Feature

The Alzheimer’s Association has filed a formal request with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services that it provide full and unrestricted coverage for Alzheimer’s disease (AD) treatments approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

In a letter addressed to CMS administrator Chiquita Brooks-LaSure, MPP, the association has asked the agency to remove the requirements for “coverage with evidence development” in its national coverage determination for FDA-approved anti-amyloid monoclonal antibodies.

The CMS coverage restrictions for anti-amyloid drugs were finalized in April on the basis of data available at the time.

Since then, new data from the CLARITY AD trial “clearly demonstrate a meaningful clinical benefit” from the investigational anti-amyloid agent lecanemab (Eisai/Biogen), Robert Egge, chief public policy officer for the Alzheimer’s Association, told this news organization.

The CLARITY AD results were published in the New England Journal of Medicine. Lecanemab is currently under accelerated review at the FDA.

The Alzheimer’s Association’s letter to the CMS includes a joint statement signed by more than 200 AD researchers and experts. All agree that the lecanemab results represent “significant new evidence” that necessitates reconsidering the restrictions on anti-amyloid agents.

“CMS has said it would look at new evidence, and now that evidence is here. We believe CMS recognizes this evidence for lecanemab is stronger than that for many treatments Medicare routinely covers,” Mr. Egge said.
 

‘No time to waste’

“With the timing of accelerated approvals for both lecanemab and donanemab in the next few months, the Alzheimer’s Association wants to ensure, if approved, that patients can access these treatments,” Mr. Egge noted.

“Because revisions to National Coverage Determinations can be a lengthy process, CMS needs to act quickly to minimize delays. People living with Alzheimer’s disease don’t have time to waste,” he added.

The Alzheimer’s Association estimates that every day, more than 2,000 individuals aged 65 or older may transition from mild dementia due to AD to a more advanced stage of the disease in which they may no longer be eligible for lecanemab and the other anti-amyloid agents currently being tested.

“Each day matters when it comes to slowing the progression of this disease,” Joanne Pike, DrPH, president and incoming chief executive officer for the Alzheimer’s Association, noted in a news release.

“The current CMS policy to severely limit access to these treatments eliminates people’s options, is resulting in continued irreversible disease progression, and contributes to greater health inequities. That’s not acceptable,” Dr. Pike said.

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

The Alzheimer’s Association has filed a formal request with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services that it provide full and unrestricted coverage for Alzheimer’s disease (AD) treatments approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

In a letter addressed to CMS administrator Chiquita Brooks-LaSure, MPP, the association has asked the agency to remove the requirements for “coverage with evidence development” in its national coverage determination for FDA-approved anti-amyloid monoclonal antibodies.

The CMS coverage restrictions for anti-amyloid drugs were finalized in April on the basis of data available at the time.

Since then, new data from the CLARITY AD trial “clearly demonstrate a meaningful clinical benefit” from the investigational anti-amyloid agent lecanemab (Eisai/Biogen), Robert Egge, chief public policy officer for the Alzheimer’s Association, told this news organization.

The CLARITY AD results were published in the New England Journal of Medicine. Lecanemab is currently under accelerated review at the FDA.

The Alzheimer’s Association’s letter to the CMS includes a joint statement signed by more than 200 AD researchers and experts. All agree that the lecanemab results represent “significant new evidence” that necessitates reconsidering the restrictions on anti-amyloid agents.

“CMS has said it would look at new evidence, and now that evidence is here. We believe CMS recognizes this evidence for lecanemab is stronger than that for many treatments Medicare routinely covers,” Mr. Egge said.
 

‘No time to waste’

“With the timing of accelerated approvals for both lecanemab and donanemab in the next few months, the Alzheimer’s Association wants to ensure, if approved, that patients can access these treatments,” Mr. Egge noted.

“Because revisions to National Coverage Determinations can be a lengthy process, CMS needs to act quickly to minimize delays. People living with Alzheimer’s disease don’t have time to waste,” he added.

The Alzheimer’s Association estimates that every day, more than 2,000 individuals aged 65 or older may transition from mild dementia due to AD to a more advanced stage of the disease in which they may no longer be eligible for lecanemab and the other anti-amyloid agents currently being tested.

“Each day matters when it comes to slowing the progression of this disease,” Joanne Pike, DrPH, president and incoming chief executive officer for the Alzheimer’s Association, noted in a news release.

“The current CMS policy to severely limit access to these treatments eliminates people’s options, is resulting in continued irreversible disease progression, and contributes to greater health inequities. That’s not acceptable,” Dr. Pike said.

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

The Alzheimer’s Association has filed a formal request with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services that it provide full and unrestricted coverage for Alzheimer’s disease (AD) treatments approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

In a letter addressed to CMS administrator Chiquita Brooks-LaSure, MPP, the association has asked the agency to remove the requirements for “coverage with evidence development” in its national coverage determination for FDA-approved anti-amyloid monoclonal antibodies.

The CMS coverage restrictions for anti-amyloid drugs were finalized in April on the basis of data available at the time.

Since then, new data from the CLARITY AD trial “clearly demonstrate a meaningful clinical benefit” from the investigational anti-amyloid agent lecanemab (Eisai/Biogen), Robert Egge, chief public policy officer for the Alzheimer’s Association, told this news organization.

The CLARITY AD results were published in the New England Journal of Medicine. Lecanemab is currently under accelerated review at the FDA.

The Alzheimer’s Association’s letter to the CMS includes a joint statement signed by more than 200 AD researchers and experts. All agree that the lecanemab results represent “significant new evidence” that necessitates reconsidering the restrictions on anti-amyloid agents.

“CMS has said it would look at new evidence, and now that evidence is here. We believe CMS recognizes this evidence for lecanemab is stronger than that for many treatments Medicare routinely covers,” Mr. Egge said.
 

‘No time to waste’

“With the timing of accelerated approvals for both lecanemab and donanemab in the next few months, the Alzheimer’s Association wants to ensure, if approved, that patients can access these treatments,” Mr. Egge noted.

“Because revisions to National Coverage Determinations can be a lengthy process, CMS needs to act quickly to minimize delays. People living with Alzheimer’s disease don’t have time to waste,” he added.

The Alzheimer’s Association estimates that every day, more than 2,000 individuals aged 65 or older may transition from mild dementia due to AD to a more advanced stage of the disease in which they may no longer be eligible for lecanemab and the other anti-amyloid agents currently being tested.

“Each day matters when it comes to slowing the progression of this disease,” Joanne Pike, DrPH, president and incoming chief executive officer for the Alzheimer’s Association, noted in a news release.

“The current CMS policy to severely limit access to these treatments eliminates people’s options, is resulting in continued irreversible disease progression, and contributes to greater health inequities. That’s not acceptable,” Dr. Pike said.

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

Three cups of tea, two biscuit packs, and a Christmas study from the BMJ

Warning: The following content may contain excessive Britishness. Continue at your own risk.

It’s no secret that the world economy is in an … interesting spot right now. Belt tightening is occurring around the world despite the holiday season, and hospitals across the pond in Great Britain are no exception.

PxHere

It was a simple sign that prompted the study, published in the Christmas edition of the BMJ: “Please do not take excessive quantities of these refreshments.” And if we all know one thing, you do not get between Brits and their tea and biscuits. So the researchers behind the study drafted a survey and sent it around to nearly 2,000 British health care workers and asked what they considered to be excessive consumption of work-provided hot drinks and biscuits.

In the hot drinks department (tea and coffee, though we appreciate the two people who voiced a preference for free hot whiskey, if it was available) the survey participants decreed that 3.32 drinks was the maximum before consumption became excessive. That’s pretty close to the actual number of hot drinks respondents drank daily (3.04), so it’s pretty fair to say that British health care workers do a good job of self-limiting.

It’s much the same story with biscuits: Health care workers reported that consuming 2.25 packets of free biscuits would be excessive. Notably, doctors would take more than nondoctors (2.35 vs. 2.14 – typical doctor behavior), and those who had been in their role for less than 2 years would consume nearly 3 packets a day before calling it quits.

The study did not include an official cost analysis, but calculations conducted on a biscuit wrapper (that’s not a joke, by the way) estimated that the combined cost for providing every National Health Service employee with three free drinks and two free biscuit packages a day would be about 160 million pounds a year. Now, that’s a lot of money for tea and biscuits, but, they added, it’s a meager 0.1% of the NHS annual budget. They also noted that most employees consider free hot drinks a more valuable workplace perk than free support for mental health.

In conclusion, the authors wrote, “As a target for cost-saving initiatives, limiting free refreshment consumption is really scraping the biscuit barrel (although some limits on hot whiskey availability may be necessary), and implementing, or continuing, perks that improve staff morale seems justifiable. … Healthcare employers should allow biscuits and hot drinks to be freely available to staff, and they should leave these grateful recipients to judge for themselves what constitutes reasonable consumption.”

Now there’s a Christmas sentiment we can all get behind.
 

We come not to bury sugar, but to improve it

When we think about sugar, healthy isn’t the first thing that comes to mind. Research also shows that artificial sweeteners, as well as processed foods in general, are bad for your body and brain. People, however, love the stuff. That’s why one of the leading brands in processed foods, Kraft Heinz, partnered with the Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering at Harvard to find a way to reduce consumers’ sugar consumption.

Vassiliy Vassilenko/thinkstockphotos.com

The question that Kraft Heinz presented to Wyss was this: How could it reduce the fructose in its products without losing the functionality of regular sugar.

The Wyss team’s approach seems pretty simple: Use a naturally occurring enzyme to convert sugar to fiber. The trick was to add the enzymes into the food so they could convert the sugar to fiber after being consumed. The enzymes also needed to be able to be added to existing food products without changing their existing recipes, Kraft Heinz insisted.

How does it work? The crafted enzyme is encapsulated to remain dormant in the food until exposed to an increased pH level, as is found in the GI tract between the stomach and the intestine. It reduces the amount of sugar absorbed in the bloodstream and creates a healthy prebiotic fiber, the institute explained.

This opens a whole new window for consumers. People with diabetes can enjoy their favorite cookies from time to time, while parents can feel less guilty about their children bathing their chicken nuggets in unholy amounts of ketchup.
 

New genes, or not new genes? That is the question

… and the police report that no capybaras were harmed in the incident. What a relief. Now Action News 8 brings you Carol Espinosa’s exclusive interview with legendary scientist and zombie, Charles Darwin.

Carol: Thanks, Daryl. Tell us, Prof. Darwin, what have you been up to lately?

Gio_tto/Thinkstock

Three cups of tea, two biscuit packs, and a Christmas study from the BMJ

Warning: The following content may contain excessive Britishness. Continue at your own risk.

It’s no secret that the world economy is in an … interesting spot right now. Belt tightening is occurring around the world despite the holiday season, and hospitals across the pond in Great Britain are no exception.

PxHere

It was a simple sign that prompted the study, published in the Christmas edition of the BMJ: “Please do not take excessive quantities of these refreshments.” And if we all know one thing, you do not get between Brits and their tea and biscuits. So the researchers behind the study drafted a survey and sent it around to nearly 2,000 British health care workers and asked what they considered to be excessive consumption of work-provided hot drinks and biscuits.

In the hot drinks department (tea and coffee, though we appreciate the two people who voiced a preference for free hot whiskey, if it was available) the survey participants decreed that 3.32 drinks was the maximum before consumption became excessive. That’s pretty close to the actual number of hot drinks respondents drank daily (3.04), so it’s pretty fair to say that British health care workers do a good job of self-limiting.

It’s much the same story with biscuits: Health care workers reported that consuming 2.25 packets of free biscuits would be excessive. Notably, doctors would take more than nondoctors (2.35 vs. 2.14 – typical doctor behavior), and those who had been in their role for less than 2 years would consume nearly 3 packets a day before calling it quits.

The study did not include an official cost analysis, but calculations conducted on a biscuit wrapper (that’s not a joke, by the way) estimated that the combined cost for providing every National Health Service employee with three free drinks and two free biscuit packages a day would be about 160 million pounds a year. Now, that’s a lot of money for tea and biscuits, but, they added, it’s a meager 0.1% of the NHS annual budget. They also noted that most employees consider free hot drinks a more valuable workplace perk than free support for mental health.

In conclusion, the authors wrote, “As a target for cost-saving initiatives, limiting free refreshment consumption is really scraping the biscuit barrel (although some limits on hot whiskey availability may be necessary), and implementing, or continuing, perks that improve staff morale seems justifiable. … Healthcare employers should allow biscuits and hot drinks to be freely available to staff, and they should leave these grateful recipients to judge for themselves what constitutes reasonable consumption.”

Now there’s a Christmas sentiment we can all get behind.
 

We come not to bury sugar, but to improve it

When we think about sugar, healthy isn’t the first thing that comes to mind. Research also shows that artificial sweeteners, as well as processed foods in general, are bad for your body and brain. People, however, love the stuff. That’s why one of the leading brands in processed foods, Kraft Heinz, partnered with the Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering at Harvard to find a way to reduce consumers’ sugar consumption.

Vassiliy Vassilenko/thinkstockphotos.com

The question that Kraft Heinz presented to Wyss was this: How could it reduce the fructose in its products without losing the functionality of regular sugar.

The Wyss team’s approach seems pretty simple: Use a naturally occurring enzyme to convert sugar to fiber. The trick was to add the enzymes into the food so they could convert the sugar to fiber after being consumed. The enzymes also needed to be able to be added to existing food products without changing their existing recipes, Kraft Heinz insisted.

How does it work? The crafted enzyme is encapsulated to remain dormant in the food until exposed to an increased pH level, as is found in the GI tract between the stomach and the intestine. It reduces the amount of sugar absorbed in the bloodstream and creates a healthy prebiotic fiber, the institute explained.

This opens a whole new window for consumers. People with diabetes can enjoy their favorite cookies from time to time, while parents can feel less guilty about their children bathing their chicken nuggets in unholy amounts of ketchup.
 

New genes, or not new genes? That is the question

… and the police report that no capybaras were harmed in the incident. What a relief. Now Action News 8 brings you Carol Espinosa’s exclusive interview with legendary scientist and zombie, Charles Darwin.

Carol: Thanks, Daryl. Tell us, Prof. Darwin, what have you been up to lately?

Gio_tto/Thinkstock

Three cups of tea, two biscuit packs, and a Christmas study from the BMJ

Warning: The following content may contain excessive Britishness. Continue at your own risk.

It’s no secret that the world economy is in an … interesting spot right now. Belt tightening is occurring around the world despite the holiday season, and hospitals across the pond in Great Britain are no exception.

PxHere

It was a simple sign that prompted the study, published in the Christmas edition of the BMJ: “Please do not take excessive quantities of these refreshments.” And if we all know one thing, you do not get between Brits and their tea and biscuits. So the researchers behind the study drafted a survey and sent it around to nearly 2,000 British health care workers and asked what they considered to be excessive consumption of work-provided hot drinks and biscuits.

In the hot drinks department (tea and coffee, though we appreciate the two people who voiced a preference for free hot whiskey, if it was available) the survey participants decreed that 3.32 drinks was the maximum before consumption became excessive. That’s pretty close to the actual number of hot drinks respondents drank daily (3.04), so it’s pretty fair to say that British health care workers do a good job of self-limiting.

It’s much the same story with biscuits: Health care workers reported that consuming 2.25 packets of free biscuits would be excessive. Notably, doctors would take more than nondoctors (2.35 vs. 2.14 – typical doctor behavior), and those who had been in their role for less than 2 years would consume nearly 3 packets a day before calling it quits.

The study did not include an official cost analysis, but calculations conducted on a biscuit wrapper (that’s not a joke, by the way) estimated that the combined cost for providing every National Health Service employee with three free drinks and two free biscuit packages a day would be about 160 million pounds a year. Now, that’s a lot of money for tea and biscuits, but, they added, it’s a meager 0.1% of the NHS annual budget. They also noted that most employees consider free hot drinks a more valuable workplace perk than free support for mental health.

In conclusion, the authors wrote, “As a target for cost-saving initiatives, limiting free refreshment consumption is really scraping the biscuit barrel (although some limits on hot whiskey availability may be necessary), and implementing, or continuing, perks that improve staff morale seems justifiable. … Healthcare employers should allow biscuits and hot drinks to be freely available to staff, and they should leave these grateful recipients to judge for themselves what constitutes reasonable consumption.”

Now there’s a Christmas sentiment we can all get behind.
 

We come not to bury sugar, but to improve it

When we think about sugar, healthy isn’t the first thing that comes to mind. Research also shows that artificial sweeteners, as well as processed foods in general, are bad for your body and brain. People, however, love the stuff. That’s why one of the leading brands in processed foods, Kraft Heinz, partnered with the Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering at Harvard to find a way to reduce consumers’ sugar consumption.

Vassiliy Vassilenko/thinkstockphotos.com

The question that Kraft Heinz presented to Wyss was this: How could it reduce the fructose in its products without losing the functionality of regular sugar.

The Wyss team’s approach seems pretty simple: Use a naturally occurring enzyme to convert sugar to fiber. The trick was to add the enzymes into the food so they could convert the sugar to fiber after being consumed. The enzymes also needed to be able to be added to existing food products without changing their existing recipes, Kraft Heinz insisted.

How does it work? The crafted enzyme is encapsulated to remain dormant in the food until exposed to an increased pH level, as is found in the GI tract between the stomach and the intestine. It reduces the amount of sugar absorbed in the bloodstream and creates a healthy prebiotic fiber, the institute explained.

This opens a whole new window for consumers. People with diabetes can enjoy their favorite cookies from time to time, while parents can feel less guilty about their children bathing their chicken nuggets in unholy amounts of ketchup.
 

New genes, or not new genes? That is the question

… and the police report that no capybaras were harmed in the incident. What a relief. Now Action News 8 brings you Carol Espinosa’s exclusive interview with legendary scientist and zombie, Charles Darwin.

Carol: Thanks, Daryl. Tell us, Prof. Darwin, what have you been up to lately?

Gio_tto/Thinkstock

The Food and Drug Administration has requested that Oncopeptides withdraw the U.S. marketing authorization for its multiple myeloma drug Pepaxto (melphalan flufenamide), the company announced in a press release.
 

The drug was granted an accelerated approval by the FDA in February 2021, for use in combination with dexamethasone in adults with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma who have received at least four prior lines of therapy.

However, the phase 3 OCEAN study raised concerns about safety, as it showed a higher mortality associated with melphalan flufenamide in the experimental arm, compared with pomalidomide (Pomalyst).

The FDA already flagged this issue in July 2021, issuing a safety alert flagging the increased risk for death observed in the OCEAN trial among patients receiving melphalan flufenamide versus pomalidomide (47.6% vs. 43.4%) and a 5.3-month shorter overall survival.

The issue was also discussed in September 2022 by FDA’s Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee, which voted 14-to-2 against maintaining the accelerated approval, citing an unfavorable risk/benefit profile.

The company stopped marketing the drug in the United States in October 2021 at the FDA’s request but continued to make it available for patients already undergoing treatment.

However, in March 2022, Oncopeptides rescinded the letter that voluntarily withdrew the agent from market, after further review of overall survival data from the OCEAN trial led the company to reconsider its decision. Notably, marketing efforts were still discontinued while the company worked with the FDA to interpret the data, it stated in the press release.

That review of the data showed that progression-free survival was 42% higher with melphalan flufenamide versus pomalidomide and overall response rates were 32.1% versus 26.5%, respectively.

Now, the FDA has requested that the company withdraw its U.S. marketing authorization.

“We respect FDA’s accelerated approval regulations,” Jakob Lindberg, CEO of Oncopeptides commented in the press release.

However, he also added, “multiple myeloma remains an incurable disease, and the treatment options for patients with triple-class refractory disease will ultimately become exhausted. The OCEAN study demonstrated clinical benefit for multiple myeloma patients, in particular for nontransplanted elderly patients where the unmet medical need remains very high.”

Commercialization of the drug in Europe, under the brand name Pepaxti, is ongoing.

“Pepaxti has a full approval from the European Medicines Agency, EMA, since Aug. 18, 2022, and was approved by the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, MHRA, in the U.K. on Nov 11, 2022,” the company noted.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has requested that Oncopeptides withdraw the U.S. marketing authorization for its multiple myeloma drug Pepaxto (melphalan flufenamide), the company announced in a press release.
 

The drug was granted an accelerated approval by the FDA in February 2021, for use in combination with dexamethasone in adults with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma who have received at least four prior lines of therapy.

However, the phase 3 OCEAN study raised concerns about safety, as it showed a higher mortality associated with melphalan flufenamide in the experimental arm, compared with pomalidomide (Pomalyst).

The FDA already flagged this issue in July 2021, issuing a safety alert flagging the increased risk for death observed in the OCEAN trial among patients receiving melphalan flufenamide versus pomalidomide (47.6% vs. 43.4%) and a 5.3-month shorter overall survival.

The issue was also discussed in September 2022 by FDA’s Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee, which voted 14-to-2 against maintaining the accelerated approval, citing an unfavorable risk/benefit profile.

The company stopped marketing the drug in the United States in October 2021 at the FDA’s request but continued to make it available for patients already undergoing treatment.

However, in March 2022, Oncopeptides rescinded the letter that voluntarily withdrew the agent from market, after further review of overall survival data from the OCEAN trial led the company to reconsider its decision. Notably, marketing efforts were still discontinued while the company worked with the FDA to interpret the data, it stated in the press release.

That review of the data showed that progression-free survival was 42% higher with melphalan flufenamide versus pomalidomide and overall response rates were 32.1% versus 26.5%, respectively.

Now, the FDA has requested that the company withdraw its U.S. marketing authorization.

“We respect FDA’s accelerated approval regulations,” Jakob Lindberg, CEO of Oncopeptides commented in the press release.

However, he also added, “multiple myeloma remains an incurable disease, and the treatment options for patients with triple-class refractory disease will ultimately become exhausted. The OCEAN study demonstrated clinical benefit for multiple myeloma patients, in particular for nontransplanted elderly patients where the unmet medical need remains very high.”

Commercialization of the drug in Europe, under the brand name Pepaxti, is ongoing.

“Pepaxti has a full approval from the European Medicines Agency, EMA, since Aug. 18, 2022, and was approved by the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, MHRA, in the U.K. on Nov 11, 2022,” the company noted.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has requested that Oncopeptides withdraw the U.S. marketing authorization for its multiple myeloma drug Pepaxto (melphalan flufenamide), the company announced in a press release.
 

The drug was granted an accelerated approval by the FDA in February 2021, for use in combination with dexamethasone in adults with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma who have received at least four prior lines of therapy.

However, the phase 3 OCEAN study raised concerns about safety, as it showed a higher mortality associated with melphalan flufenamide in the experimental arm, compared with pomalidomide (Pomalyst).

The FDA already flagged this issue in July 2021, issuing a safety alert flagging the increased risk for death observed in the OCEAN trial among patients receiving melphalan flufenamide versus pomalidomide (47.6% vs. 43.4%) and a 5.3-month shorter overall survival.

The issue was also discussed in September 2022 by FDA’s Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee, which voted 14-to-2 against maintaining the accelerated approval, citing an unfavorable risk/benefit profile.

The company stopped marketing the drug in the United States in October 2021 at the FDA’s request but continued to make it available for patients already undergoing treatment.

However, in March 2022, Oncopeptides rescinded the letter that voluntarily withdrew the agent from market, after further review of overall survival data from the OCEAN trial led the company to reconsider its decision. Notably, marketing efforts were still discontinued while the company worked with the FDA to interpret the data, it stated in the press release.

That review of the data showed that progression-free survival was 42% higher with melphalan flufenamide versus pomalidomide and overall response rates were 32.1% versus 26.5%, respectively.

Now, the FDA has requested that the company withdraw its U.S. marketing authorization.

“We respect FDA’s accelerated approval regulations,” Jakob Lindberg, CEO of Oncopeptides commented in the press release.

However, he also added, “multiple myeloma remains an incurable disease, and the treatment options for patients with triple-class refractory disease will ultimately become exhausted. The OCEAN study demonstrated clinical benefit for multiple myeloma patients, in particular for nontransplanted elderly patients where the unmet medical need remains very high.”

Commercialization of the drug in Europe, under the brand name Pepaxti, is ongoing.

“Pepaxti has a full approval from the European Medicines Agency, EMA, since Aug. 18, 2022, and was approved by the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, MHRA, in the U.K. on Nov 11, 2022,” the company noted.

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

Cardiac injury caused by COVID-19 may be much less common than suggested previously, a new study has found.

The study examined cardiac MRI scans in 31 patients before and after having COVID-19 infection and found no new evidence of myocardial injury in the post-COVID scans relative to the pre-COVID scans.

“To the best of our knowledge this is the first cardiac MRI study to assess myocardial injury pre- and post-COVID-19,” the authors stated.

They say that while this study cannot rule out the possibility of rare events of COVID-19–induced myocardial injury, “the complete absence of de novo late gadolinium enhancement lesions after COVID-19 in this cohort indicates that outside special circumstances, COVID-19–induced myocardial injury may be much less common than suggested by previous studies.”

The study was published online in JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging.

Coauthor Till F. Althoff, MD, Cardiovascular Institute, Clínic–University Hospital Barcelona, said in an interview that previous reports have found a high rate of cardiac lesions in patients undergoing imaging after having had COVID-19 infection.

“In some reports, this has been as high as 80% of patients even though they have not had severe COVID disease. These reports have been interpreted as showing the majority of patients have some COVID-induced cardiac damage, which is an alarming message,” he commented.

However, he pointed out that the patients in these reports did not undergo a cardiac MRI scan before they had COVID-19 so it wasn’t known whether these cardiac lesions were present before infection or not.

To try and gain more accurate information, the current study examined cardiac MRI scans in the same patients before and after they had COVID-19.

The researchers, from an arrhythmia unit, made use of the fact that all their patients have cardiac MRI data, so they used their large registry of patients in whom cardiac MRI had been performed, and cross referenced this to a health care database to identify those patients who had confirmed COVID-19 after they obtaining a cardiac scan at the arrhythmia unit. They then conducted another cardiac MRI scan in the 31 patients identified a median of 5 months after their COVID-19 infection.

“These 31 patients had a cardiac MRI scan pre-COVID and post COVID using exactly the same scanner with identical sequences, so the scans were absolutely comparable,” Dr. Althoff noted.

Of these 31 patients, 7 had been hospitalized at the time of acute presentation with COVID-19, of whom 2 required intensive care. Most patients (29) had been symptomatic, but none reported cardiac symptoms.

Results showed that, on the post–COVID-19 scan, late gadolinium enhancement lesions indicative of residual myocardial injury were encountered in 15 of the 31 patients (48%), which the researchers said is in line with previous reports.

However, intraindividual comparison with the pre–COVID-19 cardiac MRI scans showed all these lesions were preexisting with identical localization, pattern, and transmural distribution, and thus not COVID-19 related.

Quantitative analyses, performed independently, detected no increase in the size of individual lesions nor in the global left ventricular late gadolinium enhancement extent.

Comparison of pre- and post COVID-19 imaging sequences did not show any differences in ventricular functional or structural parameters.

“While this study only has 31 patients, the fact that we are conducting intra-individual comparisons, which rules out bias, means that we don’t need a large number of patients for reliable results,” Dr. Althoff said.

“These types of lesions are normal to see. We know that individuals without cardiac disease have these types of lesions, and they are not necessarily an indication of any specific pathology. I was kind of surprised by the interpretation of previous data, which is why we did the current study,” he added.

Dr. Althoff acknowledged that some cardiac injury may have been seen if much larger numbers of patients had been included. “But I think we can say from this data that COVID-induced cardiac damage is much less of an issue than we may have previously thought,” he added.

He also noted that most of the patients in this study had mild COVID-19, so the results cannot be extrapolated to severe COVID-19 infection.

However, Dr. Althoff pointed out that all the patients already had atrial fibrillation, so would have been at higher risk of cardiac injury from COVID-19.

“These patients had preexisting cardiac risk factors, and thus they would have been more susceptible to both a more severe course of COVID and an increased risk of myocardial damage due to COVID. The fact that we don’t find any myocardial injury due to COVID in this group is even more reassuring. The general population will be at even lower risk,” he commented.

“I think we can say that, in COVID patients who do not have any cardiac symptoms, our study suggests that the incidence of cardiac injury is very low,” Dr. Althoff said.

“Even in patients with severe COVID and myocardial involvement reflected by increased troponin levels, I wouldn’t be sure that they have any residual cardiac injury. While it has been reported that cardiac lesions have been found in such patients, pre-COVID MRI scans were not available so we don’t know if they were there before,” he added.

“We do not know the true incidence of cardiac injury after COVID, but I think we can say from this data that it is definitely not anywhere near the 40%-50% or even greater that some of the previous reports have suggested,” he stated.

Dr. Althoff suggested that, based on these data, some of the recommendations based on previous reports such the need for follow-up cardiac scans and caution about partaking in sports again after COVID-19 infection, are probably not necessary.

“Our data suggest that these concerns are unfounded, and we need to step back a bit and stop alarming patients about the risk of cardiac damage after COVID,” he said. “Yes, if patients have cardiac symptoms during or after COVID infection they should get checked out, but I do not think we need to do a cardiac risk assessment in patients without cardiac symptoms in COVID.”

This work is supported in part by grants from Instituto de Salud Carlos III, the Spanish government, Madrid, and Fundació la Marató de TV3 in Catalonia. Dr. Althoff has received research grants for investigator-initiated trials from Biosense Webster.

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

Cardiac injury caused by COVID-19 may be much less common than suggested previously, a new study has found.

The study examined cardiac MRI scans in 31 patients before and after having COVID-19 infection and found no new evidence of myocardial injury in the post-COVID scans relative to the pre-COVID scans.

“To the best of our knowledge this is the first cardiac MRI study to assess myocardial injury pre- and post-COVID-19,” the authors stated.

They say that while this study cannot rule out the possibility of rare events of COVID-19–induced myocardial injury, “the complete absence of de novo late gadolinium enhancement lesions after COVID-19 in this cohort indicates that outside special circumstances, COVID-19–induced myocardial injury may be much less common than suggested by previous studies.”

The study was published online in JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging.

Coauthor Till F. Althoff, MD, Cardiovascular Institute, Clínic–University Hospital Barcelona, said in an interview that previous reports have found a high rate of cardiac lesions in patients undergoing imaging after having had COVID-19 infection.

“In some reports, this has been as high as 80% of patients even though they have not had severe COVID disease. These reports have been interpreted as showing the majority of patients have some COVID-induced cardiac damage, which is an alarming message,” he commented.

However, he pointed out that the patients in these reports did not undergo a cardiac MRI scan before they had COVID-19 so it wasn’t known whether these cardiac lesions were present before infection or not.

To try and gain more accurate information, the current study examined cardiac MRI scans in the same patients before and after they had COVID-19.

The researchers, from an arrhythmia unit, made use of the fact that all their patients have cardiac MRI data, so they used their large registry of patients in whom cardiac MRI had been performed, and cross referenced this to a health care database to identify those patients who had confirmed COVID-19 after they obtaining a cardiac scan at the arrhythmia unit. They then conducted another cardiac MRI scan in the 31 patients identified a median of 5 months after their COVID-19 infection.

“These 31 patients had a cardiac MRI scan pre-COVID and post COVID using exactly the same scanner with identical sequences, so the scans were absolutely comparable,” Dr. Althoff noted.

Of these 31 patients, 7 had been hospitalized at the time of acute presentation with COVID-19, of whom 2 required intensive care. Most patients (29) had been symptomatic, but none reported cardiac symptoms.

Results showed that, on the post–COVID-19 scan, late gadolinium enhancement lesions indicative of residual myocardial injury were encountered in 15 of the 31 patients (48%), which the researchers said is in line with previous reports.

However, intraindividual comparison with the pre–COVID-19 cardiac MRI scans showed all these lesions were preexisting with identical localization, pattern, and transmural distribution, and thus not COVID-19 related.

Quantitative analyses, performed independently, detected no increase in the size of individual lesions nor in the global left ventricular late gadolinium enhancement extent.

Comparison of pre- and post COVID-19 imaging sequences did not show any differences in ventricular functional or structural parameters.

“While this study only has 31 patients, the fact that we are conducting intra-individual comparisons, which rules out bias, means that we don’t need a large number of patients for reliable results,” Dr. Althoff said.

“These types of lesions are normal to see. We know that individuals without cardiac disease have these types of lesions, and they are not necessarily an indication of any specific pathology. I was kind of surprised by the interpretation of previous data, which is why we did the current study,” he added.

Dr. Althoff acknowledged that some cardiac injury may have been seen if much larger numbers of patients had been included. “But I think we can say from this data that COVID-induced cardiac damage is much less of an issue than we may have previously thought,” he added.

He also noted that most of the patients in this study had mild COVID-19, so the results cannot be extrapolated to severe COVID-19 infection.

However, Dr. Althoff pointed out that all the patients already had atrial fibrillation, so would have been at higher risk of cardiac injury from COVID-19.

“These patients had preexisting cardiac risk factors, and thus they would have been more susceptible to both a more severe course of COVID and an increased risk of myocardial damage due to COVID. The fact that we don’t find any myocardial injury due to COVID in this group is even more reassuring. The general population will be at even lower risk,” he commented.

“I think we can say that, in COVID patients who do not have any cardiac symptoms, our study suggests that the incidence of cardiac injury is very low,” Dr. Althoff said.

“Even in patients with severe COVID and myocardial involvement reflected by increased troponin levels, I wouldn’t be sure that they have any residual cardiac injury. While it has been reported that cardiac lesions have been found in such patients, pre-COVID MRI scans were not available so we don’t know if they were there before,” he added.

“We do not know the true incidence of cardiac injury after COVID, but I think we can say from this data that it is definitely not anywhere near the 40%-50% or even greater that some of the previous reports have suggested,” he stated.

Dr. Althoff suggested that, based on these data, some of the recommendations based on previous reports such the need for follow-up cardiac scans and caution about partaking in sports again after COVID-19 infection, are probably not necessary.

“Our data suggest that these concerns are unfounded, and we need to step back a bit and stop alarming patients about the risk of cardiac damage after COVID,” he said. “Yes, if patients have cardiac symptoms during or after COVID infection they should get checked out, but I do not think we need to do a cardiac risk assessment in patients without cardiac symptoms in COVID.”

This work is supported in part by grants from Instituto de Salud Carlos III, the Spanish government, Madrid, and Fundació la Marató de TV3 in Catalonia. Dr. Althoff has received research grants for investigator-initiated trials from Biosense Webster.

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

Cardiac injury caused by COVID-19 may be much less common than suggested previously, a new study has found.

The study examined cardiac MRI scans in 31 patients before and after having COVID-19 infection and found no new evidence of myocardial injury in the post-COVID scans relative to the pre-COVID scans.

“To the best of our knowledge this is the first cardiac MRI study to assess myocardial injury pre- and post-COVID-19,” the authors stated.

They say that while this study cannot rule out the possibility of rare events of COVID-19–induced myocardial injury, “the complete absence of de novo late gadolinium enhancement lesions after COVID-19 in this cohort indicates that outside special circumstances, COVID-19–induced myocardial injury may be much less common than suggested by previous studies.”

The study was published online in JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging.

Coauthor Till F. Althoff, MD, Cardiovascular Institute, Clínic–University Hospital Barcelona, said in an interview that previous reports have found a high rate of cardiac lesions in patients undergoing imaging after having had COVID-19 infection.

“In some reports, this has been as high as 80% of patients even though they have not had severe COVID disease. These reports have been interpreted as showing the majority of patients have some COVID-induced cardiac damage, which is an alarming message,” he commented.

However, he pointed out that the patients in these reports did not undergo a cardiac MRI scan before they had COVID-19 so it wasn’t known whether these cardiac lesions were present before infection or not.

To try and gain more accurate information, the current study examined cardiac MRI scans in the same patients before and after they had COVID-19.

The researchers, from an arrhythmia unit, made use of the fact that all their patients have cardiac MRI data, so they used their large registry of patients in whom cardiac MRI had been performed, and cross referenced this to a health care database to identify those patients who had confirmed COVID-19 after they obtaining a cardiac scan at the arrhythmia unit. They then conducted another cardiac MRI scan in the 31 patients identified a median of 5 months after their COVID-19 infection.

“These 31 patients had a cardiac MRI scan pre-COVID and post COVID using exactly the same scanner with identical sequences, so the scans were absolutely comparable,” Dr. Althoff noted.

Of these 31 patients, 7 had been hospitalized at the time of acute presentation with COVID-19, of whom 2 required intensive care. Most patients (29) had been symptomatic, but none reported cardiac symptoms.

Results showed that, on the post–COVID-19 scan, late gadolinium enhancement lesions indicative of residual myocardial injury were encountered in 15 of the 31 patients (48%), which the researchers said is in line with previous reports.

However, intraindividual comparison with the pre–COVID-19 cardiac MRI scans showed all these lesions were preexisting with identical localization, pattern, and transmural distribution, and thus not COVID-19 related.

Quantitative analyses, performed independently, detected no increase in the size of individual lesions nor in the global left ventricular late gadolinium enhancement extent.

Comparison of pre- and post COVID-19 imaging sequences did not show any differences in ventricular functional or structural parameters.

“While this study only has 31 patients, the fact that we are conducting intra-individual comparisons, which rules out bias, means that we don’t need a large number of patients for reliable results,” Dr. Althoff said.

“These types of lesions are normal to see. We know that individuals without cardiac disease have these types of lesions, and they are not necessarily an indication of any specific pathology. I was kind of surprised by the interpretation of previous data, which is why we did the current study,” he added.

Dr. Althoff acknowledged that some cardiac injury may have been seen if much larger numbers of patients had been included. “But I think we can say from this data that COVID-induced cardiac damage is much less of an issue than we may have previously thought,” he added.

He also noted that most of the patients in this study had mild COVID-19, so the results cannot be extrapolated to severe COVID-19 infection.

However, Dr. Althoff pointed out that all the patients already had atrial fibrillation, so would have been at higher risk of cardiac injury from COVID-19.

“These patients had preexisting cardiac risk factors, and thus they would have been more susceptible to both a more severe course of COVID and an increased risk of myocardial damage due to COVID. The fact that we don’t find any myocardial injury due to COVID in this group is even more reassuring. The general population will be at even lower risk,” he commented.

“I think we can say that, in COVID patients who do not have any cardiac symptoms, our study suggests that the incidence of cardiac injury is very low,” Dr. Althoff said.

“Even in patients with severe COVID and myocardial involvement reflected by increased troponin levels, I wouldn’t be sure that they have any residual cardiac injury. While it has been reported that cardiac lesions have been found in such patients, pre-COVID MRI scans were not available so we don’t know if they were there before,” he added.

“We do not know the true incidence of cardiac injury after COVID, but I think we can say from this data that it is definitely not anywhere near the 40%-50% or even greater that some of the previous reports have suggested,” he stated.

Dr. Althoff suggested that, based on these data, some of the recommendations based on previous reports such the need for follow-up cardiac scans and caution about partaking in sports again after COVID-19 infection, are probably not necessary.

“Our data suggest that these concerns are unfounded, and we need to step back a bit and stop alarming patients about the risk of cardiac damage after COVID,” he said. “Yes, if patients have cardiac symptoms during or after COVID infection they should get checked out, but I do not think we need to do a cardiac risk assessment in patients without cardiac symptoms in COVID.”

This work is supported in part by grants from Instituto de Salud Carlos III, the Spanish government, Madrid, and Fundació la Marató de TV3 in Catalonia. Dr. Althoff has received research grants for investigator-initiated trials from Biosense Webster.

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

Seven former patients have filed malpractice complaints against an interventional cardiologist based in Indianapolis, alleging he performed unnecessary cardiac procedures that led to physical and emotional harm.

The medical records for one patient, 70-year-old John Pflum, of Noblesville, Ind., show that Edward Harlamert, MD, performed 44 heart catheterizations and inserted at least 41 stents between 2004 and 2013, according to an investigation by WTHR 13News in Indianapolis that was published Dec. 14.

The news outlet asked four cardiologists to review and comment on John Pflum’s medical records.

“There is not a single scenario I can think of where doing this level of stents and angiograms would be justified or make sense. I have never seen this happen in the course of my medical training or my medical career,” Payal Kohli, MD, cardiologist and medical director of Cherry Creek Heart in Denver, told 13News.

Sunil Rao, MD, director of interventional cardiology at NYU Langone Health and president of the Society for Cardiovascular Angioplasty and Interventions, who also reviewed Mr. Pflum’s medical records for 13News, said he’s “never seen a patient who has gotten this many procedures.”

Dr. Rao said that on the basis of what he saw in the records and in the images, there were several deviations from the standard of care.

Two other independent cardiologists who spoke with 13News voiced similar opinions.

Mr. Pflum was “getting cathed almost every month. That’s not how it’s done,” Morton Rinder, MD, an interventional cardiologist at St. Luke’s Hospital near St. Louis, told 13News.

Dr. Rinder has been hired as a medical consultant for the attorneys who filed Mr. Pflum’s malpractice complaint against Dr. Harlamert.

Cardiologists who reviewed the catheterization films for 13News said some of Mr. Pflum’s heart blockages met the 70% threshold to warrant consideration of a stent, while others clearly did not. In-stent restenosis occurred in several of the implanted stents, requiring a second open heart surgery.

In a statement, Dr. Harlamert’s attorneys told 13News that Dr. Harlamert has “always been committed to providing quality care to patients” and that he treated his cardiology patients “based on their unique circumstances, his expertise, and the tools available.

“Because of stringent privacy laws and pending litigation, a response to a local news story is not the proper forum to present a picture of any particular treatment decision, especially when that picture may be incomplete at this time,” the statement reads.
 

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

Seven former patients have filed malpractice complaints against an interventional cardiologist based in Indianapolis, alleging he performed unnecessary cardiac procedures that led to physical and emotional harm.

The medical records for one patient, 70-year-old John Pflum, of Noblesville, Ind., show that Edward Harlamert, MD, performed 44 heart catheterizations and inserted at least 41 stents between 2004 and 2013, according to an investigation by WTHR 13News in Indianapolis that was published Dec. 14.

The news outlet asked four cardiologists to review and comment on John Pflum’s medical records.

“There is not a single scenario I can think of where doing this level of stents and angiograms would be justified or make sense. I have never seen this happen in the course of my medical training or my medical career,” Payal Kohli, MD, cardiologist and medical director of Cherry Creek Heart in Denver, told 13News.

Sunil Rao, MD, director of interventional cardiology at NYU Langone Health and president of the Society for Cardiovascular Angioplasty and Interventions, who also reviewed Mr. Pflum’s medical records for 13News, said he’s “never seen a patient who has gotten this many procedures.”

Dr. Rao said that on the basis of what he saw in the records and in the images, there were several deviations from the standard of care.

Two other independent cardiologists who spoke with 13News voiced similar opinions.

Mr. Pflum was “getting cathed almost every month. That’s not how it’s done,” Morton Rinder, MD, an interventional cardiologist at St. Luke’s Hospital near St. Louis, told 13News.

Dr. Rinder has been hired as a medical consultant for the attorneys who filed Mr. Pflum’s malpractice complaint against Dr. Harlamert.

Cardiologists who reviewed the catheterization films for 13News said some of Mr. Pflum’s heart blockages met the 70% threshold to warrant consideration of a stent, while others clearly did not. In-stent restenosis occurred in several of the implanted stents, requiring a second open heart surgery.

In a statement, Dr. Harlamert’s attorneys told 13News that Dr. Harlamert has “always been committed to providing quality care to patients” and that he treated his cardiology patients “based on their unique circumstances, his expertise, and the tools available.

“Because of stringent privacy laws and pending litigation, a response to a local news story is not the proper forum to present a picture of any particular treatment decision, especially when that picture may be incomplete at this time,” the statement reads.
 

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

Seven former patients have filed malpractice complaints against an interventional cardiologist based in Indianapolis, alleging he performed unnecessary cardiac procedures that led to physical and emotional harm.

The medical records for one patient, 70-year-old John Pflum, of Noblesville, Ind., show that Edward Harlamert, MD, performed 44 heart catheterizations and inserted at least 41 stents between 2004 and 2013, according to an investigation by WTHR 13News in Indianapolis that was published Dec. 14.

The news outlet asked four cardiologists to review and comment on John Pflum’s medical records.

“There is not a single scenario I can think of where doing this level of stents and angiograms would be justified or make sense. I have never seen this happen in the course of my medical training or my medical career,” Payal Kohli, MD, cardiologist and medical director of Cherry Creek Heart in Denver, told 13News.

Sunil Rao, MD, director of interventional cardiology at NYU Langone Health and president of the Society for Cardiovascular Angioplasty and Interventions, who also reviewed Mr. Pflum’s medical records for 13News, said he’s “never seen a patient who has gotten this many procedures.”

Dr. Rao said that on the basis of what he saw in the records and in the images, there were several deviations from the standard of care.

Two other independent cardiologists who spoke with 13News voiced similar opinions.

Mr. Pflum was “getting cathed almost every month. That’s not how it’s done,” Morton Rinder, MD, an interventional cardiologist at St. Luke’s Hospital near St. Louis, told 13News.

Dr. Rinder has been hired as a medical consultant for the attorneys who filed Mr. Pflum’s malpractice complaint against Dr. Harlamert.

Cardiologists who reviewed the catheterization films for 13News said some of Mr. Pflum’s heart blockages met the 70% threshold to warrant consideration of a stent, while others clearly did not. In-stent restenosis occurred in several of the implanted stents, requiring a second open heart surgery.

In a statement, Dr. Harlamert’s attorneys told 13News that Dr. Harlamert has “always been committed to providing quality care to patients” and that he treated his cardiology patients “based on their unique circumstances, his expertise, and the tools available.

“Because of stringent privacy laws and pending litigation, a response to a local news story is not the proper forum to present a picture of any particular treatment decision, especially when that picture may be incomplete at this time,” the statement reads.
 

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

LISBON – Efforts are underway to better identify which individuals with so-called “prediabetes” are at greatest risk for developing type 2 diabetes and subsequent complications, and therefore merit more intensive intervention.

“Prediabetes” is the term coined to refer to either “impaired fasting glucose (IFG)” or “impaired glucose tolerance (IGT),” both denoting levels of elevated glycemia that don’t meet the thresholds for diabetes. It’s a heterogeneous group overall, and despite its name, not everyone with prediabetes will progress to develop type 2 diabetes.

There have been major increases in prediabetes in the United States and globally over the past 2 decades, epidemiologist Elizabeth Selvin, PhD, said at the recent IDF World Diabetes Congress 2022.

She noted that the concept of “prediabetes” has been controversial, previously dubbed a “dubious diagnosis” and a “boon for Pharma” in a 2019 Science article.

Others have said it’s “not a medical condition” and that it’s “an artificial category with virtually zero clinical relevance” in a press statement issued for a 2014 BMJ article.

“I don’t agree with these statements entirely but I think they speak to the confusion and tremendous controversy around the concept of prediabetes ... I think instead of calling prediabetes a ‘dubious diagnosis’ we should think of it as an opportunity,” said Dr. Selvin, of Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore.

She proposes trying to home in on those with highest risk of developing type 2 diabetes, which she suggests could be achieved by using a combination of elevated fasting glucose and an elevated A1c, although she stresses that this isn’t in any official guidance.

With the appropriate definition, people who are truly at risk for progression to type 2 diabetes can be identified so that lifestyle factors and cardiovascular risk can be addressed, and weight loss efforts implemented.

“Prevention of weight gain is ... important. That message often gets lost. Even if we can’t get people to lose weight, preventing [further] weight gain is important,” she noted.

Asked to comment, Sue Kirkman, MD, told this news organization, “The term prediabetes – or IFG or IGT or any of the ‘intermediate’ terms – is pragmatic in a way. It helps clinicians and patients understand that they are in a higher-risk category and might need intervention and likely need ongoing monitoring. But like many other risk factors [such as] blood pressure, [high] BMI, etc., the risk is not dichotomous but a continuum.

“People at the low end of the ‘intermediate’ range are not going to have much more risk compared to people who are ‘normal,’ while those at the high end of the range have very high risk,” said Dr. Kirkman, of the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, and a coauthor of the American Diabetes Association’s diabetes and prediabetes classifications.

“So we lose information if we just lump everyone into a single category. For individual patients, we definitely need better ways to estimate and communicate their potential risk.”


 

Currently five definitions for prediabetes: Home in on risk

The problem, Dr. Selvin explained, is that currently there are five official definitions for “prediabetes” using cutoffs for hemoglobin A1c, fasting glucose, or an oral glucose tolerance test.

Each one identifies different numbers of people with differing risk levels, ranging from a prevalence of 4.3% of the middle-aged adult population with the International Expert Committee’s definition of A1c 6.0%-6.4% to 43.5% with the American Diabetes Association’s 100-125 mg/dL fasting glucose.

“That’s an enormous difference. No wonder people are confused about who has prediabetes and what we should do about it,” Dr. Selvin said, adding that the concern about overdiagnosing “prediabetes” is even greater for older populations, in whom “it’s incredibly common to have mildly elevated glucose.”  

Hence her proposal of what she sees as an evidence-based, “really easy solution” that clinicians can use now to better identify which patients with “intermediate hyperglycemia” to be most concerned about: Use a combination of fasting glucose above 100 mg/dL and an A1c greater than 5.7%.

“If you have both fasting glucose and hemoglobin A1c, you can use them together ... This is not codified in any guidelines. You won’t see this mentioned anywhere. The guidelines are silent on what to do when some people have an elevated fasting glucose but not an elevated A1c ... but I think a simple message is that if people have both an elevated fasting glucose and an elevated A1c, that’s a very high-risk group,” she said.

On the other hand, Dr. Kirkman pointed out, “most discrepancies are near the margins, as in one test is slightly elevated and one isn’t, so those people probably are at low risk.

“It may be that both being elevated means higher risk because they have more hyperglycemia ... so it seems reasonable, but only if it changes what you tell people.”

For example, Dr. Kirkman said, “I’d tell someone with A1c of 5.8% and fasting glucose of 99 mg/dL the same thing I’d tell someone with that A1c and a glucose of 104 mg/dL – that their risk is still pretty low – and I’d recommend healthy lifestyle and weight loss if overweight either way.”

However, she also said, “Certainly people with higher glucose or A1c are at much higher risk, and same for those with both.”
 

Tie “prediabetes” definition to risk, as cardiology scores do?

Dr. Selvin also believes that risk-based definitions of prediabetes are needed. Ideally, these would incorporate demographics and clinical factors such as age and body mass index. Other biomarkers could potentially be developed and validated for inclusion in the definition, such as C-reactive protein (CRP), lipids, or even genetic/proteomic information.  

Moreover, she thinks that the definition should be tied to clinical decision-making, as is the pooled cohort equation in cardiology.

“I think we could do something very similar in prediabetes,” she suggested, adding that even simply incorporating age and BMI into the definition could help further stratify the risk level until other predictors are validated.

Dr. Kirkman said, “The concept of risk scores a la cardiology is interesting, although we’d have to make them simple and also validate them against some outcome.”

Regarding the age issue, Dr. Kirkman noted that although age wasn’t a predictor of progression to type 2 diabetes in the placebo arm of the landmark Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) trial, “I do agree that it’s a problem that many older folks have the label of prediabetes because of a mildly elevated A1c and we know that most will never get diabetes.”

And, she noted, in the DPP people with prediabetes who had a BMI over 35 kg/m² did have significantly higher progression rates than those with lower BMI, while women with a history of gestational diabetes mellitus are also known to be at particularly high risk.
 

Whom should we throw the kitchen sink at?

Some of this discussion, Dr. Kirkman said, “is really a philosophical one, especially when you consider that lifestyle intervention has benefits for almost everyone on many short- and long-term outcomes.”

“The question is probably whom we should ‘throw the kitchen sink at,’ who should get more scalable advice that might apply to everyone regardless of glycemic levels, and whether there’s some more intermediate group that needs more of a [National Diabetes Prevention Program] approach.”

Dr. Selvin’s group is now working on gathering data to inform development of a risk-based prediabetes definition. “We have a whole research effort in this area. I hope that with some really strong data on risk in prediabetes, that can help to solve the heterogeneity issue. I’m focused on bringing evidence to bear to change the guidelines.”

In the meantime, she told this news organization, “I think there are things we can do now to provide more guidance. I get a lot of feedback from people saying things like ‘my physician told me I have prediabetes but now I don’t’ or ‘I saw in my labs that my blood sugar is elevated but my doctor never said anything.’  That’s a communications issue where we can do a better job.”

The meeting was sponsored by the International Diabetes Federation.

Dr. Selvin is deputy editor of Diabetes Care and on the editorial board of Diabetologia. She receives funding from the NIH and the Foundation for the NIH, and royalties from UpToDate for sections related to screening, diagnosis, and laboratory testing for diabetes. Dr. Kirkman reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

LISBON – Efforts are underway to better identify which individuals with so-called “prediabetes” are at greatest risk for developing type 2 diabetes and subsequent complications, and therefore merit more intensive intervention.

“Prediabetes” is the term coined to refer to either “impaired fasting glucose (IFG)” or “impaired glucose tolerance (IGT),” both denoting levels of elevated glycemia that don’t meet the thresholds for diabetes. It’s a heterogeneous group overall, and despite its name, not everyone with prediabetes will progress to develop type 2 diabetes.

There have been major increases in prediabetes in the United States and globally over the past 2 decades, epidemiologist Elizabeth Selvin, PhD, said at the recent IDF World Diabetes Congress 2022.

She noted that the concept of “prediabetes” has been controversial, previously dubbed a “dubious diagnosis” and a “boon for Pharma” in a 2019 Science article.

Others have said it’s “not a medical condition” and that it’s “an artificial category with virtually zero clinical relevance” in a press statement issued for a 2014 BMJ article.

“I don’t agree with these statements entirely but I think they speak to the confusion and tremendous controversy around the concept of prediabetes ... I think instead of calling prediabetes a ‘dubious diagnosis’ we should think of it as an opportunity,” said Dr. Selvin, of Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore.

She proposes trying to home in on those with highest risk of developing type 2 diabetes, which she suggests could be achieved by using a combination of elevated fasting glucose and an elevated A1c, although she stresses that this isn’t in any official guidance.

With the appropriate definition, people who are truly at risk for progression to type 2 diabetes can be identified so that lifestyle factors and cardiovascular risk can be addressed, and weight loss efforts implemented.

“Prevention of weight gain is ... important. That message often gets lost. Even if we can’t get people to lose weight, preventing [further] weight gain is important,” she noted.

Asked to comment, Sue Kirkman, MD, told this news organization, “The term prediabetes – or IFG or IGT or any of the ‘intermediate’ terms – is pragmatic in a way. It helps clinicians and patients understand that they are in a higher-risk category and might need intervention and likely need ongoing monitoring. But like many other risk factors [such as] blood pressure, [high] BMI, etc., the risk is not dichotomous but a continuum.

“People at the low end of the ‘intermediate’ range are not going to have much more risk compared to people who are ‘normal,’ while those at the high end of the range have very high risk,” said Dr. Kirkman, of the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, and a coauthor of the American Diabetes Association’s diabetes and prediabetes classifications.

“So we lose information if we just lump everyone into a single category. For individual patients, we definitely need better ways to estimate and communicate their potential risk.”


 

Currently five definitions for prediabetes: Home in on risk

The problem, Dr. Selvin explained, is that currently there are five official definitions for “prediabetes” using cutoffs for hemoglobin A1c, fasting glucose, or an oral glucose tolerance test.

Each one identifies different numbers of people with differing risk levels, ranging from a prevalence of 4.3% of the middle-aged adult population with the International Expert Committee’s definition of A1c 6.0%-6.4% to 43.5% with the American Diabetes Association’s 100-125 mg/dL fasting glucose.

“That’s an enormous difference. No wonder people are confused about who has prediabetes and what we should do about it,” Dr. Selvin said, adding that the concern about overdiagnosing “prediabetes” is even greater for older populations, in whom “it’s incredibly common to have mildly elevated glucose.”  

Hence her proposal of what she sees as an evidence-based, “really easy solution” that clinicians can use now to better identify which patients with “intermediate hyperglycemia” to be most concerned about: Use a combination of fasting glucose above 100 mg/dL and an A1c greater than 5.7%.

“If you have both fasting glucose and hemoglobin A1c, you can use them together ... This is not codified in any guidelines. You won’t see this mentioned anywhere. The guidelines are silent on what to do when some people have an elevated fasting glucose but not an elevated A1c ... but I think a simple message is that if people have both an elevated fasting glucose and an elevated A1c, that’s a very high-risk group,” she said.

On the other hand, Dr. Kirkman pointed out, “most discrepancies are near the margins, as in one test is slightly elevated and one isn’t, so those people probably are at low risk.

“It may be that both being elevated means higher risk because they have more hyperglycemia ... so it seems reasonable, but only if it changes what you tell people.”

For example, Dr. Kirkman said, “I’d tell someone with A1c of 5.8% and fasting glucose of 99 mg/dL the same thing I’d tell someone with that A1c and a glucose of 104 mg/dL – that their risk is still pretty low – and I’d recommend healthy lifestyle and weight loss if overweight either way.”

However, she also said, “Certainly people with higher glucose or A1c are at much higher risk, and same for those with both.”
 

Tie “prediabetes” definition to risk, as cardiology scores do?

Dr. Selvin also believes that risk-based definitions of prediabetes are needed. Ideally, these would incorporate demographics and clinical factors such as age and body mass index. Other biomarkers could potentially be developed and validated for inclusion in the definition, such as C-reactive protein (CRP), lipids, or even genetic/proteomic information.  

Moreover, she thinks that the definition should be tied to clinical decision-making, as is the pooled cohort equation in cardiology.

“I think we could do something very similar in prediabetes,” she suggested, adding that even simply incorporating age and BMI into the definition could help further stratify the risk level until other predictors are validated.

Dr. Kirkman said, “The concept of risk scores a la cardiology is interesting, although we’d have to make them simple and also validate them against some outcome.”

Regarding the age issue, Dr. Kirkman noted that although age wasn’t a predictor of progression to type 2 diabetes in the placebo arm of the landmark Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) trial, “I do agree that it’s a problem that many older folks have the label of prediabetes because of a mildly elevated A1c and we know that most will never get diabetes.”

And, she noted, in the DPP people with prediabetes who had a BMI over 35 kg/m² did have significantly higher progression rates than those with lower BMI, while women with a history of gestational diabetes mellitus are also known to be at particularly high risk.
 

Whom should we throw the kitchen sink at?

Some of this discussion, Dr. Kirkman said, “is really a philosophical one, especially when you consider that lifestyle intervention has benefits for almost everyone on many short- and long-term outcomes.”

“The question is probably whom we should ‘throw the kitchen sink at,’ who should get more scalable advice that might apply to everyone regardless of glycemic levels, and whether there’s some more intermediate group that needs more of a [National Diabetes Prevention Program] approach.”

Dr. Selvin’s group is now working on gathering data to inform development of a risk-based prediabetes definition. “We have a whole research effort in this area. I hope that with some really strong data on risk in prediabetes, that can help to solve the heterogeneity issue. I’m focused on bringing evidence to bear to change the guidelines.”

In the meantime, she told this news organization, “I think there are things we can do now to provide more guidance. I get a lot of feedback from people saying things like ‘my physician told me I have prediabetes but now I don’t’ or ‘I saw in my labs that my blood sugar is elevated but my doctor never said anything.’  That’s a communications issue where we can do a better job.”

The meeting was sponsored by the International Diabetes Federation.

Dr. Selvin is deputy editor of Diabetes Care and on the editorial board of Diabetologia. She receives funding from the NIH and the Foundation for the NIH, and royalties from UpToDate for sections related to screening, diagnosis, and laboratory testing for diabetes. Dr. Kirkman reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

LISBON – Efforts are underway to better identify which individuals with so-called “prediabetes” are at greatest risk for developing type 2 diabetes and subsequent complications, and therefore merit more intensive intervention.

“Prediabetes” is the term coined to refer to either “impaired fasting glucose (IFG)” or “impaired glucose tolerance (IGT),” both denoting levels of elevated glycemia that don’t meet the thresholds for diabetes. It’s a heterogeneous group overall, and despite its name, not everyone with prediabetes will progress to develop type 2 diabetes.

There have been major increases in prediabetes in the United States and globally over the past 2 decades, epidemiologist Elizabeth Selvin, PhD, said at the recent IDF World Diabetes Congress 2022.

She noted that the concept of “prediabetes” has been controversial, previously dubbed a “dubious diagnosis” and a “boon for Pharma” in a 2019 Science article.

Others have said it’s “not a medical condition” and that it’s “an artificial category with virtually zero clinical relevance” in a press statement issued for a 2014 BMJ article.

“I don’t agree with these statements entirely but I think they speak to the confusion and tremendous controversy around the concept of prediabetes ... I think instead of calling prediabetes a ‘dubious diagnosis’ we should think of it as an opportunity,” said Dr. Selvin, of Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore.

She proposes trying to home in on those with highest risk of developing type 2 diabetes, which she suggests could be achieved by using a combination of elevated fasting glucose and an elevated A1c, although she stresses that this isn’t in any official guidance.

With the appropriate definition, people who are truly at risk for progression to type 2 diabetes can be identified so that lifestyle factors and cardiovascular risk can be addressed, and weight loss efforts implemented.

“Prevention of weight gain is ... important. That message often gets lost. Even if we can’t get people to lose weight, preventing [further] weight gain is important,” she noted.

Asked to comment, Sue Kirkman, MD, told this news organization, “The term prediabetes – or IFG or IGT or any of the ‘intermediate’ terms – is pragmatic in a way. It helps clinicians and patients understand that they are in a higher-risk category and might need intervention and likely need ongoing monitoring. But like many other risk factors [such as] blood pressure, [high] BMI, etc., the risk is not dichotomous but a continuum.

“People at the low end of the ‘intermediate’ range are not going to have much more risk compared to people who are ‘normal,’ while those at the high end of the range have very high risk,” said Dr. Kirkman, of the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, and a coauthor of the American Diabetes Association’s diabetes and prediabetes classifications.

“So we lose information if we just lump everyone into a single category. For individual patients, we definitely need better ways to estimate and communicate their potential risk.”


 

Currently five definitions for prediabetes: Home in on risk

The problem, Dr. Selvin explained, is that currently there are five official definitions for “prediabetes” using cutoffs for hemoglobin A1c, fasting glucose, or an oral glucose tolerance test.

Each one identifies different numbers of people with differing risk levels, ranging from a prevalence of 4.3% of the middle-aged adult population with the International Expert Committee’s definition of A1c 6.0%-6.4% to 43.5% with the American Diabetes Association’s 100-125 mg/dL fasting glucose.

“That’s an enormous difference. No wonder people are confused about who has prediabetes and what we should do about it,” Dr. Selvin said, adding that the concern about overdiagnosing “prediabetes” is even greater for older populations, in whom “it’s incredibly common to have mildly elevated glucose.”  

Hence her proposal of what she sees as an evidence-based, “really easy solution” that clinicians can use now to better identify which patients with “intermediate hyperglycemia” to be most concerned about: Use a combination of fasting glucose above 100 mg/dL and an A1c greater than 5.7%.

“If you have both fasting glucose and hemoglobin A1c, you can use them together ... This is not codified in any guidelines. You won’t see this mentioned anywhere. The guidelines are silent on what to do when some people have an elevated fasting glucose but not an elevated A1c ... but I think a simple message is that if people have both an elevated fasting glucose and an elevated A1c, that’s a very high-risk group,” she said.

On the other hand, Dr. Kirkman pointed out, “most discrepancies are near the margins, as in one test is slightly elevated and one isn’t, so those people probably are at low risk.

“It may be that both being elevated means higher risk because they have more hyperglycemia ... so it seems reasonable, but only if it changes what you tell people.”

For example, Dr. Kirkman said, “I’d tell someone with A1c of 5.8% and fasting glucose of 99 mg/dL the same thing I’d tell someone with that A1c and a glucose of 104 mg/dL – that their risk is still pretty low – and I’d recommend healthy lifestyle and weight loss if overweight either way.”

However, she also said, “Certainly people with higher glucose or A1c are at much higher risk, and same for those with both.”
 

Tie “prediabetes” definition to risk, as cardiology scores do?

Dr. Selvin also believes that risk-based definitions of prediabetes are needed. Ideally, these would incorporate demographics and clinical factors such as age and body mass index. Other biomarkers could potentially be developed and validated for inclusion in the definition, such as C-reactive protein (CRP), lipids, or even genetic/proteomic information.  

Moreover, she thinks that the definition should be tied to clinical decision-making, as is the pooled cohort equation in cardiology.

“I think we could do something very similar in prediabetes,” she suggested, adding that even simply incorporating age and BMI into the definition could help further stratify the risk level until other predictors are validated.

Dr. Kirkman said, “The concept of risk scores a la cardiology is interesting, although we’d have to make them simple and also validate them against some outcome.”

Regarding the age issue, Dr. Kirkman noted that although age wasn’t a predictor of progression to type 2 diabetes in the placebo arm of the landmark Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) trial, “I do agree that it’s a problem that many older folks have the label of prediabetes because of a mildly elevated A1c and we know that most will never get diabetes.”

And, she noted, in the DPP people with prediabetes who had a BMI over 35 kg/m² did have significantly higher progression rates than those with lower BMI, while women with a history of gestational diabetes mellitus are also known to be at particularly high risk.
 

Whom should we throw the kitchen sink at?

Some of this discussion, Dr. Kirkman said, “is really a philosophical one, especially when you consider that lifestyle intervention has benefits for almost everyone on many short- and long-term outcomes.”

“The question is probably whom we should ‘throw the kitchen sink at,’ who should get more scalable advice that might apply to everyone regardless of glycemic levels, and whether there’s some more intermediate group that needs more of a [National Diabetes Prevention Program] approach.”

Dr. Selvin’s group is now working on gathering data to inform development of a risk-based prediabetes definition. “We have a whole research effort in this area. I hope that with some really strong data on risk in prediabetes, that can help to solve the heterogeneity issue. I’m focused on bringing evidence to bear to change the guidelines.”

In the meantime, she told this news organization, “I think there are things we can do now to provide more guidance. I get a lot of feedback from people saying things like ‘my physician told me I have prediabetes but now I don’t’ or ‘I saw in my labs that my blood sugar is elevated but my doctor never said anything.’  That’s a communications issue where we can do a better job.”

The meeting was sponsored by the International Diabetes Federation.

Dr. Selvin is deputy editor of Diabetes Care and on the editorial board of Diabetologia. She receives funding from the NIH and the Foundation for the NIH, and royalties from UpToDate for sections related to screening, diagnosis, and laboratory testing for diabetes. Dr. Kirkman reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Aspartame, an artificial sweetener commonly found in diet drinks and food, may raise the risk for anxiety, early research suggests.

In a new preclinical study, investigators observed that mice that drank water containing aspartame exhibited pronounced anxiety-like behaviors in a variety of maze tests.

This behavior occurred at aspartame doses equivalent to less than 15% of the maximum daily human intake recommended by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

“It was such a robust anxiety-like trait that I don’t think any of us were anticipating we would see. It was completely unexpected. Usually you see subtle changes,” lead author Sara Jones, doctoral candidate at Florida State University, Tallahassee, said in a news release.

The findings were published online in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.


 

Transgenerational transmission

When consumed, aspartame becomes aspartic acid, phenylalanine, and methanol – all of which can have potent effects on the central nervous system, the researchers point out.

Exposing the mice to aspartame also produced changes in the expression of genes regulating excitation-inhibition balance in the amygdala, a brain region that regulates anxiety and fear.

Giving the mice diazepam, which is used to treat generalized anxiety disorder, alleviated the anxiety behavior in the animals.

“The anxiety, its response to diazepam, and the changes in amygdala gene expression are not limited to the aspartame-exposed individuals but also appear in up to two generations descending from the aspartame-exposed males,” the researchers report.

“Extrapolation of the findings to humans suggests that aspartame consumption at doses below the FDA recommended maximum daily intake may produce neurobehavioral changes in aspartame-consuming individuals and their descendants,” they write.

“Thus, human population at risk of aspartame’s potential mental health effects may be larger than current expectations, which only include aspartame-consuming individuals,” they add.
 

Far from harmless?

The investigators plan to publish additional data from the study that focus on how aspartame affected memory in the mice.

In future research, they hope to identify molecular mechanisms that influence the transmission of aspartame’s effect across generations.

The Florida State University study joins several others that discount the long-held notion that aspartame and other nonnutritive sweeteners have no effect on the body.

As reported by this news organization, in a recent study researchers found that these sugar substitutes are not metabolically inert and can alter the gut microbiome in a way that can influence blood glucose levels.

Artificial sweeteners have also been linked to an increased risk for heart disease and stroke and for cancer.

The study was funded by the Jim and Betty Ann Rodgers Chair Fund at Florida State University and by the Bryan Robinson Foundation. The investigators have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Aspartame, an artificial sweetener commonly found in diet drinks and food, may raise the risk for anxiety, early research suggests.

In a new preclinical study, investigators observed that mice that drank water containing aspartame exhibited pronounced anxiety-like behaviors in a variety of maze tests.

This behavior occurred at aspartame doses equivalent to less than 15% of the maximum daily human intake recommended by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

“It was such a robust anxiety-like trait that I don’t think any of us were anticipating we would see. It was completely unexpected. Usually you see subtle changes,” lead author Sara Jones, doctoral candidate at Florida State University, Tallahassee, said in a news release.

The findings were published online in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.


 

Transgenerational transmission

When consumed, aspartame becomes aspartic acid, phenylalanine, and methanol – all of which can have potent effects on the central nervous system, the researchers point out.

Exposing the mice to aspartame also produced changes in the expression of genes regulating excitation-inhibition balance in the amygdala, a brain region that regulates anxiety and fear.

Giving the mice diazepam, which is used to treat generalized anxiety disorder, alleviated the anxiety behavior in the animals.

“The anxiety, its response to diazepam, and the changes in amygdala gene expression are not limited to the aspartame-exposed individuals but also appear in up to two generations descending from the aspartame-exposed males,” the researchers report.

“Extrapolation of the findings to humans suggests that aspartame consumption at doses below the FDA recommended maximum daily intake may produce neurobehavioral changes in aspartame-consuming individuals and their descendants,” they write.

“Thus, human population at risk of aspartame’s potential mental health effects may be larger than current expectations, which only include aspartame-consuming individuals,” they add.
 

Far from harmless?

The investigators plan to publish additional data from the study that focus on how aspartame affected memory in the mice.

In future research, they hope to identify molecular mechanisms that influence the transmission of aspartame’s effect across generations.

The Florida State University study joins several others that discount the long-held notion that aspartame and other nonnutritive sweeteners have no effect on the body.

As reported by this news organization, in a recent study researchers found that these sugar substitutes are not metabolically inert and can alter the gut microbiome in a way that can influence blood glucose levels.

Artificial sweeteners have also been linked to an increased risk for heart disease and stroke and for cancer.

The study was funded by the Jim and Betty Ann Rodgers Chair Fund at Florida State University and by the Bryan Robinson Foundation. The investigators have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Aspartame, an artificial sweetener commonly found in diet drinks and food, may raise the risk for anxiety, early research suggests.

In a new preclinical study, investigators observed that mice that drank water containing aspartame exhibited pronounced anxiety-like behaviors in a variety of maze tests.

This behavior occurred at aspartame doses equivalent to less than 15% of the maximum daily human intake recommended by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

“It was such a robust anxiety-like trait that I don’t think any of us were anticipating we would see. It was completely unexpected. Usually you see subtle changes,” lead author Sara Jones, doctoral candidate at Florida State University, Tallahassee, said in a news release.

The findings were published online in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.


 

Transgenerational transmission

When consumed, aspartame becomes aspartic acid, phenylalanine, and methanol – all of which can have potent effects on the central nervous system, the researchers point out.

Exposing the mice to aspartame also produced changes in the expression of genes regulating excitation-inhibition balance in the amygdala, a brain region that regulates anxiety and fear.

Giving the mice diazepam, which is used to treat generalized anxiety disorder, alleviated the anxiety behavior in the animals.

“The anxiety, its response to diazepam, and the changes in amygdala gene expression are not limited to the aspartame-exposed individuals but also appear in up to two generations descending from the aspartame-exposed males,” the researchers report.

“Extrapolation of the findings to humans suggests that aspartame consumption at doses below the FDA recommended maximum daily intake may produce neurobehavioral changes in aspartame-consuming individuals and their descendants,” they write.

“Thus, human population at risk of aspartame’s potential mental health effects may be larger than current expectations, which only include aspartame-consuming individuals,” they add.
 

Far from harmless?

The investigators plan to publish additional data from the study that focus on how aspartame affected memory in the mice.

In future research, they hope to identify molecular mechanisms that influence the transmission of aspartame’s effect across generations.

The Florida State University study joins several others that discount the long-held notion that aspartame and other nonnutritive sweeteners have no effect on the body.

As reported by this news organization, in a recent study researchers found that these sugar substitutes are not metabolically inert and can alter the gut microbiome in a way that can influence blood glucose levels.

Artificial sweeteners have also been linked to an increased risk for heart disease and stroke and for cancer.

The study was funded by the Jim and Betty Ann Rodgers Chair Fund at Florida State University and by the Bryan Robinson Foundation. The investigators have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Two years ago, when the first COVID-19 vaccines were administered, marked a game-changing moment in the fight against the pandemic. But it also was a significant moment for messenger RNA (mRNA) technology, which up until then had shown promise but had never quite broken through. 

Now, scientists hope to use this technology to develop more vaccines, with those at the University of Pennsylvania hoping to use that technology to pioneer yet another first: a universal flu vaccine that can protect us against all flu types, not just a select few. 

It’s the latest advance in a new age of vaccinology, where vaccines are easier and faster to produce, as well as more flexible and customizable. 

“It’s all about covering the different flavors of flu in a way the current vaccines cannot do,” says Ofer Levy, MD, PhD, director of the Precision Vaccines Program at Boston Children’s Hospital, who is not involved with the UPenn research. “The mRNA platform is attractive here given its scalability and modularity, where you can mix and match different mRNAs.” 

A recent paper, published in Science, reports successful animal tests of the experimental vaccine, which, like the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID vaccines, relies on mRNA. But the idea is not to replace the annual flu shot. It’s to develop a primer that could be administered in childhood, readying the body’s B cells and T cells to react quickly if faced with a flu virus. 

It’s all part of a National Institutes of Health–funded effort to develop a universal flu vaccine, with hopes of heading off future flu pandemics. Annual shots protect against flu subtypes known to spread in humans. But many subtypes circulate in animals, like birds and pigs, and occasionally jump to humans, causing pandemics. 

“The current vaccines provide very little protection against these other subtypes,” says lead study author Scott Hensley, PhD, a professor of microbiology at UPenn. “We set out to make a vaccine that would provide some level of immunity against essentially every influenza subtype we know about.” 

That’s 20 subtypes altogether. The unique properties of mRNA vaccines make immune responses against all those antigens possible, Dr. Hensley says. 

Old-school vaccines introduce a weakened or dead bacteria or virus into the body, but mRNA vaccines use mRNA encoded with a protein from the virus. That’s the “spike” protein for COVID, and for the experimental vaccine, it’s hemagglutinin, the major protein found on the surface of all flu viruses.

Mice and ferrets that had never been exposed to the flu were given the vaccine and produced high levels of antibodies against all 20 flu subtypes. Vaccinated mice exposed to the exact strains in the vaccine stayed pretty healthy, while those exposed to strains not found in the vaccine got sick but recovered quickly and survived. Unvaccinated mice exposed to the flu strain died. 

The vaccine seems to be able to “induce broad immunity against all the different influenza subtypes,” Dr. Hensley says, preventing severe illness if not infection overall. 

Still, whether it could truly stave off a pandemic that hasn’t happened yet is hard to say, Dr. Levy cautions. 

“We are going to need to better learn the molecular rules by which these vaccines protect,” he says.

But the UPenn team is forging ahead, with plans to test their vaccine in human adults in 2023 to determine safety, dosing, and antibody response.

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

Two years ago, when the first COVID-19 vaccines were administered, marked a game-changing moment in the fight against the pandemic. But it also was a significant moment for messenger RNA (mRNA) technology, which up until then had shown promise but had never quite broken through. 

Now, scientists hope to use this technology to develop more vaccines, with those at the University of Pennsylvania hoping to use that technology to pioneer yet another first: a universal flu vaccine that can protect us against all flu types, not just a select few. 

It’s the latest advance in a new age of vaccinology, where vaccines are easier and faster to produce, as well as more flexible and customizable. 

“It’s all about covering the different flavors of flu in a way the current vaccines cannot do,” says Ofer Levy, MD, PhD, director of the Precision Vaccines Program at Boston Children’s Hospital, who is not involved with the UPenn research. “The mRNA platform is attractive here given its scalability and modularity, where you can mix and match different mRNAs.” 

A recent paper, published in Science, reports successful animal tests of the experimental vaccine, which, like the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID vaccines, relies on mRNA. But the idea is not to replace the annual flu shot. It’s to develop a primer that could be administered in childhood, readying the body’s B cells and T cells to react quickly if faced with a flu virus. 

It’s all part of a National Institutes of Health–funded effort to develop a universal flu vaccine, with hopes of heading off future flu pandemics. Annual shots protect against flu subtypes known to spread in humans. But many subtypes circulate in animals, like birds and pigs, and occasionally jump to humans, causing pandemics. 

“The current vaccines provide very little protection against these other subtypes,” says lead study author Scott Hensley, PhD, a professor of microbiology at UPenn. “We set out to make a vaccine that would provide some level of immunity against essentially every influenza subtype we know about.” 

That’s 20 subtypes altogether. The unique properties of mRNA vaccines make immune responses against all those antigens possible, Dr. Hensley says. 

Old-school vaccines introduce a weakened or dead bacteria or virus into the body, but mRNA vaccines use mRNA encoded with a protein from the virus. That’s the “spike” protein for COVID, and for the experimental vaccine, it’s hemagglutinin, the major protein found on the surface of all flu viruses.

Mice and ferrets that had never been exposed to the flu were given the vaccine and produced high levels of antibodies against all 20 flu subtypes. Vaccinated mice exposed to the exact strains in the vaccine stayed pretty healthy, while those exposed to strains not found in the vaccine got sick but recovered quickly and survived. Unvaccinated mice exposed to the flu strain died. 

The vaccine seems to be able to “induce broad immunity against all the different influenza subtypes,” Dr. Hensley says, preventing severe illness if not infection overall. 

Still, whether it could truly stave off a pandemic that hasn’t happened yet is hard to say, Dr. Levy cautions. 

“We are going to need to better learn the molecular rules by which these vaccines protect,” he says.

But the UPenn team is forging ahead, with plans to test their vaccine in human adults in 2023 to determine safety, dosing, and antibody response.

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

Two years ago, when the first COVID-19 vaccines were administered, marked a game-changing moment in the fight against the pandemic. But it also was a significant moment for messenger RNA (mRNA) technology, which up until then had shown promise but had never quite broken through. 

Now, scientists hope to use this technology to develop more vaccines, with those at the University of Pennsylvania hoping to use that technology to pioneer yet another first: a universal flu vaccine that can protect us against all flu types, not just a select few. 

It’s the latest advance in a new age of vaccinology, where vaccines are easier and faster to produce, as well as more flexible and customizable. 

“It’s all about covering the different flavors of flu in a way the current vaccines cannot do,” says Ofer Levy, MD, PhD, director of the Precision Vaccines Program at Boston Children’s Hospital, who is not involved with the UPenn research. “The mRNA platform is attractive here given its scalability and modularity, where you can mix and match different mRNAs.” 

A recent paper, published in Science, reports successful animal tests of the experimental vaccine, which, like the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID vaccines, relies on mRNA. But the idea is not to replace the annual flu shot. It’s to develop a primer that could be administered in childhood, readying the body’s B cells and T cells to react quickly if faced with a flu virus. 

It’s all part of a National Institutes of Health–funded effort to develop a universal flu vaccine, with hopes of heading off future flu pandemics. Annual shots protect against flu subtypes known to spread in humans. But many subtypes circulate in animals, like birds and pigs, and occasionally jump to humans, causing pandemics. 

“The current vaccines provide very little protection against these other subtypes,” says lead study author Scott Hensley, PhD, a professor of microbiology at UPenn. “We set out to make a vaccine that would provide some level of immunity against essentially every influenza subtype we know about.” 

That’s 20 subtypes altogether. The unique properties of mRNA vaccines make immune responses against all those antigens possible, Dr. Hensley says. 

Old-school vaccines introduce a weakened or dead bacteria or virus into the body, but mRNA vaccines use mRNA encoded with a protein from the virus. That’s the “spike” protein for COVID, and for the experimental vaccine, it’s hemagglutinin, the major protein found on the surface of all flu viruses.

Mice and ferrets that had never been exposed to the flu were given the vaccine and produced high levels of antibodies against all 20 flu subtypes. Vaccinated mice exposed to the exact strains in the vaccine stayed pretty healthy, while those exposed to strains not found in the vaccine got sick but recovered quickly and survived. Unvaccinated mice exposed to the flu strain died. 

The vaccine seems to be able to “induce broad immunity against all the different influenza subtypes,” Dr. Hensley says, preventing severe illness if not infection overall. 

Still, whether it could truly stave off a pandemic that hasn’t happened yet is hard to say, Dr. Levy cautions. 

“We are going to need to better learn the molecular rules by which these vaccines protect,” he says.

But the UPenn team is forging ahead, with plans to test their vaccine in human adults in 2023 to determine safety, dosing, and antibody response.

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

More than a quarter of patients who were shot by assailants with guns had their injuries mislabeled as “unintentional” at hospital discharge, according to a review of more than 1,200 cases at three U.S. trauma centers.

These coding inaccuracies could distort our understanding of gun violence in the United States and make it seem like accidental shootings are more common than they really are, researchers reported in JAMA Network Open.

“The systematic error in intent classification is not widely known or acknowledged by researchers in this field,” Philip J. Cook, PhD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., and Susan T. Parker, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, wrote in an invited commentary about the new findings. “The bulk of all shootings, nonfatal and fatal together, are assaults, which is to say the result of one person intentionally shooting another. An accurate statistical portrait thus suggests that gun violence is predominantly a crime problem.”

In 2020, 79% of all homicides and 53% of all suicides involved firearms, the CDC reported. Gun violence is now the leading cause of death for children in the United States, government data show.

For the new study, Matthew Miller, MD, ScD, of Northeastern University and the Harvard Injury Control Research Center in Boston, and his colleagues examined how International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes may misclassify the intent behind gunshot injuries.

Dr. Miller’s group looked at 1,227 incidents between 2008 and 2019 at three major trauma centers – Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Massachusetts General Hospital, both in Boston, and Harborview Medical Center in Seattle.

Of those shootings, 837 (68.2%) involved assaults, 168 (13.5%) were unintentional, 124 (9.9%) were deliberate self-harm, and 43 (3.4%) were instances of legal intervention, based on the researchers’ review of medical records.

ICD codes at discharge, however, labeled 581 cases (47.4%) as assaults and 432 (35.2%) as unintentional.

The researchers found that 234 of the 837 assaults (28%) and 9 of the 43 legal interventions (20.9%) were miscoded as unintentional. This problem occurred even when the “medical narrative explicitly indicated that the shooting was an act of interpersonal violence,” such as a drive-by shooting or an act of domestic violence, the researchers reported.

Hospital trauma registrars, who detail the circumstances surrounding injuries, were mostly in agreement with the researchers.

Medical coders “would likely have little trouble characterizing firearm injury intent accurately if incentives were created for them to do so,” the authors wrote.

Trends and interventions

Separately, researchers published studies showing that gun violence tends to affect various demographics differently, and that remediating abandoned houses could help reduce gun crime.

Lindsay Young, of the University of Cincinnati, and Henry Xiang, MD, PhD, director of the Center for Pediatric Trauma Research at Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio, analyzed rates of firearm deaths from 1981 to 2020.

They found that the rate of firearm-related homicide was five times higher among males than females, and the rate of suicide involving firearms was nearly seven times higher for men, they reported in PLOS ONE.

Black men were the group most affected by homicide, whereas White men were most affected by suicide, they found.

To see if fixing abandoned properties would improve health and reduce gun violence in low-income, Black neighborhoods in Philadelphia, Eugenia C. South, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and colleagues conducted a randomized trial.

They randomly assigned abandoned properties in some areas to undergo full remediation (installing working windows and doors, cleaning trash, and weeding); trash cleanup and weeding only; or no intervention.

“Abandoned houses that were remediated showed substantial drops in nearby weapons violations (−8.43%), gun assaults (−13.12%), and to a lesser extent shootings (−6.96%),” the researchers reported.

The intervention targets effects of segregation that have resulted from “historical and ongoing government and private-sector policies” that lead to disinvestment in Black, urban communities, they wrote. Abandoned houses can be used to store firearms and for other illegal activity. They also can engender feelings of fear, neglect, and stress in communities, the researchers noted.

Dr. Miller’s study was funded by the National Collaborative on Gun Violence Research; coauthors disclosed corporate, government, and university grants. The full list of disclosures can be found with the original article. Editorialists Dr. Cook and Dr. Parker report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. South’s study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. South and some coauthors disclosed government grants.
 

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

More than a quarter of patients who were shot by assailants with guns had their injuries mislabeled as “unintentional” at hospital discharge, according to a review of more than 1,200 cases at three U.S. trauma centers.

These coding inaccuracies could distort our understanding of gun violence in the United States and make it seem like accidental shootings are more common than they really are, researchers reported in JAMA Network Open.

“The systematic error in intent classification is not widely known or acknowledged by researchers in this field,” Philip J. Cook, PhD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., and Susan T. Parker, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, wrote in an invited commentary about the new findings. “The bulk of all shootings, nonfatal and fatal together, are assaults, which is to say the result of one person intentionally shooting another. An accurate statistical portrait thus suggests that gun violence is predominantly a crime problem.”

In 2020, 79% of all homicides and 53% of all suicides involved firearms, the CDC reported. Gun violence is now the leading cause of death for children in the United States, government data show.

For the new study, Matthew Miller, MD, ScD, of Northeastern University and the Harvard Injury Control Research Center in Boston, and his colleagues examined how International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes may misclassify the intent behind gunshot injuries.

Dr. Miller’s group looked at 1,227 incidents between 2008 and 2019 at three major trauma centers – Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Massachusetts General Hospital, both in Boston, and Harborview Medical Center in Seattle.

Of those shootings, 837 (68.2%) involved assaults, 168 (13.5%) were unintentional, 124 (9.9%) were deliberate self-harm, and 43 (3.4%) were instances of legal intervention, based on the researchers’ review of medical records.

ICD codes at discharge, however, labeled 581 cases (47.4%) as assaults and 432 (35.2%) as unintentional.

The researchers found that 234 of the 837 assaults (28%) and 9 of the 43 legal interventions (20.9%) were miscoded as unintentional. This problem occurred even when the “medical narrative explicitly indicated that the shooting was an act of interpersonal violence,” such as a drive-by shooting or an act of domestic violence, the researchers reported.

Hospital trauma registrars, who detail the circumstances surrounding injuries, were mostly in agreement with the researchers.

Medical coders “would likely have little trouble characterizing firearm injury intent accurately if incentives were created for them to do so,” the authors wrote.

Trends and interventions

Separately, researchers published studies showing that gun violence tends to affect various demographics differently, and that remediating abandoned houses could help reduce gun crime.

Lindsay Young, of the University of Cincinnati, and Henry Xiang, MD, PhD, director of the Center for Pediatric Trauma Research at Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio, analyzed rates of firearm deaths from 1981 to 2020.

They found that the rate of firearm-related homicide was five times higher among males than females, and the rate of suicide involving firearms was nearly seven times higher for men, they reported in PLOS ONE.

Black men were the group most affected by homicide, whereas White men were most affected by suicide, they found.

To see if fixing abandoned properties would improve health and reduce gun violence in low-income, Black neighborhoods in Philadelphia, Eugenia C. South, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and colleagues conducted a randomized trial.

They randomly assigned abandoned properties in some areas to undergo full remediation (installing working windows and doors, cleaning trash, and weeding); trash cleanup and weeding only; or no intervention.

“Abandoned houses that were remediated showed substantial drops in nearby weapons violations (−8.43%), gun assaults (−13.12%), and to a lesser extent shootings (−6.96%),” the researchers reported.

The intervention targets effects of segregation that have resulted from “historical and ongoing government and private-sector policies” that lead to disinvestment in Black, urban communities, they wrote. Abandoned houses can be used to store firearms and for other illegal activity. They also can engender feelings of fear, neglect, and stress in communities, the researchers noted.

Dr. Miller’s study was funded by the National Collaborative on Gun Violence Research; coauthors disclosed corporate, government, and university grants. The full list of disclosures can be found with the original article. Editorialists Dr. Cook and Dr. Parker report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. South’s study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. South and some coauthors disclosed government grants.
 

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

More than a quarter of patients who were shot by assailants with guns had their injuries mislabeled as “unintentional” at hospital discharge, according to a review of more than 1,200 cases at three U.S. trauma centers.

These coding inaccuracies could distort our understanding of gun violence in the United States and make it seem like accidental shootings are more common than they really are, researchers reported in JAMA Network Open.

“The systematic error in intent classification is not widely known or acknowledged by researchers in this field,” Philip J. Cook, PhD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., and Susan T. Parker, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, wrote in an invited commentary about the new findings. “The bulk of all shootings, nonfatal and fatal together, are assaults, which is to say the result of one person intentionally shooting another. An accurate statistical portrait thus suggests that gun violence is predominantly a crime problem.”

In 2020, 79% of all homicides and 53% of all suicides involved firearms, the CDC reported. Gun violence is now the leading cause of death for children in the United States, government data show.

For the new study, Matthew Miller, MD, ScD, of Northeastern University and the Harvard Injury Control Research Center in Boston, and his colleagues examined how International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes may misclassify the intent behind gunshot injuries.

Dr. Miller’s group looked at 1,227 incidents between 2008 and 2019 at three major trauma centers – Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Massachusetts General Hospital, both in Boston, and Harborview Medical Center in Seattle.

Of those shootings, 837 (68.2%) involved assaults, 168 (13.5%) were unintentional, 124 (9.9%) were deliberate self-harm, and 43 (3.4%) were instances of legal intervention, based on the researchers’ review of medical records.

ICD codes at discharge, however, labeled 581 cases (47.4%) as assaults and 432 (35.2%) as unintentional.

The researchers found that 234 of the 837 assaults (28%) and 9 of the 43 legal interventions (20.9%) were miscoded as unintentional. This problem occurred even when the “medical narrative explicitly indicated that the shooting was an act of interpersonal violence,” such as a drive-by shooting or an act of domestic violence, the researchers reported.

Hospital trauma registrars, who detail the circumstances surrounding injuries, were mostly in agreement with the researchers.

Medical coders “would likely have little trouble characterizing firearm injury intent accurately if incentives were created for them to do so,” the authors wrote.

Trends and interventions

Separately, researchers published studies showing that gun violence tends to affect various demographics differently, and that remediating abandoned houses could help reduce gun crime.

Lindsay Young, of the University of Cincinnati, and Henry Xiang, MD, PhD, director of the Center for Pediatric Trauma Research at Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio, analyzed rates of firearm deaths from 1981 to 2020.

They found that the rate of firearm-related homicide was five times higher among males than females, and the rate of suicide involving firearms was nearly seven times higher for men, they reported in PLOS ONE.

Black men were the group most affected by homicide, whereas White men were most affected by suicide, they found.

To see if fixing abandoned properties would improve health and reduce gun violence in low-income, Black neighborhoods in Philadelphia, Eugenia C. South, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and colleagues conducted a randomized trial.

They randomly assigned abandoned properties in some areas to undergo full remediation (installing working windows and doors, cleaning trash, and weeding); trash cleanup and weeding only; or no intervention.

“Abandoned houses that were remediated showed substantial drops in nearby weapons violations (−8.43%), gun assaults (−13.12%), and to a lesser extent shootings (−6.96%),” the researchers reported.

The intervention targets effects of segregation that have resulted from “historical and ongoing government and private-sector policies” that lead to disinvestment in Black, urban communities, they wrote. Abandoned houses can be used to store firearms and for other illegal activity. They also can engender feelings of fear, neglect, and stress in communities, the researchers noted.

Dr. Miller’s study was funded by the National Collaborative on Gun Violence Research; coauthors disclosed corporate, government, and university grants. The full list of disclosures can be found with the original article. Editorialists Dr. Cook and Dr. Parker report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. South’s study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. South and some coauthors disclosed government grants.
 

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

The percentage of people in the U.S. getting the latest COVID-19 booster shot has crept up by single digits in the past couple months, despite health officials pleading for people to do so before the Christmas holiday. 

Now, a new poll shows why so few people are willing to roll up their sleeves again.

The most common reasons people give for not getting the latest booster shot is that they “don’t think they need one” (44%) and they “don’t think the benefits are worth it” (37%), according to poll results from the Kaiser Family Foundation. 

The data comes amid announcements by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that boosters reduced COVID-19 hospitalizations by up to 57% for U.S. adults and by up to 84% for people age 65 and older. Those figures are just the latest in a mountain of research reporting the public health benefits of COVID-19 vaccines.

Despite all of the statistical data, health officials’ recent vaccination campaigns have proven far from compelling. 

So far, just 15% of people age 12 and older have gotten the latest booster, and 36% of people age 65 and older have gotten it, the CDC’s vaccination trackershows.

Since the start of the pandemic, 1.1 million people in the U.S. have died from COVID-19, with the number of deaths currently rising by 400 per day, The New York Times COVID tracker shows.

Many experts continue to note the need for everyone to get booster shots regularly, but some advocate that perhaps a change in strategy is in order.

“What the administration should do is push for vaccinating people in high-risk groups, including those who are older, those who are immunocompromised and those who have comorbidities,” Paul Offitt, MD, director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, told CNN.

Federal regulators have announced they will meet Jan. 26 with a panel of vaccine advisors to examine the current recommended vaccination schedule as well as look at the effectiveness and composition of current vaccines and boosters, with an eye toward the make-up of next-generation shots.

Vaccines are the “best available protection” against hospitalization and death caused by COVID-19, said Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, in a statement announcing the planned meeting.

“Since the initial authorizations of these vaccines, we have learned that protection wanes over time, especially as the virus rapidly mutates and new variants and subvariants emerge,” he said. “Therefore, it’s important to continue discussions about the optimal composition of COVID-19 vaccines for primary and booster vaccination, as well as the optimal interval for booster vaccination.”

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

The percentage of people in the U.S. getting the latest COVID-19 booster shot has crept up by single digits in the past couple months, despite health officials pleading for people to do so before the Christmas holiday. 

Now, a new poll shows why so few people are willing to roll up their sleeves again.

The most common reasons people give for not getting the latest booster shot is that they “don’t think they need one” (44%) and they “don’t think the benefits are worth it” (37%), according to poll results from the Kaiser Family Foundation. 

The data comes amid announcements by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that boosters reduced COVID-19 hospitalizations by up to 57% for U.S. adults and by up to 84% for people age 65 and older. Those figures are just the latest in a mountain of research reporting the public health benefits of COVID-19 vaccines.

Despite all of the statistical data, health officials’ recent vaccination campaigns have proven far from compelling. 

So far, just 15% of people age 12 and older have gotten the latest booster, and 36% of people age 65 and older have gotten it, the CDC’s vaccination trackershows.

Since the start of the pandemic, 1.1 million people in the U.S. have died from COVID-19, with the number of deaths currently rising by 400 per day, The New York Times COVID tracker shows.

Many experts continue to note the need for everyone to get booster shots regularly, but some advocate that perhaps a change in strategy is in order.

“What the administration should do is push for vaccinating people in high-risk groups, including those who are older, those who are immunocompromised and those who have comorbidities,” Paul Offitt, MD, director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, told CNN.

Federal regulators have announced they will meet Jan. 26 with a panel of vaccine advisors to examine the current recommended vaccination schedule as well as look at the effectiveness and composition of current vaccines and boosters, with an eye toward the make-up of next-generation shots.

Vaccines are the “best available protection” against hospitalization and death caused by COVID-19, said Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, in a statement announcing the planned meeting.

“Since the initial authorizations of these vaccines, we have learned that protection wanes over time, especially as the virus rapidly mutates and new variants and subvariants emerge,” he said. “Therefore, it’s important to continue discussions about the optimal composition of COVID-19 vaccines for primary and booster vaccination, as well as the optimal interval for booster vaccination.”

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

The percentage of people in the U.S. getting the latest COVID-19 booster shot has crept up by single digits in the past couple months, despite health officials pleading for people to do so before the Christmas holiday. 

Now, a new poll shows why so few people are willing to roll up their sleeves again.

The most common reasons people give for not getting the latest booster shot is that they “don’t think they need one” (44%) and they “don’t think the benefits are worth it” (37%), according to poll results from the Kaiser Family Foundation. 

The data comes amid announcements by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that boosters reduced COVID-19 hospitalizations by up to 57% for U.S. adults and by up to 84% for people age 65 and older. Those figures are just the latest in a mountain of research reporting the public health benefits of COVID-19 vaccines.

Despite all of the statistical data, health officials’ recent vaccination campaigns have proven far from compelling. 

So far, just 15% of people age 12 and older have gotten the latest booster, and 36% of people age 65 and older have gotten it, the CDC’s vaccination trackershows.

Since the start of the pandemic, 1.1 million people in the U.S. have died from COVID-19, with the number of deaths currently rising by 400 per day, The New York Times COVID tracker shows.

Many experts continue to note the need for everyone to get booster shots regularly, but some advocate that perhaps a change in strategy is in order.

“What the administration should do is push for vaccinating people in high-risk groups, including those who are older, those who are immunocompromised and those who have comorbidities,” Paul Offitt, MD, director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, told CNN.

Federal regulators have announced they will meet Jan. 26 with a panel of vaccine advisors to examine the current recommended vaccination schedule as well as look at the effectiveness and composition of current vaccines and boosters, with an eye toward the make-up of next-generation shots.

Vaccines are the “best available protection” against hospitalization and death caused by COVID-19, said Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, in a statement announcing the planned meeting.

“Since the initial authorizations of these vaccines, we have learned that protection wanes over time, especially as the virus rapidly mutates and new variants and subvariants emerge,” he said. “Therefore, it’s important to continue discussions about the optimal composition of COVID-19 vaccines for primary and booster vaccination, as well as the optimal interval for booster vaccination.”

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