“Identifying the at-risk APOE4 women and early HRT introduction can be of benefit. Confirming our findings in a clinical trial would be the next step forward,” Dr. Saleh said.
The findings were published online in Alzheimer’s Research and Therapy.
Personalized approaches
Dr. Saleh noted that estrogen receptors are localized in various areas of the brain, including cognition-related areas. Estrogen regulates such things as neuroinflammatory status, glucose utilization, and lipid metabolism.
“The decline of estrogen during menopause can lead to disturbance in these functions, which can accelerate AD-related pathology,” she said.
HRT during the menopausal transition and afterward is “being considered as a strategy to mitigate cognitive decline,” the investigators wrote. Early observational studies have suggested that oral estrogen “may be protective against dementia,” but results of clinical trials have been inconsistent, and some have even shown “harmful effects.”
The current researchers were “interested in the personalized approaches in the prevention of AD,” Dr. Saleh said. Preclinical and pilot data from her group have shown that women with APOE4 have “better cognitive test scores with nutritional and hormonal interventions.”
This led Dr. Saleh to hypothesize that HRT would be of more cognitive benefit for those with versus without APOE4, particularly when introduced early during the menopausal transition.
To investigate this hypothesis, the researchers analyzed baseline data from participants in the European Prevention of Alzheimer’s Dementia (EPAD) cohort. This project was initiated in 2015 with the aim of developing longitudinal models over the entire course of AD prior to dementia clinical diagnosis.
Participants were recruited from 10 European countries. All were required to be at least 50 years old, to have not been diagnosed with dementia at baseline, and to have no medical or psychiatric illness that could potentially exclude them from further research.
The current study included 1,178 women (mean age, 65.1 years), who were divided by genotype into non-APOE4 and APOE4 groups. HRT treatment for current or previous users included estrogen alone or estrogen plus progestogens via oral or transdermal administration routes, and at different doses.
The four tests used to assess cognition were the Mini-Mental State Examination dot counting to evaluate verbal working memory, the Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS) total score, the Four Mountain Test, and the supermarket trolley virtual reality test.
Brain MRI data were collected. The researchers focused on the medial temporal lobe as the “main brain region regulating cognition and memory processing.” This lobe includes the hippocampus, the parahippocampus, the entorhinal cortex, and the amygdala.
‘Critical window’
The researchers found a “trend” toward an APOE-HRT interaction (P-interaction = .097) for the total RBANS score. In particular, it was significant for the RBANS delayed memory index, where scores were consistently higher for women with APOE4 who had received HRT, compared with all other groups (P-interaction = .009).
Within-genotype group comparisons showed that HRT users had a higher RBANS total scale score and delayed memory index (P = .045 and P = .002, respectively), but only among APOE4 carriers. Effect size analyses showed a large effect of HRT use on the Four Mountain Test score and the supermarket trolley virtual reality test score (Cohen’s d = 0.988 and 1.2, respectively).
“This large effect was found only in APOE4 carriers,” the investigators noted.
Similarly, a moderate to large effect of HRT on the left entorhinal volume was observed in APOE4 carriers (Cohen’s d = 0.63).
In members of the APOE4 group who received HRT, the left entorhinal and left and right amygdala volumes were larger, compared with both no-APOE4 and non-HRT users (P-interaction = .002, .003, and .005, respectively). Similar trends were observed for the right entorhinal volume (P = .074).
In addition, among HRT users, the left entorhinal volume was larger (P = .03); the right and left anterior cingulate gyrus volumes were smaller (P = .003 and .062, respectively); and the left superior frontal gyrus volume was larger (P = .009) in comparison with women who did not receive HRT, independently of their APOE genotype.
Early use of HRT among APOE4 carriers was associated with larger right and left hippocampal volume (P = .035 and P = .028, respectively) – an association not found in non-APOE4 carriers. The association was also not significant when participants were not stratified by APOE genotype.
“The key important point here is the timing, or the ‘critical window,’ when HRT can be of most benefit,” Dr. Saleh said. “This is most beneficial when introduced early, before the neuropathology becomes irreversible.”
Study limitations include its cross-sectional design, which precludes the establishment of a causal relationship, and the fact that information regarding the type and dose of estrogen was not available for all participants.
HRT is not without risk, Dr. Saleh noted. She recommended that clinicians “carry out various screening tests to make sure that a woman is eligible for HRT and not at risk of hypercoagulability, for instance.”
Risk-benefit ratio
In a comment, Howard Fillit, MD, cofounder and chief science officer at the Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation, called the study “exactly the kind of work that needs to be done.”
Dr. Fillit, who was not involved with the current research, is a clinical professor of geriatric medicine, palliative care medicine, and neuroscience at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York.
He compared the process with that of osteoporosis. “We know that if women are treated [with HRT] at the time of the menopause, you can prevent the rapid bone loss that occurs with rapid estrogen loss. But if you wait 5, 10 years out, once the bone loss has occurred, the HRT doesn’t really have any impact on osteoporosis risk because the horse is already out of the barn,” he said.
Although HRT carries risks, “they can clearly be managed; and if it’s proven that estrogen or hormone replacement around the time of the menopause can be protective [against AD], the risk-benefit ratio of HRT could be in favor of treatment,” Dr. Fillit added.
The study was conducted as part of the Medical Research Council NuBrain Consortium. The investigators and Dr. Fillit reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ALZHEIMER’S RESEARCH AND THERAPY
Does obesity blunt effects of vitamin D supplementation?
compared with normal-weight individuals in a new analysis of a randomized trial.
“There seems to be something different happening with vitamin D metabolism at higher body weights, and this study may help explain diminished outcomes of supplementation for individuals with an elevated body mass index (BMI),” said first author Deirdre K. Tobias, ScD, an associate epidemiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital’s division of preventive medicine in Boston. She made the comments in a press statement issued with the study, published online in JAMA Network Open.
The findings are from a post hoc analysis of the large-scale Vitamin D and Omega-3 Trial (VITAL), which overall, showed no benefits among those randomized to 5 years of vitamin D supplementation (2,000 IU/day) versus placebo in terms of the primary endpoints of cancer or major cardiovascular disease outcomes.
However, prespecified secondary analyses according to body weight showed that those of normal weight (body mass index < 25.0 kg/m2) did have significant benefits from supplementation versus placebo in terms of cancer incidence (24% lower), cancer mortality (42% lower), and autoimmune disease (22% lower), while no corresponding benefits were observed among those who were overweight or had obesity.
The new analysis adds important context to the trial’s overall findings, noted Katherine N. Bachmann, MD, in an accompanying editorial.
“Thanks to its very large sample size and detailed biomarker analyses, the current study is able to provide novel evidence that responses to vitamin D supplementation may be attenuated in individuals with overweight and obesity, and that this may contribute to the differential outcomes by BMI noted in the original VITAL,” she wrote.
“Further studies are warranted to determine the optimal dose or circulating vitamin D level for individuals with obesity for nonskeletal health-related outcomes,” added Dr. Bachmann, division of diabetes, endocrinology, and metabolism at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn.
New analysis examined vitamin D and biomarkers at baseline and 2 years
To take a closer look at the specific changes in vitamin D serum and biomarker levels between the different body-weight groups, Dr. Tobias and colleagues evaluated data from 16,515 participants in the trial (of the 25,000 originally included in VITAL) and looked at changes in key vitamin D serum levels and biomarkers at baseline and follow-up.
Consistent with common observations of lower vitamin D levels with obesity, participants in the higher BMI categories had incrementally lower mean levels of serum total 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25-OHD) prior to randomization, with levels ranging from 32.3 ng/mL for normal weight individuals to 28.0 ng/mL for those with obesity class II (P < .001 for a linear trend).
Baseline levels of other vitamin D biomarkers were also lower with higher BMI, including total 25-OHD 3, free vitamin D (FVD), and bioavailable vitamin D (BioD).
Among 2,742 participants with repeated blood collections at year 2, significant mean increases were observed overall at the end of the study period in serum 25-OHD levels (11.9 ng/mL) among those randomized to vitamin D supplementation, compared with little change in the placebo group (–0.7 ng/mL).
There were also significant increases, overall, in mean total 25-OHD, 25-OHD3, FVD, and BioD levels at 2 years among those receiving supplementation, with little or no change in the placebo group.
When stratified by BMI level, however, the magnitude of increase was lower among those with higher baseline BMI (all treatment effect interactions P < .001). For instance, the mean increases in total 25-OHD level at 2 years for supplementation versus placebo were 13.5 ng/mL for those with a BMI less than 25.0 versus only 10.0 ng/mL for those with a BMI of at least 35.0.
Importantly, even after controlling for baseline vitamin D status of sufficiency or insufficiency, BMI was still significantly associated with changes seen with supplementation.
“It was surprising that, even in the context of low vitamin D levels, those with higher BMI still had a blunted response to supplementation, suggesting the interaction between supplementation and BMI with health outcomes is not simply due to higher prevalence of deficiency,” Dr. Tobias said in an interview. “It really does seem that, even with insufficient or low levels at baseline, those with higher BMI are not able to catch up to sufficient levels as well as those with normal BMI.”
Mechanisms?
Among leading theories as to why higher BMI would be associated with lower serum vitamin D levels and a lower response to supplementation is that because vitamin D is a fat-soluble vitamin, the increased adiposity and fat storage capacity with higher BMI results in greater removal of the vitamin from circulation.
“Our results are largely consistent with this hypothesis,” the authors noted.
They added that weight-loss studies, including those involving bariatric surgery, have further shown greater increases in serum 25-OHD or circulating vitamin D levels after weight loss compared with baseline.
Other theories suggest that obesity-induced hepatic dysfunction can contribute to impaired vitamin D metabolism.
Without a clear understanding of the exact mechanisms, the potential for addressing the lower vitamin D levels with, for instance, higher doses of supplementation among those with obesity, also remains unclear, Dr. Tobias noted.
“I think once there’s more clarity on what the mechanism is, then it would make sense to consider what doses could be necessary to achieve the internal levels desired,” she said.
The VITAL study received funding from a grant from the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health and other sources.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
compared with normal-weight individuals in a new analysis of a randomized trial.
“There seems to be something different happening with vitamin D metabolism at higher body weights, and this study may help explain diminished outcomes of supplementation for individuals with an elevated body mass index (BMI),” said first author Deirdre K. Tobias, ScD, an associate epidemiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital’s division of preventive medicine in Boston. She made the comments in a press statement issued with the study, published online in JAMA Network Open.
The findings are from a post hoc analysis of the large-scale Vitamin D and Omega-3 Trial (VITAL), which overall, showed no benefits among those randomized to 5 years of vitamin D supplementation (2,000 IU/day) versus placebo in terms of the primary endpoints of cancer or major cardiovascular disease outcomes.
However, prespecified secondary analyses according to body weight showed that those of normal weight (body mass index < 25.0 kg/m2) did have significant benefits from supplementation versus placebo in terms of cancer incidence (24% lower), cancer mortality (42% lower), and autoimmune disease (22% lower), while no corresponding benefits were observed among those who were overweight or had obesity.
The new analysis adds important context to the trial’s overall findings, noted Katherine N. Bachmann, MD, in an accompanying editorial.
“Thanks to its very large sample size and detailed biomarker analyses, the current study is able to provide novel evidence that responses to vitamin D supplementation may be attenuated in individuals with overweight and obesity, and that this may contribute to the differential outcomes by BMI noted in the original VITAL,” she wrote.
“Further studies are warranted to determine the optimal dose or circulating vitamin D level for individuals with obesity for nonskeletal health-related outcomes,” added Dr. Bachmann, division of diabetes, endocrinology, and metabolism at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn.
New analysis examined vitamin D and biomarkers at baseline and 2 years
To take a closer look at the specific changes in vitamin D serum and biomarker levels between the different body-weight groups, Dr. Tobias and colleagues evaluated data from 16,515 participants in the trial (of the 25,000 originally included in VITAL) and looked at changes in key vitamin D serum levels and biomarkers at baseline and follow-up.
Consistent with common observations of lower vitamin D levels with obesity, participants in the higher BMI categories had incrementally lower mean levels of serum total 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25-OHD) prior to randomization, with levels ranging from 32.3 ng/mL for normal weight individuals to 28.0 ng/mL for those with obesity class II (P < .001 for a linear trend).
Baseline levels of other vitamin D biomarkers were also lower with higher BMI, including total 25-OHD 3, free vitamin D (FVD), and bioavailable vitamin D (BioD).
Among 2,742 participants with repeated blood collections at year 2, significant mean increases were observed overall at the end of the study period in serum 25-OHD levels (11.9 ng/mL) among those randomized to vitamin D supplementation, compared with little change in the placebo group (–0.7 ng/mL).
There were also significant increases, overall, in mean total 25-OHD, 25-OHD3, FVD, and BioD levels at 2 years among those receiving supplementation, with little or no change in the placebo group.
When stratified by BMI level, however, the magnitude of increase was lower among those with higher baseline BMI (all treatment effect interactions P < .001). For instance, the mean increases in total 25-OHD level at 2 years for supplementation versus placebo were 13.5 ng/mL for those with a BMI less than 25.0 versus only 10.0 ng/mL for those with a BMI of at least 35.0.
Importantly, even after controlling for baseline vitamin D status of sufficiency or insufficiency, BMI was still significantly associated with changes seen with supplementation.
“It was surprising that, even in the context of low vitamin D levels, those with higher BMI still had a blunted response to supplementation, suggesting the interaction between supplementation and BMI with health outcomes is not simply due to higher prevalence of deficiency,” Dr. Tobias said in an interview. “It really does seem that, even with insufficient or low levels at baseline, those with higher BMI are not able to catch up to sufficient levels as well as those with normal BMI.”
Mechanisms?
Among leading theories as to why higher BMI would be associated with lower serum vitamin D levels and a lower response to supplementation is that because vitamin D is a fat-soluble vitamin, the increased adiposity and fat storage capacity with higher BMI results in greater removal of the vitamin from circulation.
“Our results are largely consistent with this hypothesis,” the authors noted.
They added that weight-loss studies, including those involving bariatric surgery, have further shown greater increases in serum 25-OHD or circulating vitamin D levels after weight loss compared with baseline.
Other theories suggest that obesity-induced hepatic dysfunction can contribute to impaired vitamin D metabolism.
Without a clear understanding of the exact mechanisms, the potential for addressing the lower vitamin D levels with, for instance, higher doses of supplementation among those with obesity, also remains unclear, Dr. Tobias noted.
“I think once there’s more clarity on what the mechanism is, then it would make sense to consider what doses could be necessary to achieve the internal levels desired,” she said.
The VITAL study received funding from a grant from the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health and other sources.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
compared with normal-weight individuals in a new analysis of a randomized trial.
“There seems to be something different happening with vitamin D metabolism at higher body weights, and this study may help explain diminished outcomes of supplementation for individuals with an elevated body mass index (BMI),” said first author Deirdre K. Tobias, ScD, an associate epidemiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital’s division of preventive medicine in Boston. She made the comments in a press statement issued with the study, published online in JAMA Network Open.
The findings are from a post hoc analysis of the large-scale Vitamin D and Omega-3 Trial (VITAL), which overall, showed no benefits among those randomized to 5 years of vitamin D supplementation (2,000 IU/day) versus placebo in terms of the primary endpoints of cancer or major cardiovascular disease outcomes.
However, prespecified secondary analyses according to body weight showed that those of normal weight (body mass index < 25.0 kg/m2) did have significant benefits from supplementation versus placebo in terms of cancer incidence (24% lower), cancer mortality (42% lower), and autoimmune disease (22% lower), while no corresponding benefits were observed among those who were overweight or had obesity.
The new analysis adds important context to the trial’s overall findings, noted Katherine N. Bachmann, MD, in an accompanying editorial.
“Thanks to its very large sample size and detailed biomarker analyses, the current study is able to provide novel evidence that responses to vitamin D supplementation may be attenuated in individuals with overweight and obesity, and that this may contribute to the differential outcomes by BMI noted in the original VITAL,” she wrote.
“Further studies are warranted to determine the optimal dose or circulating vitamin D level for individuals with obesity for nonskeletal health-related outcomes,” added Dr. Bachmann, division of diabetes, endocrinology, and metabolism at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn.
New analysis examined vitamin D and biomarkers at baseline and 2 years
To take a closer look at the specific changes in vitamin D serum and biomarker levels between the different body-weight groups, Dr. Tobias and colleagues evaluated data from 16,515 participants in the trial (of the 25,000 originally included in VITAL) and looked at changes in key vitamin D serum levels and biomarkers at baseline and follow-up.
Consistent with common observations of lower vitamin D levels with obesity, participants in the higher BMI categories had incrementally lower mean levels of serum total 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25-OHD) prior to randomization, with levels ranging from 32.3 ng/mL for normal weight individuals to 28.0 ng/mL for those with obesity class II (P < .001 for a linear trend).
Baseline levels of other vitamin D biomarkers were also lower with higher BMI, including total 25-OHD 3, free vitamin D (FVD), and bioavailable vitamin D (BioD).
Among 2,742 participants with repeated blood collections at year 2, significant mean increases were observed overall at the end of the study period in serum 25-OHD levels (11.9 ng/mL) among those randomized to vitamin D supplementation, compared with little change in the placebo group (–0.7 ng/mL).
There were also significant increases, overall, in mean total 25-OHD, 25-OHD3, FVD, and BioD levels at 2 years among those receiving supplementation, with little or no change in the placebo group.
When stratified by BMI level, however, the magnitude of increase was lower among those with higher baseline BMI (all treatment effect interactions P < .001). For instance, the mean increases in total 25-OHD level at 2 years for supplementation versus placebo were 13.5 ng/mL for those with a BMI less than 25.0 versus only 10.0 ng/mL for those with a BMI of at least 35.0.
Importantly, even after controlling for baseline vitamin D status of sufficiency or insufficiency, BMI was still significantly associated with changes seen with supplementation.
“It was surprising that, even in the context of low vitamin D levels, those with higher BMI still had a blunted response to supplementation, suggesting the interaction between supplementation and BMI with health outcomes is not simply due to higher prevalence of deficiency,” Dr. Tobias said in an interview. “It really does seem that, even with insufficient or low levels at baseline, those with higher BMI are not able to catch up to sufficient levels as well as those with normal BMI.”
Mechanisms?
Among leading theories as to why higher BMI would be associated with lower serum vitamin D levels and a lower response to supplementation is that because vitamin D is a fat-soluble vitamin, the increased adiposity and fat storage capacity with higher BMI results in greater removal of the vitamin from circulation.
“Our results are largely consistent with this hypothesis,” the authors noted.
They added that weight-loss studies, including those involving bariatric surgery, have further shown greater increases in serum 25-OHD or circulating vitamin D levels after weight loss compared with baseline.
Other theories suggest that obesity-induced hepatic dysfunction can contribute to impaired vitamin D metabolism.
Without a clear understanding of the exact mechanisms, the potential for addressing the lower vitamin D levels with, for instance, higher doses of supplementation among those with obesity, also remains unclear, Dr. Tobias noted.
“I think once there’s more clarity on what the mechanism is, then it would make sense to consider what doses could be necessary to achieve the internal levels desired,” she said.
The VITAL study received funding from a grant from the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health and other sources.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM JAMA NETWORK OPEN
Possible bivalent vaccine link to strokes in people over 65
who got the shot, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration said in a joint news release.
The release did not recommend people change their vaccine practices, saying the database finding probably did not represent a “true clinical risk.” The CDC said everybody, including people over 65, should stay up to date on their COVID vaccines, including the bivalent booster.
The news release said the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD), “a near real-time surveillance system,” raised a safety concern about the Pfizer/BioNTech booster.
“Rapid-response investigation of the signal in the VSD raised a question of whether people 65 and older who have received the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine, Bivalent were more likely to have an ischemic stroke in the 21 days following vaccination compared with days 22-44 following vaccination,” the news release said.
Ischemic strokes are blockages of blood to the brain, often caused by blood clots.
“Although the totality of the data currently suggests that it is very unlikely that the signal in VSD (Vaccine Safety Datalink) represents a true clinical risk, we believe it is important to share this information with the public, as we have in the past, when one of our safety monitoring systems detects a signal,” the release said.
No higher likelihood of strokes linked to the Pfizer bivalent vaccine had been found by Pfizer/BioNTech, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System maintained by the CDC and the FDA, or other agencies that monitor reactions of vaccines, the news release said. No safety issues about strokes have been identified with the Moderna bivalent vaccine.
CNN, citing a CDC official, reported that about 550,000 seniors who got Pfizer bivalent boosters were tracked by the VSD, and 130 of them had strokes within 3 weeks of getting the shot. None of those 130 people died, CNN said. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity because they weren’t authorized to share the data.
The issue will be discussed at the January meeting of the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee.
In a joint statement, Pfizer and BioNTech said: “Neither Pfizer and BioNTech nor the CDC or FDA have observed similar findings across numerous other monitoring systems in the U.S. and globally and there is no evidence to conclude that ischemic stroke is associated with the use of the companies’ COVID-19 vaccines.”
Bivalent boosters contain two strains of vaccine – one to protect against the original COVID-19 virus and another targeting Omicron subvariants.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
who got the shot, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration said in a joint news release.
The release did not recommend people change their vaccine practices, saying the database finding probably did not represent a “true clinical risk.” The CDC said everybody, including people over 65, should stay up to date on their COVID vaccines, including the bivalent booster.
The news release said the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD), “a near real-time surveillance system,” raised a safety concern about the Pfizer/BioNTech booster.
“Rapid-response investigation of the signal in the VSD raised a question of whether people 65 and older who have received the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine, Bivalent were more likely to have an ischemic stroke in the 21 days following vaccination compared with days 22-44 following vaccination,” the news release said.
Ischemic strokes are blockages of blood to the brain, often caused by blood clots.
“Although the totality of the data currently suggests that it is very unlikely that the signal in VSD (Vaccine Safety Datalink) represents a true clinical risk, we believe it is important to share this information with the public, as we have in the past, when one of our safety monitoring systems detects a signal,” the release said.
No higher likelihood of strokes linked to the Pfizer bivalent vaccine had been found by Pfizer/BioNTech, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System maintained by the CDC and the FDA, or other agencies that monitor reactions of vaccines, the news release said. No safety issues about strokes have been identified with the Moderna bivalent vaccine.
CNN, citing a CDC official, reported that about 550,000 seniors who got Pfizer bivalent boosters were tracked by the VSD, and 130 of them had strokes within 3 weeks of getting the shot. None of those 130 people died, CNN said. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity because they weren’t authorized to share the data.
The issue will be discussed at the January meeting of the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee.
In a joint statement, Pfizer and BioNTech said: “Neither Pfizer and BioNTech nor the CDC or FDA have observed similar findings across numerous other monitoring systems in the U.S. and globally and there is no evidence to conclude that ischemic stroke is associated with the use of the companies’ COVID-19 vaccines.”
Bivalent boosters contain two strains of vaccine – one to protect against the original COVID-19 virus and another targeting Omicron subvariants.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
who got the shot, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration said in a joint news release.
The release did not recommend people change their vaccine practices, saying the database finding probably did not represent a “true clinical risk.” The CDC said everybody, including people over 65, should stay up to date on their COVID vaccines, including the bivalent booster.
The news release said the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD), “a near real-time surveillance system,” raised a safety concern about the Pfizer/BioNTech booster.
“Rapid-response investigation of the signal in the VSD raised a question of whether people 65 and older who have received the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine, Bivalent were more likely to have an ischemic stroke in the 21 days following vaccination compared with days 22-44 following vaccination,” the news release said.
Ischemic strokes are blockages of blood to the brain, often caused by blood clots.
“Although the totality of the data currently suggests that it is very unlikely that the signal in VSD (Vaccine Safety Datalink) represents a true clinical risk, we believe it is important to share this information with the public, as we have in the past, when one of our safety monitoring systems detects a signal,” the release said.
No higher likelihood of strokes linked to the Pfizer bivalent vaccine had been found by Pfizer/BioNTech, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System maintained by the CDC and the FDA, or other agencies that monitor reactions of vaccines, the news release said. No safety issues about strokes have been identified with the Moderna bivalent vaccine.
CNN, citing a CDC official, reported that about 550,000 seniors who got Pfizer bivalent boosters were tracked by the VSD, and 130 of them had strokes within 3 weeks of getting the shot. None of those 130 people died, CNN said. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity because they weren’t authorized to share the data.
The issue will be discussed at the January meeting of the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee.
In a joint statement, Pfizer and BioNTech said: “Neither Pfizer and BioNTech nor the CDC or FDA have observed similar findings across numerous other monitoring systems in the U.S. and globally and there is no evidence to conclude that ischemic stroke is associated with the use of the companies’ COVID-19 vaccines.”
Bivalent boosters contain two strains of vaccine – one to protect against the original COVID-19 virus and another targeting Omicron subvariants.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Add this to the list of long COVID symptoms: Stigma
Most people with long COVID find they’re facing stigma due to their condition, according to a new report from researchers in the United Kingdom. In short: Relatives and friends may not believe they’re truly sick.
The U.K. team found that more than three-quarters of people studied had experienced stigma often or always.
In fact, 95% of people with long COVID faced at least one type of stigma at least sometimes, according to the study, published in November in the journal PLOS One.
Those conclusions had surprised the study’s lead researcher, Marija Pantelic, PhD, a public health lecturer at Brighton and Sussex Medical School, England.
“After years of working on HIV-related stigma, I was shocked to see how many people were turning a blind eye to and dismissing the difficulties experienced by people with long COVID,” Dr. Pantelic says. “It has also been clear to me from the start that this stigma is detrimental not just for people’s dignity, but also public health.”
Even some doctors argue that the growing attention paid to long COVID is excessive.
“It’s often normal to experience mild fatigue or weaknesses for weeks after being sick and inactive and not eating well. Calling these cases long COVID is the medicalization of modern life,” Marty Makary, MD, a surgeon and public policy researcher at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, wrote in a commentary in the Wall Street Journal.
Other doctors strongly disagree, including Alba Azola, MD, codirector of the Johns Hopkins Post-Acute COVID-19 Team and an expert in the stigma surrounding long COVID.
“Putting that spin on things, it’s just hurting people,” she says.
One example is people who cannot return to work.
“A lot of their family members tell me that they’re being lazy,” Dr. Azola says. “That’s part of the public stigma, that these are people just trying to get out of work.”
Some experts say the U.K. study represents a landmark.
“When you have data like this on long COVID stigma, it becomes more difficult to deny its existence or address it,” says Naomi Torres-Mackie, PhD, a clinical psychologist at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York. She also is head of research at the New York–based Mental Health Coalition, a group of experts working to end the stigma surrounding mental health.
She recalls her first patient with long COVID.
“She experienced the discomfort and pain itself, and then she had this crushing feeling that it wasn’t valid, or real. She felt very alone in it,” Dr. Torres-Mackie says.
Another one of her patients is working at her job from home but facing doubt about her condition from her employers.
“Every month, her medical doctor has to produce a letter confirming her medical condition,” Dr. Torres-Mackie says.
Taking part in the British stigma survey were 1,166 people, including 966 residents of the United Kingdom, with the average age of 48. Nearly 85% were female, and more than three-quarters were educated at the university level or higher.
Half of them said they had a clinical diagnosis of long COVID.
More than 60% of them said that at least some of the time, they were cautious about who they talked to about their condition. And fully 34% of those who did disclose their diagnosis said that they regretted having done so.
That’s a difficult experience for those with long COVID, says Leonard Jason, PhD, a professor of psychology at DePaul University in Chicago.
“It’s like they’re traumatized by the initial experience of being sick, and retraumatized by the response of others to them,” he says.
Unexplained illnesses are not well-regarded by the general public, Dr. Jason says.
He gave the example of multiple sclerosis. Before the 1980s, those with MS were considered to have a psychological illness, he says. “Then, in the 1980s, there were biomarkers that said, ‘Here’s the evidence.’ ”
The British study described three types of stigma stemming from the long COVID diagnosis of those questioned:
- Enacted stigma: People were directly treated unfairly because of their condition.
- Internalized stigma: People felt embarrassed by that condition.
- Anticipated stigma: People expected they would be treated poorly because of their diagnosis.
Dr. Azola calls the medical community a major problem when it comes to dealing with long COVID.
“What I see with my patients is medical trauma,” she says. They may have symptoms that send them to the emergency room, and then the tests come back negative. “Instead of tracking the patients’ symptoms, patients get told, ‘Everything looks good, you can go home, this is a panic attack,’ ” she says.
Some people go online to search for treatments, sometimes launching GoFundMe campaigns to raise money for unreliable treatments.
Long COVID patients may have gone through 5 to 10 doctors before they arrive for treatment with the Johns Hopkins Post-Acute COVID-19 Team. The clinic began in April 2020 remotely and in August of that year in person.
Today, the clinic staff spends an hour with a first-time long COVID patient, hearing their stories and helping relieve anxiety, Dr. Azola says.
The phenomenon of long COVID is similar to what patients have had with chronic fatigue syndrome, lupus, or fibromyalgia, where people have symptoms that are hard to explain, says Jennifer Chevinsky, MD, deputy public health officer for Riverside County, Calif.
“Stigma within medicine or health care is nothing new,” she says.
In Chicago, Dr. Jason notes that the federal government’s decision to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in long COVID research “shows the government is helping destigmatize it.”
Dr. Pantelic says she and her colleagues are continuing their research.
“We are interested in understanding the impacts of this stigma, and how to mitigate any adverse outcomes for patients and services,” she says.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Most people with long COVID find they’re facing stigma due to their condition, according to a new report from researchers in the United Kingdom. In short: Relatives and friends may not believe they’re truly sick.
The U.K. team found that more than three-quarters of people studied had experienced stigma often or always.
In fact, 95% of people with long COVID faced at least one type of stigma at least sometimes, according to the study, published in November in the journal PLOS One.
Those conclusions had surprised the study’s lead researcher, Marija Pantelic, PhD, a public health lecturer at Brighton and Sussex Medical School, England.
“After years of working on HIV-related stigma, I was shocked to see how many people were turning a blind eye to and dismissing the difficulties experienced by people with long COVID,” Dr. Pantelic says. “It has also been clear to me from the start that this stigma is detrimental not just for people’s dignity, but also public health.”
Even some doctors argue that the growing attention paid to long COVID is excessive.
“It’s often normal to experience mild fatigue or weaknesses for weeks after being sick and inactive and not eating well. Calling these cases long COVID is the medicalization of modern life,” Marty Makary, MD, a surgeon and public policy researcher at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, wrote in a commentary in the Wall Street Journal.
Other doctors strongly disagree, including Alba Azola, MD, codirector of the Johns Hopkins Post-Acute COVID-19 Team and an expert in the stigma surrounding long COVID.
“Putting that spin on things, it’s just hurting people,” she says.
One example is people who cannot return to work.
“A lot of their family members tell me that they’re being lazy,” Dr. Azola says. “That’s part of the public stigma, that these are people just trying to get out of work.”
Some experts say the U.K. study represents a landmark.
“When you have data like this on long COVID stigma, it becomes more difficult to deny its existence or address it,” says Naomi Torres-Mackie, PhD, a clinical psychologist at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York. She also is head of research at the New York–based Mental Health Coalition, a group of experts working to end the stigma surrounding mental health.
She recalls her first patient with long COVID.
“She experienced the discomfort and pain itself, and then she had this crushing feeling that it wasn’t valid, or real. She felt very alone in it,” Dr. Torres-Mackie says.
Another one of her patients is working at her job from home but facing doubt about her condition from her employers.
“Every month, her medical doctor has to produce a letter confirming her medical condition,” Dr. Torres-Mackie says.
Taking part in the British stigma survey were 1,166 people, including 966 residents of the United Kingdom, with the average age of 48. Nearly 85% were female, and more than three-quarters were educated at the university level or higher.
Half of them said they had a clinical diagnosis of long COVID.
More than 60% of them said that at least some of the time, they were cautious about who they talked to about their condition. And fully 34% of those who did disclose their diagnosis said that they regretted having done so.
That’s a difficult experience for those with long COVID, says Leonard Jason, PhD, a professor of psychology at DePaul University in Chicago.
“It’s like they’re traumatized by the initial experience of being sick, and retraumatized by the response of others to them,” he says.
Unexplained illnesses are not well-regarded by the general public, Dr. Jason says.
He gave the example of multiple sclerosis. Before the 1980s, those with MS were considered to have a psychological illness, he says. “Then, in the 1980s, there were biomarkers that said, ‘Here’s the evidence.’ ”
The British study described three types of stigma stemming from the long COVID diagnosis of those questioned:
- Enacted stigma: People were directly treated unfairly because of their condition.
- Internalized stigma: People felt embarrassed by that condition.
- Anticipated stigma: People expected they would be treated poorly because of their diagnosis.
Dr. Azola calls the medical community a major problem when it comes to dealing with long COVID.
“What I see with my patients is medical trauma,” she says. They may have symptoms that send them to the emergency room, and then the tests come back negative. “Instead of tracking the patients’ symptoms, patients get told, ‘Everything looks good, you can go home, this is a panic attack,’ ” she says.
Some people go online to search for treatments, sometimes launching GoFundMe campaigns to raise money for unreliable treatments.
Long COVID patients may have gone through 5 to 10 doctors before they arrive for treatment with the Johns Hopkins Post-Acute COVID-19 Team. The clinic began in April 2020 remotely and in August of that year in person.
Today, the clinic staff spends an hour with a first-time long COVID patient, hearing their stories and helping relieve anxiety, Dr. Azola says.
The phenomenon of long COVID is similar to what patients have had with chronic fatigue syndrome, lupus, or fibromyalgia, where people have symptoms that are hard to explain, says Jennifer Chevinsky, MD, deputy public health officer for Riverside County, Calif.
“Stigma within medicine or health care is nothing new,” she says.
In Chicago, Dr. Jason notes that the federal government’s decision to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in long COVID research “shows the government is helping destigmatize it.”
Dr. Pantelic says she and her colleagues are continuing their research.
“We are interested in understanding the impacts of this stigma, and how to mitigate any adverse outcomes for patients and services,” she says.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Most people with long COVID find they’re facing stigma due to their condition, according to a new report from researchers in the United Kingdom. In short: Relatives and friends may not believe they’re truly sick.
The U.K. team found that more than three-quarters of people studied had experienced stigma often or always.
In fact, 95% of people with long COVID faced at least one type of stigma at least sometimes, according to the study, published in November in the journal PLOS One.
Those conclusions had surprised the study’s lead researcher, Marija Pantelic, PhD, a public health lecturer at Brighton and Sussex Medical School, England.
“After years of working on HIV-related stigma, I was shocked to see how many people were turning a blind eye to and dismissing the difficulties experienced by people with long COVID,” Dr. Pantelic says. “It has also been clear to me from the start that this stigma is detrimental not just for people’s dignity, but also public health.”
Even some doctors argue that the growing attention paid to long COVID is excessive.
“It’s often normal to experience mild fatigue or weaknesses for weeks after being sick and inactive and not eating well. Calling these cases long COVID is the medicalization of modern life,” Marty Makary, MD, a surgeon and public policy researcher at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, wrote in a commentary in the Wall Street Journal.
Other doctors strongly disagree, including Alba Azola, MD, codirector of the Johns Hopkins Post-Acute COVID-19 Team and an expert in the stigma surrounding long COVID.
“Putting that spin on things, it’s just hurting people,” she says.
One example is people who cannot return to work.
“A lot of their family members tell me that they’re being lazy,” Dr. Azola says. “That’s part of the public stigma, that these are people just trying to get out of work.”
Some experts say the U.K. study represents a landmark.
“When you have data like this on long COVID stigma, it becomes more difficult to deny its existence or address it,” says Naomi Torres-Mackie, PhD, a clinical psychologist at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York. She also is head of research at the New York–based Mental Health Coalition, a group of experts working to end the stigma surrounding mental health.
She recalls her first patient with long COVID.
“She experienced the discomfort and pain itself, and then she had this crushing feeling that it wasn’t valid, or real. She felt very alone in it,” Dr. Torres-Mackie says.
Another one of her patients is working at her job from home but facing doubt about her condition from her employers.
“Every month, her medical doctor has to produce a letter confirming her medical condition,” Dr. Torres-Mackie says.
Taking part in the British stigma survey were 1,166 people, including 966 residents of the United Kingdom, with the average age of 48. Nearly 85% were female, and more than three-quarters were educated at the university level or higher.
Half of them said they had a clinical diagnosis of long COVID.
More than 60% of them said that at least some of the time, they were cautious about who they talked to about their condition. And fully 34% of those who did disclose their diagnosis said that they regretted having done so.
That’s a difficult experience for those with long COVID, says Leonard Jason, PhD, a professor of psychology at DePaul University in Chicago.
“It’s like they’re traumatized by the initial experience of being sick, and retraumatized by the response of others to them,” he says.
Unexplained illnesses are not well-regarded by the general public, Dr. Jason says.
He gave the example of multiple sclerosis. Before the 1980s, those with MS were considered to have a psychological illness, he says. “Then, in the 1980s, there were biomarkers that said, ‘Here’s the evidence.’ ”
The British study described three types of stigma stemming from the long COVID diagnosis of those questioned:
- Enacted stigma: People were directly treated unfairly because of their condition.
- Internalized stigma: People felt embarrassed by that condition.
- Anticipated stigma: People expected they would be treated poorly because of their diagnosis.
Dr. Azola calls the medical community a major problem when it comes to dealing with long COVID.
“What I see with my patients is medical trauma,” she says. They may have symptoms that send them to the emergency room, and then the tests come back negative. “Instead of tracking the patients’ symptoms, patients get told, ‘Everything looks good, you can go home, this is a panic attack,’ ” she says.
Some people go online to search for treatments, sometimes launching GoFundMe campaigns to raise money for unreliable treatments.
Long COVID patients may have gone through 5 to 10 doctors before they arrive for treatment with the Johns Hopkins Post-Acute COVID-19 Team. The clinic began in April 2020 remotely and in August of that year in person.
Today, the clinic staff spends an hour with a first-time long COVID patient, hearing their stories and helping relieve anxiety, Dr. Azola says.
The phenomenon of long COVID is similar to what patients have had with chronic fatigue syndrome, lupus, or fibromyalgia, where people have symptoms that are hard to explain, says Jennifer Chevinsky, MD, deputy public health officer for Riverside County, Calif.
“Stigma within medicine or health care is nothing new,” she says.
In Chicago, Dr. Jason notes that the federal government’s decision to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in long COVID research “shows the government is helping destigmatize it.”
Dr. Pantelic says she and her colleagues are continuing their research.
“We are interested in understanding the impacts of this stigma, and how to mitigate any adverse outcomes for patients and services,” she says.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
PLOS ONE
Can siRNA improve compliance in patients with hypertension?
Many approaches have been explored in recent years to make life easier for patients living with chronic conditions that require them to take daily medication: subcutaneous implantable devices, nanogels, and, more specifically in the case of hypertension, renal denervation or small interfering RNA (siRNA) with a long half-life.
It’s siRNA that Michel Azizi, MD, PhD, head of the blood pressure clinic at Georges Pompidou European Hospital (HEGP) in Paris, discussed at the International Meeting of the French Society of Hypertension.
These small molecules have already shown their worth in treating rare diseases such as transthyretin amyloidosis. More recently, treating hypercholesterolemia with the PCSK9 inhibitor inclisiran has proven effective. “One subcutaneous injection of inclisiran reduces LDL cholesterol by 50% for a period of 210 days,” said Dr. Azizi.
The benefit of a new therapeutic siRNA – zilebesiran, administered subcutaneously – in treating hypertension is currently the subject of a phase II clinical trial.
This is a double-stranded RNA. One of the strands is linked to a sugar, N-acetylgalactosamine (GalNAc), which protects these highly fragile siRNA and binds with a very strong affinity in the liver. The second strand binds to a specific area of the RNA to prevent synthesis of the precursor peptide of angiotensin, angiotensinogen. The resulting effect is suppression of the production of angiotensin I and II, which leads to a long-lasting lowering of blood pressure.
Lasting efficacy
Phase I studies with zilebesiran have demonstrated a long-term effect, with a reduction of greater than 90% in circulating angiotensinogen over 6 months after a single subcutaneous dose (800 mg). The peak in reduction of circulating angiotensinogen occurs after approximately 3 weeks.
“It’s extremely powerful,” said Dr. Azizi.
Lasting reductions in blood pressure have also been observed, with 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring showing a reduction in systolic BP of greater than 15 mm Hg 8 weeks after administration of a single dose of zilebesiran (800 mg).
Zilebesiran was also well tolerated, with only mild to moderate reactions at the site of the injection (n = 5/56) and no serious treatment-related adverse events, hypotension, or significant changes in kidney or liver function.
“In terms of benefits, the effect is ongoing. Zilebesiran leads to reduced medication use and causes less variability in blood pressure response. Nevertheless, interfering RNA acts slowly, meaning that zilebesiran would not be suitable for people presenting with a hypertensive crisis. The fact that it blocks the renin-angiotensin system [RAS] for a very long period of time also poses the question of how to reverse its hypotensive effects,” said Dr. Azizi.
Unanswered questions
The lasting RAS antagonist and blood pressure–lowering effects pose a potential safety problem in circumstances involving patients in a state of hypovolemia and hypotension who require rapid blood pressure–raising interventions to prevent morbidity and mortality.
In recent studies, Estrellita Uijl et al. have thus examined strategies to counteract the blood pressure–lowering effect of siRNA in spontaneously hypertensive rats.
Fludrocortisone and a high-salt diet were both successful in gradually increasing blood pressure, which returned to its baseline levels on days 5 and 7, respectively. Yet this rate of response would be wholly inadequate in an urgent clinical situation.
However, midodrine could not reduce blood pressure to normal levels, whether administered subcutaneously or orally.
A rapid and short-lasting increase in blood pressure was observed with bolus doses of vasopressors, but clinically, these would need to be administered intravenously to achieve a lasting effect. Such administration would require hospitalization, close monitoring, and the use of human resources and additional health care provisions.
Encouragingly, the laboratory that created this molecule, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, has come up with an antidote: Reversir. It is a GalNAc-conjugated, single-stranded, high-affinity oligonucleotide complementary to the zilebesiran strand that achieves effective reversal of siRNA activity in 24 hours.
In the future, after the phase 2 trials have been completed, whether or not zilebesiran reduces the incidence of cardiovascular events and mortality remains to be seen. But as for Dr. Azizi, the director of HEGP’s blood pressure clinic in Paris, he has no doubt that “this approach is about to shake up how we treat patients in the cardiovascular field.”
On the horizon
Zilebesiran is being studied in phase 2 trials in patients with mild to moderate hypertension not taking antihypertensive drugs (KARDIA-1: 375 patients; double-blind, placebo-controlled, five-arm trial; zilebesiran at 150, 300, and 600 mg twice per year and 300 mg once every 3 months) and in patients whose blood pressure is not controlled (KARDIA-2: 800 patients; initial open-label start-up period of 4 weeks with indapamide/amlodipine/olmesartan, followed by a double-blind, placebo-controlled study over 6 months, then an open-label extension study for up to 12 additional months; zilebesiran at 600 mg on the first day of the initial double-blind period, then every 6 months during the open-label extension period).
This article was translated from the Medscape French edition and a version appeared on Medscape.com.
Many approaches have been explored in recent years to make life easier for patients living with chronic conditions that require them to take daily medication: subcutaneous implantable devices, nanogels, and, more specifically in the case of hypertension, renal denervation or small interfering RNA (siRNA) with a long half-life.
It’s siRNA that Michel Azizi, MD, PhD, head of the blood pressure clinic at Georges Pompidou European Hospital (HEGP) in Paris, discussed at the International Meeting of the French Society of Hypertension.
These small molecules have already shown their worth in treating rare diseases such as transthyretin amyloidosis. More recently, treating hypercholesterolemia with the PCSK9 inhibitor inclisiran has proven effective. “One subcutaneous injection of inclisiran reduces LDL cholesterol by 50% for a period of 210 days,” said Dr. Azizi.
The benefit of a new therapeutic siRNA – zilebesiran, administered subcutaneously – in treating hypertension is currently the subject of a phase II clinical trial.
This is a double-stranded RNA. One of the strands is linked to a sugar, N-acetylgalactosamine (GalNAc), which protects these highly fragile siRNA and binds with a very strong affinity in the liver. The second strand binds to a specific area of the RNA to prevent synthesis of the precursor peptide of angiotensin, angiotensinogen. The resulting effect is suppression of the production of angiotensin I and II, which leads to a long-lasting lowering of blood pressure.
Lasting efficacy
Phase I studies with zilebesiran have demonstrated a long-term effect, with a reduction of greater than 90% in circulating angiotensinogen over 6 months after a single subcutaneous dose (800 mg). The peak in reduction of circulating angiotensinogen occurs after approximately 3 weeks.
“It’s extremely powerful,” said Dr. Azizi.
Lasting reductions in blood pressure have also been observed, with 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring showing a reduction in systolic BP of greater than 15 mm Hg 8 weeks after administration of a single dose of zilebesiran (800 mg).
Zilebesiran was also well tolerated, with only mild to moderate reactions at the site of the injection (n = 5/56) and no serious treatment-related adverse events, hypotension, or significant changes in kidney or liver function.
“In terms of benefits, the effect is ongoing. Zilebesiran leads to reduced medication use and causes less variability in blood pressure response. Nevertheless, interfering RNA acts slowly, meaning that zilebesiran would not be suitable for people presenting with a hypertensive crisis. The fact that it blocks the renin-angiotensin system [RAS] for a very long period of time also poses the question of how to reverse its hypotensive effects,” said Dr. Azizi.
Unanswered questions
The lasting RAS antagonist and blood pressure–lowering effects pose a potential safety problem in circumstances involving patients in a state of hypovolemia and hypotension who require rapid blood pressure–raising interventions to prevent morbidity and mortality.
In recent studies, Estrellita Uijl et al. have thus examined strategies to counteract the blood pressure–lowering effect of siRNA in spontaneously hypertensive rats.
Fludrocortisone and a high-salt diet were both successful in gradually increasing blood pressure, which returned to its baseline levels on days 5 and 7, respectively. Yet this rate of response would be wholly inadequate in an urgent clinical situation.
However, midodrine could not reduce blood pressure to normal levels, whether administered subcutaneously or orally.
A rapid and short-lasting increase in blood pressure was observed with bolus doses of vasopressors, but clinically, these would need to be administered intravenously to achieve a lasting effect. Such administration would require hospitalization, close monitoring, and the use of human resources and additional health care provisions.
Encouragingly, the laboratory that created this molecule, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, has come up with an antidote: Reversir. It is a GalNAc-conjugated, single-stranded, high-affinity oligonucleotide complementary to the zilebesiran strand that achieves effective reversal of siRNA activity in 24 hours.
In the future, after the phase 2 trials have been completed, whether or not zilebesiran reduces the incidence of cardiovascular events and mortality remains to be seen. But as for Dr. Azizi, the director of HEGP’s blood pressure clinic in Paris, he has no doubt that “this approach is about to shake up how we treat patients in the cardiovascular field.”
On the horizon
Zilebesiran is being studied in phase 2 trials in patients with mild to moderate hypertension not taking antihypertensive drugs (KARDIA-1: 375 patients; double-blind, placebo-controlled, five-arm trial; zilebesiran at 150, 300, and 600 mg twice per year and 300 mg once every 3 months) and in patients whose blood pressure is not controlled (KARDIA-2: 800 patients; initial open-label start-up period of 4 weeks with indapamide/amlodipine/olmesartan, followed by a double-blind, placebo-controlled study over 6 months, then an open-label extension study for up to 12 additional months; zilebesiran at 600 mg on the first day of the initial double-blind period, then every 6 months during the open-label extension period).
This article was translated from the Medscape French edition and a version appeared on Medscape.com.
Many approaches have been explored in recent years to make life easier for patients living with chronic conditions that require them to take daily medication: subcutaneous implantable devices, nanogels, and, more specifically in the case of hypertension, renal denervation or small interfering RNA (siRNA) with a long half-life.
It’s siRNA that Michel Azizi, MD, PhD, head of the blood pressure clinic at Georges Pompidou European Hospital (HEGP) in Paris, discussed at the International Meeting of the French Society of Hypertension.
These small molecules have already shown their worth in treating rare diseases such as transthyretin amyloidosis. More recently, treating hypercholesterolemia with the PCSK9 inhibitor inclisiran has proven effective. “One subcutaneous injection of inclisiran reduces LDL cholesterol by 50% for a period of 210 days,” said Dr. Azizi.
The benefit of a new therapeutic siRNA – zilebesiran, administered subcutaneously – in treating hypertension is currently the subject of a phase II clinical trial.
This is a double-stranded RNA. One of the strands is linked to a sugar, N-acetylgalactosamine (GalNAc), which protects these highly fragile siRNA and binds with a very strong affinity in the liver. The second strand binds to a specific area of the RNA to prevent synthesis of the precursor peptide of angiotensin, angiotensinogen. The resulting effect is suppression of the production of angiotensin I and II, which leads to a long-lasting lowering of blood pressure.
Lasting efficacy
Phase I studies with zilebesiran have demonstrated a long-term effect, with a reduction of greater than 90% in circulating angiotensinogen over 6 months after a single subcutaneous dose (800 mg). The peak in reduction of circulating angiotensinogen occurs after approximately 3 weeks.
“It’s extremely powerful,” said Dr. Azizi.
Lasting reductions in blood pressure have also been observed, with 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring showing a reduction in systolic BP of greater than 15 mm Hg 8 weeks after administration of a single dose of zilebesiran (800 mg).
Zilebesiran was also well tolerated, with only mild to moderate reactions at the site of the injection (n = 5/56) and no serious treatment-related adverse events, hypotension, or significant changes in kidney or liver function.
“In terms of benefits, the effect is ongoing. Zilebesiran leads to reduced medication use and causes less variability in blood pressure response. Nevertheless, interfering RNA acts slowly, meaning that zilebesiran would not be suitable for people presenting with a hypertensive crisis. The fact that it blocks the renin-angiotensin system [RAS] for a very long period of time also poses the question of how to reverse its hypotensive effects,” said Dr. Azizi.
Unanswered questions
The lasting RAS antagonist and blood pressure–lowering effects pose a potential safety problem in circumstances involving patients in a state of hypovolemia and hypotension who require rapid blood pressure–raising interventions to prevent morbidity and mortality.
In recent studies, Estrellita Uijl et al. have thus examined strategies to counteract the blood pressure–lowering effect of siRNA in spontaneously hypertensive rats.
Fludrocortisone and a high-salt diet were both successful in gradually increasing blood pressure, which returned to its baseline levels on days 5 and 7, respectively. Yet this rate of response would be wholly inadequate in an urgent clinical situation.
However, midodrine could not reduce blood pressure to normal levels, whether administered subcutaneously or orally.
A rapid and short-lasting increase in blood pressure was observed with bolus doses of vasopressors, but clinically, these would need to be administered intravenously to achieve a lasting effect. Such administration would require hospitalization, close monitoring, and the use of human resources and additional health care provisions.
Encouragingly, the laboratory that created this molecule, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, has come up with an antidote: Reversir. It is a GalNAc-conjugated, single-stranded, high-affinity oligonucleotide complementary to the zilebesiran strand that achieves effective reversal of siRNA activity in 24 hours.
In the future, after the phase 2 trials have been completed, whether or not zilebesiran reduces the incidence of cardiovascular events and mortality remains to be seen. But as for Dr. Azizi, the director of HEGP’s blood pressure clinic in Paris, he has no doubt that “this approach is about to shake up how we treat patients in the cardiovascular field.”
On the horizon
Zilebesiran is being studied in phase 2 trials in patients with mild to moderate hypertension not taking antihypertensive drugs (KARDIA-1: 375 patients; double-blind, placebo-controlled, five-arm trial; zilebesiran at 150, 300, and 600 mg twice per year and 300 mg once every 3 months) and in patients whose blood pressure is not controlled (KARDIA-2: 800 patients; initial open-label start-up period of 4 weeks with indapamide/amlodipine/olmesartan, followed by a double-blind, placebo-controlled study over 6 months, then an open-label extension study for up to 12 additional months; zilebesiran at 600 mg on the first day of the initial double-blind period, then every 6 months during the open-label extension period).
This article was translated from the Medscape French edition and a version appeared on Medscape.com.
AT INTERNATIONAL MEETING OF THE FRENCH SOCIETY OF HYPERTENSION
What the FTC’s proposed ban on noncompete agreements could mean for physicians, other clinicians
The proposed rule seeks to ban companies from enforcing noncompete clauses in employment contracts, a practice that represents an “unfair method of competition” with “exploitative and widespread” impacts, including suppression of wages, innovation, and entrepreneurial spirit, the FTC said. The public has 60 days to submit comments on the proposal before the FTC issues the final rule.
Employers often include noncompete clauses in physician contracts because they want to avoid having patients leave their health care system and follow a doctor to a competitor. A 2018 survey of primary care physicians found that about half of office-based physicians and 37% of physicians employed at hospitals or freestanding care centers were bound by restrictive covenants.
“A federal ban on noncompete agreements will ensure that physicians nationwide can finally change jobs without fear of being sued,” Erik B. Smith, MD, JD, clinical assistant professor of anesthesiology at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said in an interview.
Many doctors would like to see noncompete agreements vanish, but some physicians still favor them.
“As a small-practice owner, I am personally against this. The noncompete helps me take a risk and hire a physician. It typically takes 2-3 years for me to break even. I think this will further consolidate employment with large hospital systems unfortunately,” Texas cardiologist Rishin Shah, MD, recently tweeted in response to the FTC announcement.
Dr. Smith, who has advocated for noncompete reform, said about half of states currently allow the controversial clauses.
However, several states have recently passed laws restricting their use. California, North Dakota, and Oklahoma ban noncompetes, although some narrowly defined exceptions, such as the sale of a business, remain.
Other states, like Colorado, Illinois, and Oregon, broadly ban noncompete clauses, except for workers earning above a certain threshold. For example, in Colorado, noncompete agreements are permitted for highly compensated employees earning more than $101,250.
Despite additional restrictions on noncompete agreements for workers in the District of Columbia, the new legislation does not apply to physicians earning total compensation of $250,000 or more. However, their employers must define the geographic parameters of the noncompete and limit postemployment restrictions to 2 years.
Restrictive covenants are “uniquely challenging to family medicine’s emphasis on longitudinal care and the patient-physician relationship,” said Tochi Iroku-Malize, MD, MPH, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians. The limitations imposed by noncompete agreements “potentially reduce patient choice, lower the quality of care for patients, and ultimately harm the foundation of family medicine – our relationships with our patients.”
Although the proposed rule aligns with President Biden’s executive order promoting economic competition, Dr. Smith said a national ban on noncompete agreements may push the limits of FTC authority.
“This new rule will certainly result in a ‘major questions doctrine’ Supreme Court challenge,” said Dr. Smith, and possibly be struck down if the court determines an administrative overstep into areas of “vast economic or political significance.”
A controversial policy
The American Medical Association’s code of ethics discourages covenants that “unreasonably restrict” the ability of physicians to practice following contract termination. And in 2022, the AMA cited “overly broad” noncompete language as a red flag young physicians should watch out for during contract negotiations.
But in 2020, the AMA asked the FTC not to use its rulemaking authority to regulate noncompete clauses in physician employment contracts, and instead, relegate enforcement of such agreements to each state. The American Hospital Association expressed similar views.
Still, the FTC said that eliminating noncompete clauses will increase annual wages by $300 billion, allow 30 million Americans to pursue better job opportunities, and encourage hiring competition among employers. It will also save consumers up to $148 billion in health care costs annually.
“Noncompetes block workers from freely switching jobs, depriving them of higher wages and better working conditions, and depriving businesses of a talent pool that they need to build and expand,” Lina M. Khan, FTC chair, said in a press release about the proposal.
A national ban on noncompetes would keep more physicians in the industry and practicing in their communities, a win for patients and providers, said Dr. Smith. It could also compel employers to offer more competitive employment packages, including fair wages, better work conditions, and a culture of well-being and patient safety.
“Whatever the final rule is, I’m certain it will be legally challenged,” said Dr. Smith, adding that the nation’s most prominent business lobbying group, the Chamber of Commerce, has already issued a statement calling the rule “blatantly unlawful."
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The proposed rule seeks to ban companies from enforcing noncompete clauses in employment contracts, a practice that represents an “unfair method of competition” with “exploitative and widespread” impacts, including suppression of wages, innovation, and entrepreneurial spirit, the FTC said. The public has 60 days to submit comments on the proposal before the FTC issues the final rule.
Employers often include noncompete clauses in physician contracts because they want to avoid having patients leave their health care system and follow a doctor to a competitor. A 2018 survey of primary care physicians found that about half of office-based physicians and 37% of physicians employed at hospitals or freestanding care centers were bound by restrictive covenants.
“A federal ban on noncompete agreements will ensure that physicians nationwide can finally change jobs without fear of being sued,” Erik B. Smith, MD, JD, clinical assistant professor of anesthesiology at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said in an interview.
Many doctors would like to see noncompete agreements vanish, but some physicians still favor them.
“As a small-practice owner, I am personally against this. The noncompete helps me take a risk and hire a physician. It typically takes 2-3 years for me to break even. I think this will further consolidate employment with large hospital systems unfortunately,” Texas cardiologist Rishin Shah, MD, recently tweeted in response to the FTC announcement.
Dr. Smith, who has advocated for noncompete reform, said about half of states currently allow the controversial clauses.
However, several states have recently passed laws restricting their use. California, North Dakota, and Oklahoma ban noncompetes, although some narrowly defined exceptions, such as the sale of a business, remain.
Other states, like Colorado, Illinois, and Oregon, broadly ban noncompete clauses, except for workers earning above a certain threshold. For example, in Colorado, noncompete agreements are permitted for highly compensated employees earning more than $101,250.
Despite additional restrictions on noncompete agreements for workers in the District of Columbia, the new legislation does not apply to physicians earning total compensation of $250,000 or more. However, their employers must define the geographic parameters of the noncompete and limit postemployment restrictions to 2 years.
Restrictive covenants are “uniquely challenging to family medicine’s emphasis on longitudinal care and the patient-physician relationship,” said Tochi Iroku-Malize, MD, MPH, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians. The limitations imposed by noncompete agreements “potentially reduce patient choice, lower the quality of care for patients, and ultimately harm the foundation of family medicine – our relationships with our patients.”
Although the proposed rule aligns with President Biden’s executive order promoting economic competition, Dr. Smith said a national ban on noncompete agreements may push the limits of FTC authority.
“This new rule will certainly result in a ‘major questions doctrine’ Supreme Court challenge,” said Dr. Smith, and possibly be struck down if the court determines an administrative overstep into areas of “vast economic or political significance.”
A controversial policy
The American Medical Association’s code of ethics discourages covenants that “unreasonably restrict” the ability of physicians to practice following contract termination. And in 2022, the AMA cited “overly broad” noncompete language as a red flag young physicians should watch out for during contract negotiations.
But in 2020, the AMA asked the FTC not to use its rulemaking authority to regulate noncompete clauses in physician employment contracts, and instead, relegate enforcement of such agreements to each state. The American Hospital Association expressed similar views.
Still, the FTC said that eliminating noncompete clauses will increase annual wages by $300 billion, allow 30 million Americans to pursue better job opportunities, and encourage hiring competition among employers. It will also save consumers up to $148 billion in health care costs annually.
“Noncompetes block workers from freely switching jobs, depriving them of higher wages and better working conditions, and depriving businesses of a talent pool that they need to build and expand,” Lina M. Khan, FTC chair, said in a press release about the proposal.
A national ban on noncompetes would keep more physicians in the industry and practicing in their communities, a win for patients and providers, said Dr. Smith. It could also compel employers to offer more competitive employment packages, including fair wages, better work conditions, and a culture of well-being and patient safety.
“Whatever the final rule is, I’m certain it will be legally challenged,” said Dr. Smith, adding that the nation’s most prominent business lobbying group, the Chamber of Commerce, has already issued a statement calling the rule “blatantly unlawful."
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The proposed rule seeks to ban companies from enforcing noncompete clauses in employment contracts, a practice that represents an “unfair method of competition” with “exploitative and widespread” impacts, including suppression of wages, innovation, and entrepreneurial spirit, the FTC said. The public has 60 days to submit comments on the proposal before the FTC issues the final rule.
Employers often include noncompete clauses in physician contracts because they want to avoid having patients leave their health care system and follow a doctor to a competitor. A 2018 survey of primary care physicians found that about half of office-based physicians and 37% of physicians employed at hospitals or freestanding care centers were bound by restrictive covenants.
“A federal ban on noncompete agreements will ensure that physicians nationwide can finally change jobs without fear of being sued,” Erik B. Smith, MD, JD, clinical assistant professor of anesthesiology at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said in an interview.
Many doctors would like to see noncompete agreements vanish, but some physicians still favor them.
“As a small-practice owner, I am personally against this. The noncompete helps me take a risk and hire a physician. It typically takes 2-3 years for me to break even. I think this will further consolidate employment with large hospital systems unfortunately,” Texas cardiologist Rishin Shah, MD, recently tweeted in response to the FTC announcement.
Dr. Smith, who has advocated for noncompete reform, said about half of states currently allow the controversial clauses.
However, several states have recently passed laws restricting their use. California, North Dakota, and Oklahoma ban noncompetes, although some narrowly defined exceptions, such as the sale of a business, remain.
Other states, like Colorado, Illinois, and Oregon, broadly ban noncompete clauses, except for workers earning above a certain threshold. For example, in Colorado, noncompete agreements are permitted for highly compensated employees earning more than $101,250.
Despite additional restrictions on noncompete agreements for workers in the District of Columbia, the new legislation does not apply to physicians earning total compensation of $250,000 or more. However, their employers must define the geographic parameters of the noncompete and limit postemployment restrictions to 2 years.
Restrictive covenants are “uniquely challenging to family medicine’s emphasis on longitudinal care and the patient-physician relationship,” said Tochi Iroku-Malize, MD, MPH, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians. The limitations imposed by noncompete agreements “potentially reduce patient choice, lower the quality of care for patients, and ultimately harm the foundation of family medicine – our relationships with our patients.”
Although the proposed rule aligns with President Biden’s executive order promoting economic competition, Dr. Smith said a national ban on noncompete agreements may push the limits of FTC authority.
“This new rule will certainly result in a ‘major questions doctrine’ Supreme Court challenge,” said Dr. Smith, and possibly be struck down if the court determines an administrative overstep into areas of “vast economic or political significance.”
A controversial policy
The American Medical Association’s code of ethics discourages covenants that “unreasonably restrict” the ability of physicians to practice following contract termination. And in 2022, the AMA cited “overly broad” noncompete language as a red flag young physicians should watch out for during contract negotiations.
But in 2020, the AMA asked the FTC not to use its rulemaking authority to regulate noncompete clauses in physician employment contracts, and instead, relegate enforcement of such agreements to each state. The American Hospital Association expressed similar views.
Still, the FTC said that eliminating noncompete clauses will increase annual wages by $300 billion, allow 30 million Americans to pursue better job opportunities, and encourage hiring competition among employers. It will also save consumers up to $148 billion in health care costs annually.
“Noncompetes block workers from freely switching jobs, depriving them of higher wages and better working conditions, and depriving businesses of a talent pool that they need to build and expand,” Lina M. Khan, FTC chair, said in a press release about the proposal.
A national ban on noncompetes would keep more physicians in the industry and practicing in their communities, a win for patients and providers, said Dr. Smith. It could also compel employers to offer more competitive employment packages, including fair wages, better work conditions, and a culture of well-being and patient safety.
“Whatever the final rule is, I’m certain it will be legally challenged,” said Dr. Smith, adding that the nation’s most prominent business lobbying group, the Chamber of Commerce, has already issued a statement calling the rule “blatantly unlawful."
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Components of coffee other than caffeine linked to reduced NAFLD severity
Increased intake of both regular and decaffeinated coffee was significantly associated with a reduced severity of NAFLD in the study, published in Nutrients. The study participants included 156 overweight adults, most of whom had type 2 diabetes.
A confluence of factors including diet and lifestyle changes and increased obesity have contributed to a rise in type 2 diabetes and of NAFLD, Margarida Coelho, of the Center for Neuroscience and Cell Biology at the University of Coimbra (Portugal), and colleagues wrote.
Previous studies support an association between coffee and protection against NAFLD, but the roles of the caffeine and noncaffeine components of coffee have not been examined, corresponding author John Griffith Jones, PhD, also of the Center for Neuroscience and Cell Biology at the University of Coimbra, said in an interview.
“There have been previous studies indicating a link between coffee intake and NAFLD amelioration, but these were entirely based on self-reporting questionnaire data, but the main limitation of this approach is that it does not provide any information on which components of coffee confer the beneficial effects,” Dr. Jones said. “The development of new analytical techniques allowing reliable profiling of coffee metabolites in urine allowed this limitation to be addressed.”
Dr. Jones and associates examined the relationship between consumption of regular and decaffeinated coffee on the fatty liver index (FLI), a validated predictor of NAFLD. They measured coffee intake of 156 overweight adults, 135 of whom had type 2 diabetes. The study population included 76 women and 80 men with a mean age of 59 years and a mean body mass index of 29 kg/m2.
The participants reported coffee intake via questionnaires, and 98 participants (all with type 2 diabetes) also provided urine samples for measurement of caffeine and noncaffeine metabolites (the products of the body breaking down coffee). NAFLD was assessed using the FLI and a scanning measure of fibrosis.
Overall, no associations appeared between self-reported coffee intake and NAFLD measures. However, urine caffeine metabolite levels were significantly higher among individuals with no liver fibrosis, compared with those with fibrosis, and noncaffeine metabolites showed a significant negative association with FLI measures.
In a multiple regression analysis of 89 individuals with type 2 diabetes, both caffeine and noncaffeine metabolites were negatively associated with FLI, which suggests less severe NAFLD, the researchers noted.
Although the mechanism of action remains unclear, the findings suggest that other noncaffeine coffee components such as polyphenols may reduce the risk of fibrosis by reducing oxidative stress on the liver, they said.
Benefits beyond caffeine
“The main surprise of the study was that both caffeine and noncaffeine metabolites had beneficial effects,” Dr. Jones said. “We had anticipated caffeine, based on its well-known effects on inhibiting liver fibrosis, but the effects of other components were less well described.”
Clinicians can encourage their patients with type 2 diabetes who drink coffee to continue to do so within a normal range (up to three to four cups per day) including decaffeinated coffee; however, “they should be strongly encouraged to drink coffee without added fats and sugars, otherwise the protective benefits [against more severe NAFLD] will not be realized,” Dr. Jones said.
Additional research is needed to extend the analysis to include more coffee compounds, especially those truly unique to coffee, since caffeine can be found in many other foods and beverages, Dr. Jones added.
Limitations include 24-hour time frame
The findings were limited by several factors, including the use of 24-hour urine sample, which may not represent an individual’s habitual coffee consumption, the researchers noted. The urine metabolites measured also may be derived from foods and beverages other than coffee. In addition, the assessment of NAFLD was based on serum markers and ultrasound/elastography, which are less precise than liver biopsy and magnetic resonance spectroscopy.
However, the study is the first known to use urine data to examine coffee’s protective effect against NAFLD and suggests that both caffeine and noncaffeine metabolites are associated with less severe disease, they concluded.
Findings intriguing but not ready for prime time
“The bottom line is that we have a major epidemic of NAFLD in the United States,” Victor L. Roberts, MD, professor of internal medicine at the University of Central Florida, Orlando, said in an interview. NAFLD has become the most common cause of chronic liver disease worldwide, and will become one of the leading causes of cirrhosis – surpassing infections as the main driver of end-stage liver disease.
“In this country, the epidemic of obesity compounds the problem, and risks for NAFLD include obesity and type 2 diabetes,” said Dr. Roberts.
The concept of coffee as beneficial is not new, but data suggest that the effects vary with insulin resistance, he said. If liver disease is advanced, coffee and its components may not have much benefit, but early on, it might have a role.
The likely mechanism of action for the benefits of coffee on the reduction in liver fibrosis is through a complex set of metabolic steps that interrupt the promotion of collagen production and reduce liver stiffness, said Dr. Roberts.
The current study authors were up front about the limitations, mainly the use of self-reports, although including the urine collection provided more scientific data, he said. More studies are needed in other populations, but the findings are interesting enough to merit additional research.
The take-home message for primary care, however, is that drinking coffee – regular or decaf – does not replace standard of care, Dr. Roberts emphasized.
“If a patient is a coffee drinker and they have NAFLD or are at risk, they could be encouraged to continue drinking coffee,” in reasonable amounts, said Dr. Roberts. “Anywhere from 1-3 cups a day is unlikely to be a problem, and there is some hope and interest in this area,” but the findings of the current study “should not be taken as gospel or advocacy as a solution for people with NAFLD.”
Instead, clinicians should focus on the standard of care for management of patients at risk for NAFLD, promoting lifestyle changes such as weight loss, diet, and exercise (challenging as that may be), and prescribing appropriate medications, he said.
The study was supported by the Institute for Scientific Information on Coffee, and the researchers received funding from the ISIC to conduct the study. Dr. Roberts had no financial conflicts to disclose, but he serves on the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News.
Increased intake of both regular and decaffeinated coffee was significantly associated with a reduced severity of NAFLD in the study, published in Nutrients. The study participants included 156 overweight adults, most of whom had type 2 diabetes.
A confluence of factors including diet and lifestyle changes and increased obesity have contributed to a rise in type 2 diabetes and of NAFLD, Margarida Coelho, of the Center for Neuroscience and Cell Biology at the University of Coimbra (Portugal), and colleagues wrote.
Previous studies support an association between coffee and protection against NAFLD, but the roles of the caffeine and noncaffeine components of coffee have not been examined, corresponding author John Griffith Jones, PhD, also of the Center for Neuroscience and Cell Biology at the University of Coimbra, said in an interview.
“There have been previous studies indicating a link between coffee intake and NAFLD amelioration, but these were entirely based on self-reporting questionnaire data, but the main limitation of this approach is that it does not provide any information on which components of coffee confer the beneficial effects,” Dr. Jones said. “The development of new analytical techniques allowing reliable profiling of coffee metabolites in urine allowed this limitation to be addressed.”
Dr. Jones and associates examined the relationship between consumption of regular and decaffeinated coffee on the fatty liver index (FLI), a validated predictor of NAFLD. They measured coffee intake of 156 overweight adults, 135 of whom had type 2 diabetes. The study population included 76 women and 80 men with a mean age of 59 years and a mean body mass index of 29 kg/m2.
The participants reported coffee intake via questionnaires, and 98 participants (all with type 2 diabetes) also provided urine samples for measurement of caffeine and noncaffeine metabolites (the products of the body breaking down coffee). NAFLD was assessed using the FLI and a scanning measure of fibrosis.
Overall, no associations appeared between self-reported coffee intake and NAFLD measures. However, urine caffeine metabolite levels were significantly higher among individuals with no liver fibrosis, compared with those with fibrosis, and noncaffeine metabolites showed a significant negative association with FLI measures.
In a multiple regression analysis of 89 individuals with type 2 diabetes, both caffeine and noncaffeine metabolites were negatively associated with FLI, which suggests less severe NAFLD, the researchers noted.
Although the mechanism of action remains unclear, the findings suggest that other noncaffeine coffee components such as polyphenols may reduce the risk of fibrosis by reducing oxidative stress on the liver, they said.
Benefits beyond caffeine
“The main surprise of the study was that both caffeine and noncaffeine metabolites had beneficial effects,” Dr. Jones said. “We had anticipated caffeine, based on its well-known effects on inhibiting liver fibrosis, but the effects of other components were less well described.”
Clinicians can encourage their patients with type 2 diabetes who drink coffee to continue to do so within a normal range (up to three to four cups per day) including decaffeinated coffee; however, “they should be strongly encouraged to drink coffee without added fats and sugars, otherwise the protective benefits [against more severe NAFLD] will not be realized,” Dr. Jones said.
Additional research is needed to extend the analysis to include more coffee compounds, especially those truly unique to coffee, since caffeine can be found in many other foods and beverages, Dr. Jones added.
Limitations include 24-hour time frame
The findings were limited by several factors, including the use of 24-hour urine sample, which may not represent an individual’s habitual coffee consumption, the researchers noted. The urine metabolites measured also may be derived from foods and beverages other than coffee. In addition, the assessment of NAFLD was based on serum markers and ultrasound/elastography, which are less precise than liver biopsy and magnetic resonance spectroscopy.
However, the study is the first known to use urine data to examine coffee’s protective effect against NAFLD and suggests that both caffeine and noncaffeine metabolites are associated with less severe disease, they concluded.
Findings intriguing but not ready for prime time
“The bottom line is that we have a major epidemic of NAFLD in the United States,” Victor L. Roberts, MD, professor of internal medicine at the University of Central Florida, Orlando, said in an interview. NAFLD has become the most common cause of chronic liver disease worldwide, and will become one of the leading causes of cirrhosis – surpassing infections as the main driver of end-stage liver disease.
“In this country, the epidemic of obesity compounds the problem, and risks for NAFLD include obesity and type 2 diabetes,” said Dr. Roberts.
The concept of coffee as beneficial is not new, but data suggest that the effects vary with insulin resistance, he said. If liver disease is advanced, coffee and its components may not have much benefit, but early on, it might have a role.
The likely mechanism of action for the benefits of coffee on the reduction in liver fibrosis is through a complex set of metabolic steps that interrupt the promotion of collagen production and reduce liver stiffness, said Dr. Roberts.
The current study authors were up front about the limitations, mainly the use of self-reports, although including the urine collection provided more scientific data, he said. More studies are needed in other populations, but the findings are interesting enough to merit additional research.
The take-home message for primary care, however, is that drinking coffee – regular or decaf – does not replace standard of care, Dr. Roberts emphasized.
“If a patient is a coffee drinker and they have NAFLD or are at risk, they could be encouraged to continue drinking coffee,” in reasonable amounts, said Dr. Roberts. “Anywhere from 1-3 cups a day is unlikely to be a problem, and there is some hope and interest in this area,” but the findings of the current study “should not be taken as gospel or advocacy as a solution for people with NAFLD.”
Instead, clinicians should focus on the standard of care for management of patients at risk for NAFLD, promoting lifestyle changes such as weight loss, diet, and exercise (challenging as that may be), and prescribing appropriate medications, he said.
The study was supported by the Institute for Scientific Information on Coffee, and the researchers received funding from the ISIC to conduct the study. Dr. Roberts had no financial conflicts to disclose, but he serves on the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News.
Increased intake of both regular and decaffeinated coffee was significantly associated with a reduced severity of NAFLD in the study, published in Nutrients. The study participants included 156 overweight adults, most of whom had type 2 diabetes.
A confluence of factors including diet and lifestyle changes and increased obesity have contributed to a rise in type 2 diabetes and of NAFLD, Margarida Coelho, of the Center for Neuroscience and Cell Biology at the University of Coimbra (Portugal), and colleagues wrote.
Previous studies support an association between coffee and protection against NAFLD, but the roles of the caffeine and noncaffeine components of coffee have not been examined, corresponding author John Griffith Jones, PhD, also of the Center for Neuroscience and Cell Biology at the University of Coimbra, said in an interview.
“There have been previous studies indicating a link between coffee intake and NAFLD amelioration, but these were entirely based on self-reporting questionnaire data, but the main limitation of this approach is that it does not provide any information on which components of coffee confer the beneficial effects,” Dr. Jones said. “The development of new analytical techniques allowing reliable profiling of coffee metabolites in urine allowed this limitation to be addressed.”
Dr. Jones and associates examined the relationship between consumption of regular and decaffeinated coffee on the fatty liver index (FLI), a validated predictor of NAFLD. They measured coffee intake of 156 overweight adults, 135 of whom had type 2 diabetes. The study population included 76 women and 80 men with a mean age of 59 years and a mean body mass index of 29 kg/m2.
The participants reported coffee intake via questionnaires, and 98 participants (all with type 2 diabetes) also provided urine samples for measurement of caffeine and noncaffeine metabolites (the products of the body breaking down coffee). NAFLD was assessed using the FLI and a scanning measure of fibrosis.
Overall, no associations appeared between self-reported coffee intake and NAFLD measures. However, urine caffeine metabolite levels were significantly higher among individuals with no liver fibrosis, compared with those with fibrosis, and noncaffeine metabolites showed a significant negative association with FLI measures.
In a multiple regression analysis of 89 individuals with type 2 diabetes, both caffeine and noncaffeine metabolites were negatively associated with FLI, which suggests less severe NAFLD, the researchers noted.
Although the mechanism of action remains unclear, the findings suggest that other noncaffeine coffee components such as polyphenols may reduce the risk of fibrosis by reducing oxidative stress on the liver, they said.
Benefits beyond caffeine
“The main surprise of the study was that both caffeine and noncaffeine metabolites had beneficial effects,” Dr. Jones said. “We had anticipated caffeine, based on its well-known effects on inhibiting liver fibrosis, but the effects of other components were less well described.”
Clinicians can encourage their patients with type 2 diabetes who drink coffee to continue to do so within a normal range (up to three to four cups per day) including decaffeinated coffee; however, “they should be strongly encouraged to drink coffee without added fats and sugars, otherwise the protective benefits [against more severe NAFLD] will not be realized,” Dr. Jones said.
Additional research is needed to extend the analysis to include more coffee compounds, especially those truly unique to coffee, since caffeine can be found in many other foods and beverages, Dr. Jones added.
Limitations include 24-hour time frame
The findings were limited by several factors, including the use of 24-hour urine sample, which may not represent an individual’s habitual coffee consumption, the researchers noted. The urine metabolites measured also may be derived from foods and beverages other than coffee. In addition, the assessment of NAFLD was based on serum markers and ultrasound/elastography, which are less precise than liver biopsy and magnetic resonance spectroscopy.
However, the study is the first known to use urine data to examine coffee’s protective effect against NAFLD and suggests that both caffeine and noncaffeine metabolites are associated with less severe disease, they concluded.
Findings intriguing but not ready for prime time
“The bottom line is that we have a major epidemic of NAFLD in the United States,” Victor L. Roberts, MD, professor of internal medicine at the University of Central Florida, Orlando, said in an interview. NAFLD has become the most common cause of chronic liver disease worldwide, and will become one of the leading causes of cirrhosis – surpassing infections as the main driver of end-stage liver disease.
“In this country, the epidemic of obesity compounds the problem, and risks for NAFLD include obesity and type 2 diabetes,” said Dr. Roberts.
The concept of coffee as beneficial is not new, but data suggest that the effects vary with insulin resistance, he said. If liver disease is advanced, coffee and its components may not have much benefit, but early on, it might have a role.
The likely mechanism of action for the benefits of coffee on the reduction in liver fibrosis is through a complex set of metabolic steps that interrupt the promotion of collagen production and reduce liver stiffness, said Dr. Roberts.
The current study authors were up front about the limitations, mainly the use of self-reports, although including the urine collection provided more scientific data, he said. More studies are needed in other populations, but the findings are interesting enough to merit additional research.
The take-home message for primary care, however, is that drinking coffee – regular or decaf – does not replace standard of care, Dr. Roberts emphasized.
“If a patient is a coffee drinker and they have NAFLD or are at risk, they could be encouraged to continue drinking coffee,” in reasonable amounts, said Dr. Roberts. “Anywhere from 1-3 cups a day is unlikely to be a problem, and there is some hope and interest in this area,” but the findings of the current study “should not be taken as gospel or advocacy as a solution for people with NAFLD.”
Instead, clinicians should focus on the standard of care for management of patients at risk for NAFLD, promoting lifestyle changes such as weight loss, diet, and exercise (challenging as that may be), and prescribing appropriate medications, he said.
The study was supported by the Institute for Scientific Information on Coffee, and the researchers received funding from the ISIC to conduct the study. Dr. Roberts had no financial conflicts to disclose, but he serves on the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News.
FROM NUTRIENTS