News

“BMI is trash. Full stop.” This controversial tweet received 26,500 likes and almost 3,000 retweets. The 400 comments from medical and non–health care personnel ranged from agreeable to contrary to offensive.

Regardless of your opinion on BMI (body mass index), this conversation highlighted that the medical community needs to discuss the limitations of BMI and decide its future.

As a Black woman who is an obesity expert living with the impact of obesity in my own life, I know the emotion that a BMI conversation can evoke. Before emotions hijack the conversation, let’s discuss BMI’s past, present, and future.
 

BMI: From observational measurement to clinical use

Imagine walking into your favorite clothing store where an eager clerk greets you with a shirt to try on. The fit is off, but the clerk insists that the shirt must fit because everyone who’s your height should be able to wear it. This scenario seems ridiculous. But this is how we’ve come to use the BMI. Instead of thinking that people of the same height may be the same size, we declare that they must be the same size.

The idea behind the BMI was conceived in 1832 by Belgian anthropologist and mathematician Adolphe Quetelet, but he didn’t intend for it to be a health measure. Instead, it was simply an observation of how people’s weight changed in proportion to height over their lifetime.

Fast-forward to the 20th century, when insurance companies began using weight as an indicator of health status. Weights were recorded in a “Life Table.” Individual health status was determined on the basis of arbitrary cut-offs for weight on the Life Tables. Furthermore, White men set the “normal” weight standards because they were the primary insurance holders.

In 1972, Dr. Ancel Keys, a physician and leading expert in body composition at the time, cried foul on this practice and sought to standardize the use of weight as a health indicator. Dr. Keys used Quetelet’s calculation and termed it the Body Mass Index.

By 1985, the U.S. National Institutes of Health and the World Health Organization adopted the BMI. By the 21st century, BMI had become widely used in clinical settings. For example, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services adopted BMI as a quality-of-care measure, placing even more pressure on clinicians to use BMI as a health screening tool.
 

BMI as a tool to diagnose obesity

We can’t discuss BMI without discussing the disease of obesity. BMI is the most widely used tool to diagnose obesity. In the United States, one-third of Americans meet the criteria for obesity. Another one-third are at risk for obesity.

Compared with BMI’s relatively quick acceptance into clinical practice, however, obesity was only recently recognized as a disease.

Historically, obesity has been viewed as a lifestyle choice, fueled by misinformation and multiple forms of bias. The historical bias associated with BMI and discrimination has led some public health officials and scholars to dismiss the use of BMI or fail to recognize obesity as disease.

This is a dangerous conclusion, because it comes to the detriment of the very people disproportionately impacted by obesity-related health disparities.

Furthermore, weight bias continues to prevent people living with obesity from receiving insurance coverage for life-enhancing obesity medications and interventions.
 

Is it time to phase out BMI?

The BMI is intertwined with many forms of bias: age, gender, racial, ethnic, and even weight. Therefore, it is time to phase out BMI. However, phasing out BMI is complex and will take time, given that:

• Obesity is still a relatively “young” disease. 2023 marks the 10th anniversary of obesity’s recognition as a disease by the American Medical Association. Currently, BMI is the most widely used tool to diagnose obesity. Tools such as waist circumference, body composition, and metabolic health assessment will need to replace the BMI. Shifting from BMI emphasizes that obesity is more than a number on the scale. Obesity, as defined by the Obesity Medicine Association, is indeed a “chronic, relapsing, multi-factorial, neurobehavioral disease, wherein an increase in body fat promotes adipose tissue dysfunction and abnormal fat mass physical forces, resulting in adverse metabolic, biomechanical, and psychosocial health consequences.”
• Much of our health research is tied to BMI. There have been some shifts in looking at non–weight-related health indicators. However, we need more robust studies evaluating other health indicators beyond weight and BMI. The availability of this data will help eliminate the need for BMI and promote individualized health assessment.
• Current treatment guidelines for obesity medications are based on BMI. (Note: Medications to treat obesity are called “anti-obesity” medications or AOMs. However, given the stigma associated with obesity, I prefer not to use the term “anti-obesity.”) Presently this interferes with long-term obesity treatment. Once BMI is “normal,” many patients lose insurance coverage for their obesity medication, despite needing long-term metabolic support to overcome the compensatory mechanism of weight regain. Obesity is a chronic disease that exists independent of weight status. Therefore, using non-BMI measures will help ensure appropriate lifetime support for obesity.

The preceding are barriers, not impossibilities. In the interim, if BMI is still used in any capacity, the BMI reference chart should be an adjusted BMI chart based on age, race, ethnicity, biological sex, and obesity-related conditions. Furthermore, BMI isn’t the sole determining factor of health status.

Instead, an “abnormal” BMI should initiate conversation and further testing, if needed, to determine an individual’s health. For example, compare two people of the same height with different BMIs and lifestyles. Current studies support that a person flagged as having a high adjusted BMI but practicing a healthy lifestyle and having no metabolic diseases is less at risk than a person with a “normal” BMI but high waist circumference and an unhealthy lifestyle.

Regardless of your personal feelings, the facts are clear. Technology empowers us with better tools than BMI to determine health status. Therefore, it’s not a matter of if we will stop using BMI but when.

Sylvia Gonsahn-Bollie, MD, DipABOM, is an integrative obesity specialist who specializes in individualized solutions for emotional and biological overeating. Connect with her at www.embraceyouweightloss.com or on Instagram @embraceyoumd. Her bestselling book, “Embrace You: Your Guide to Transforming Weight Loss Misconceptions Into Lifelong Wellness,” is Healthline.com’s Best Overall Weight Loss Book 2022 and one of Livestrong.com’s picks for the 8 Best Weight-Loss Books to Read in 2022.

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

“BMI is trash. Full stop.” This controversial tweet received 26,500 likes and almost 3,000 retweets. The 400 comments from medical and non–health care personnel ranged from agreeable to contrary to offensive.

Regardless of your opinion on BMI (body mass index), this conversation highlighted that the medical community needs to discuss the limitations of BMI and decide its future.

As a Black woman who is an obesity expert living with the impact of obesity in my own life, I know the emotion that a BMI conversation can evoke. Before emotions hijack the conversation, let’s discuss BMI’s past, present, and future.
 

BMI: From observational measurement to clinical use

Imagine walking into your favorite clothing store where an eager clerk greets you with a shirt to try on. The fit is off, but the clerk insists that the shirt must fit because everyone who’s your height should be able to wear it. This scenario seems ridiculous. But this is how we’ve come to use the BMI. Instead of thinking that people of the same height may be the same size, we declare that they must be the same size.

The idea behind the BMI was conceived in 1832 by Belgian anthropologist and mathematician Adolphe Quetelet, but he didn’t intend for it to be a health measure. Instead, it was simply an observation of how people’s weight changed in proportion to height over their lifetime.

Fast-forward to the 20th century, when insurance companies began using weight as an indicator of health status. Weights were recorded in a “Life Table.” Individual health status was determined on the basis of arbitrary cut-offs for weight on the Life Tables. Furthermore, White men set the “normal” weight standards because they were the primary insurance holders.

In 1972, Dr. Ancel Keys, a physician and leading expert in body composition at the time, cried foul on this practice and sought to standardize the use of weight as a health indicator. Dr. Keys used Quetelet’s calculation and termed it the Body Mass Index.

By 1985, the U.S. National Institutes of Health and the World Health Organization adopted the BMI. By the 21st century, BMI had become widely used in clinical settings. For example, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services adopted BMI as a quality-of-care measure, placing even more pressure on clinicians to use BMI as a health screening tool.
 

BMI as a tool to diagnose obesity

We can’t discuss BMI without discussing the disease of obesity. BMI is the most widely used tool to diagnose obesity. In the United States, one-third of Americans meet the criteria for obesity. Another one-third are at risk for obesity.

Compared with BMI’s relatively quick acceptance into clinical practice, however, obesity was only recently recognized as a disease.

Historically, obesity has been viewed as a lifestyle choice, fueled by misinformation and multiple forms of bias. The historical bias associated with BMI and discrimination has led some public health officials and scholars to dismiss the use of BMI or fail to recognize obesity as disease.

This is a dangerous conclusion, because it comes to the detriment of the very people disproportionately impacted by obesity-related health disparities.

Furthermore, weight bias continues to prevent people living with obesity from receiving insurance coverage for life-enhancing obesity medications and interventions.
 

Is it time to phase out BMI?

The BMI is intertwined with many forms of bias: age, gender, racial, ethnic, and even weight. Therefore, it is time to phase out BMI. However, phasing out BMI is complex and will take time, given that:

• Obesity is still a relatively “young” disease. 2023 marks the 10th anniversary of obesity’s recognition as a disease by the American Medical Association. Currently, BMI is the most widely used tool to diagnose obesity. Tools such as waist circumference, body composition, and metabolic health assessment will need to replace the BMI. Shifting from BMI emphasizes that obesity is more than a number on the scale. Obesity, as defined by the Obesity Medicine Association, is indeed a “chronic, relapsing, multi-factorial, neurobehavioral disease, wherein an increase in body fat promotes adipose tissue dysfunction and abnormal fat mass physical forces, resulting in adverse metabolic, biomechanical, and psychosocial health consequences.”
• Much of our health research is tied to BMI. There have been some shifts in looking at non–weight-related health indicators. However, we need more robust studies evaluating other health indicators beyond weight and BMI. The availability of this data will help eliminate the need for BMI and promote individualized health assessment.
• Current treatment guidelines for obesity medications are based on BMI. (Note: Medications to treat obesity are called “anti-obesity” medications or AOMs. However, given the stigma associated with obesity, I prefer not to use the term “anti-obesity.”) Presently this interferes with long-term obesity treatment. Once BMI is “normal,” many patients lose insurance coverage for their obesity medication, despite needing long-term metabolic support to overcome the compensatory mechanism of weight regain. Obesity is a chronic disease that exists independent of weight status. Therefore, using non-BMI measures will help ensure appropriate lifetime support for obesity.

The preceding are barriers, not impossibilities. In the interim, if BMI is still used in any capacity, the BMI reference chart should be an adjusted BMI chart based on age, race, ethnicity, biological sex, and obesity-related conditions. Furthermore, BMI isn’t the sole determining factor of health status.

Instead, an “abnormal” BMI should initiate conversation and further testing, if needed, to determine an individual’s health. For example, compare two people of the same height with different BMIs and lifestyles. Current studies support that a person flagged as having a high adjusted BMI but practicing a healthy lifestyle and having no metabolic diseases is less at risk than a person with a “normal” BMI but high waist circumference and an unhealthy lifestyle.

Regardless of your personal feelings, the facts are clear. Technology empowers us with better tools than BMI to determine health status. Therefore, it’s not a matter of if we will stop using BMI but when.

Sylvia Gonsahn-Bollie, MD, DipABOM, is an integrative obesity specialist who specializes in individualized solutions for emotional and biological overeating. Connect with her at www.embraceyouweightloss.com or on Instagram @embraceyoumd. Her bestselling book, “Embrace You: Your Guide to Transforming Weight Loss Misconceptions Into Lifelong Wellness,” is Healthline.com’s Best Overall Weight Loss Book 2022 and one of Livestrong.com’s picks for the 8 Best Weight-Loss Books to Read in 2022.

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

“BMI is trash. Full stop.” This controversial tweet received 26,500 likes and almost 3,000 retweets. The 400 comments from medical and non–health care personnel ranged from agreeable to contrary to offensive.

Regardless of your opinion on BMI (body mass index), this conversation highlighted that the medical community needs to discuss the limitations of BMI and decide its future.

As a Black woman who is an obesity expert living with the impact of obesity in my own life, I know the emotion that a BMI conversation can evoke. Before emotions hijack the conversation, let’s discuss BMI’s past, present, and future.
 

BMI: From observational measurement to clinical use

Imagine walking into your favorite clothing store where an eager clerk greets you with a shirt to try on. The fit is off, but the clerk insists that the shirt must fit because everyone who’s your height should be able to wear it. This scenario seems ridiculous. But this is how we’ve come to use the BMI. Instead of thinking that people of the same height may be the same size, we declare that they must be the same size.

The idea behind the BMI was conceived in 1832 by Belgian anthropologist and mathematician Adolphe Quetelet, but he didn’t intend for it to be a health measure. Instead, it was simply an observation of how people’s weight changed in proportion to height over their lifetime.

Fast-forward to the 20th century, when insurance companies began using weight as an indicator of health status. Weights were recorded in a “Life Table.” Individual health status was determined on the basis of arbitrary cut-offs for weight on the Life Tables. Furthermore, White men set the “normal” weight standards because they were the primary insurance holders.

In 1972, Dr. Ancel Keys, a physician and leading expert in body composition at the time, cried foul on this practice and sought to standardize the use of weight as a health indicator. Dr. Keys used Quetelet’s calculation and termed it the Body Mass Index.

By 1985, the U.S. National Institutes of Health and the World Health Organization adopted the BMI. By the 21st century, BMI had become widely used in clinical settings. For example, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services adopted BMI as a quality-of-care measure, placing even more pressure on clinicians to use BMI as a health screening tool.
 

BMI as a tool to diagnose obesity

We can’t discuss BMI without discussing the disease of obesity. BMI is the most widely used tool to diagnose obesity. In the United States, one-third of Americans meet the criteria for obesity. Another one-third are at risk for obesity.

Compared with BMI’s relatively quick acceptance into clinical practice, however, obesity was only recently recognized as a disease.

Historically, obesity has been viewed as a lifestyle choice, fueled by misinformation and multiple forms of bias. The historical bias associated with BMI and discrimination has led some public health officials and scholars to dismiss the use of BMI or fail to recognize obesity as disease.

This is a dangerous conclusion, because it comes to the detriment of the very people disproportionately impacted by obesity-related health disparities.

Furthermore, weight bias continues to prevent people living with obesity from receiving insurance coverage for life-enhancing obesity medications and interventions.
 

Is it time to phase out BMI?

The BMI is intertwined with many forms of bias: age, gender, racial, ethnic, and even weight. Therefore, it is time to phase out BMI. However, phasing out BMI is complex and will take time, given that:

• Obesity is still a relatively “young” disease. 2023 marks the 10th anniversary of obesity’s recognition as a disease by the American Medical Association. Currently, BMI is the most widely used tool to diagnose obesity. Tools such as waist circumference, body composition, and metabolic health assessment will need to replace the BMI. Shifting from BMI emphasizes that obesity is more than a number on the scale. Obesity, as defined by the Obesity Medicine Association, is indeed a “chronic, relapsing, multi-factorial, neurobehavioral disease, wherein an increase in body fat promotes adipose tissue dysfunction and abnormal fat mass physical forces, resulting in adverse metabolic, biomechanical, and psychosocial health consequences.”
• Much of our health research is tied to BMI. There have been some shifts in looking at non–weight-related health indicators. However, we need more robust studies evaluating other health indicators beyond weight and BMI. The availability of this data will help eliminate the need for BMI and promote individualized health assessment.
• Current treatment guidelines for obesity medications are based on BMI. (Note: Medications to treat obesity are called “anti-obesity” medications or AOMs. However, given the stigma associated with obesity, I prefer not to use the term “anti-obesity.”) Presently this interferes with long-term obesity treatment. Once BMI is “normal,” many patients lose insurance coverage for their obesity medication, despite needing long-term metabolic support to overcome the compensatory mechanism of weight regain. Obesity is a chronic disease that exists independent of weight status. Therefore, using non-BMI measures will help ensure appropriate lifetime support for obesity.

The preceding are barriers, not impossibilities. In the interim, if BMI is still used in any capacity, the BMI reference chart should be an adjusted BMI chart based on age, race, ethnicity, biological sex, and obesity-related conditions. Furthermore, BMI isn’t the sole determining factor of health status.

Instead, an “abnormal” BMI should initiate conversation and further testing, if needed, to determine an individual’s health. For example, compare two people of the same height with different BMIs and lifestyles. Current studies support that a person flagged as having a high adjusted BMI but practicing a healthy lifestyle and having no metabolic diseases is less at risk than a person with a “normal” BMI but high waist circumference and an unhealthy lifestyle.

Regardless of your personal feelings, the facts are clear. Technology empowers us with better tools than BMI to determine health status. Therefore, it’s not a matter of if we will stop using BMI but when.

Sylvia Gonsahn-Bollie, MD, DipABOM, is an integrative obesity specialist who specializes in individualized solutions for emotional and biological overeating. Connect with her at www.embraceyouweightloss.com or on Instagram @embraceyoumd. Her bestselling book, “Embrace You: Your Guide to Transforming Weight Loss Misconceptions Into Lifelong Wellness,” is Healthline.com’s Best Overall Weight Loss Book 2022 and one of Livestrong.com’s picks for the 8 Best Weight-Loss Books to Read in 2022.

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

The old saying ‘breakfast like a king, lunch like a prince, and dine like a pauper’ is wrong, at least in terms of weight control, according to a new study, published in Cell Metabolism, from the University of Aberdeen. The idea that ‘front-loading’ calories early in the day might help dieting attempts was based on the belief that consuming the bulk of daily calories in the morning optimizes weight loss by burning calories more efficiently and quickly.

“There are a lot of myths surrounding the timing of eating and how it might influence either body weight or health,” said senior author Alexandra Johnstone, PhD, a researcher at the Rowett Institute, University of Aberdeen, who specializes in appetite control. “This has been driven largely by the circadian rhythm field. But we in the nutrition field have wondered how this could be possible. Where would the energy go? We decided to take a closer look at how time of day interacts with metabolism.”

Her team undertook a randomized crossover trial of 30 overweight and obese subjects recruited via social media ads. Participants – 16 men and 14 women – had a mean age of 51 years, and body mass index of 27-42 kg/ m² but were otherwise healthy. The researchers compared two calorie-restricted but isoenergetic weight loss diets: morning-loaded calories with 45% of intake at breakfast, 35% at lunch, and 20% at dinner, and evening-loaded calories with the inverse proportions of 20%, 35%, and 45% at breakfast, lunch, and dinner, respectively.

Each diet was followed for 4 weeks, with a controlled baseline diet in which calories were balanced throughout the day provided for 1 week at the outset and during a 1-week washout period between the two intervention diets. Each person’s calorie intake was fixed, referenced to their individual measured resting metabolic rate, to assess the effect on weight loss and energy expenditure of meal timing under isoenergetic intake. Both diets were designed to provide the same nutrient composition of 30% protein, 35% carbohydrate, and 35% fat.

All food and beverages were provided, “making this the most rigorously controlled study to assess timing of eating in humans to date,” the team said, “with the aim of accounting for all aspects of energy balance.”
 

No optimum time to eat for weight loss

Results showed that both diets resulted in significant weight reduction at the end of each dietary intervention period, with subjects losing an average of just over 3 kg during each of the 4-week periods. However, there was no difference in weight loss between the morning-loaded and evening-loaded diets.

The relative size of breakfast and dinner – whether a person eats the largest meal early or late in the day – does not have an impact on metabolism, the team said. This challenges previous studies that have suggested that “evening eaters” – now a majority of the U.K. population – have a greater likelihood of gaining weight and greater difficulty in losing it.

“Participants were provided with all their meals for 8 weeks and their energy expenditure and body composition monitored for changes, using gold standard techniques at the Rowett Institute,” Dr. Johnstone said. “The same number of calories was consumed by volunteers at different times of the day, with energy expenditure measures using analysis of urine.

“This study is important because it challenges the previously held belief that eating at different times of the day leads to differential energy expenditure. The research shows that under weight loss conditions there is no optimum time to eat in order to manage weight, and that change in body weight is determined by energy balance.”
 

Meal timing reduces hunger but does not affect weight loss

However, the research also revealed that when subjects consumed the morning-loaded (big breakfast) diet, they reported feeling significantly less hungry later in the day. “Morning-loaded intake may assist with compliance to weight loss regime, through a greater suppression of appetite,” the authors said, adding that this “could foster easier weight loss in the real world.”

“The participants reported that their appetites were better controlled on the days they ate a bigger breakfast and that they felt satiated throughout the rest of the day,” Dr. Johnstone said.

“We know that appetite control is important to achieve weight loss, and our study suggests that those consuming the most calories in the morning felt less hungry, in contrast to when they consumed more calories in the evening period.

“This could be quite useful in the real-world environment, versus in the research setting that we were working in.”
 

‘Major finding’ for chrono-nutrition

Coauthor Jonathan Johnston, PhD, professor of chronobiology and integrative physiology at the University of Surrey, said: “This is a major finding for the field of meal timing (‘chrono-nutrition’) research. Many aspects of human biology change across the day and we are starting to understand how this interacts with food intake.

“Our new research shows that, in weight loss conditions, the size of breakfast and dinner regulates our appetite but not the total amount of energy that our bodies use,” Dr. Johnston said. “We plan to build upon this research to improve the health of the general population and specific groups, e.g, shift workers.”

It’s possible that shift workers could have different metabolic responses, due to the disruption of their circadian rhythms, the team said. Dr. Johnstone noted that this type of experiment could also be applied to the study of intermittent fasting (time-restricted eating), to help determine the best time of day for people to consume their calories.

“One thing that’s important to note is that when it comes to timing and dieting, there is not likely going to be one diet that fits all,” she concluded. “Figuring this out is going to be the future of diet studies, but it’s something that’s very difficult to measure.”
 

Great variability in individual responses to diets

Commenting on the study, Helena Gibson-Moore, RNutr (PH), nutrition scientist and spokesperson for the British Nutrition Foundation, said: “With about two in three adults in the UK either overweight or obese, it’s important that research continues to look into effective strategies for people to lose weight.” She described the study as “interesting,” and a challenge to previous research supporting “front-loading” calories earlier in the day as more effective for weight loss.

“However, whilst in this study there were no differences in weight loss, participants did report significantly lower hunger when eating a higher proportion of calories in the morning,” she said. “Therefore, for people who prefer having a big breakfast this may still be a useful way to help compliance to a weight loss regime through feeling less hungry in the evening, which in turn may lead to a reduced calorie intake later in the day.

“However, research has shown that as individuals we respond to diets in different ways. For example, a study comparing weight loss after a healthy low-fat diet vs. a healthy low-carbohydrate diet showed similar mean weight loss at 12 months, but there was large variability in the personal responses to each diet with some participants actually gaining weight.

“Differences in individual responses to dietary exposures has led to research into a personalized nutrition approach which requires collection of personal data and then provides individualized advice based on this.” Research has suggested that personalized dietary and physical activity advice was more effective than conventional generalized advice, she said.

“The bottom line for effective weight loss is that it is clear there is ‘no one size fits all’ approach and different weight loss strategies can work for different people but finding effective strategies for long-term sustainability of weight loss continues to be the major challenge. There are many factors that impact successful weight management and for some people it may not just be what we eat that is important, but also how and when we eat.”

This study was funded by the Medical Research Council and the Scottish Government, Rural and Environment Science and Analytical Services Division.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.co.uk.

The old saying ‘breakfast like a king, lunch like a prince, and dine like a pauper’ is wrong, at least in terms of weight control, according to a new study, published in Cell Metabolism, from the University of Aberdeen. The idea that ‘front-loading’ calories early in the day might help dieting attempts was based on the belief that consuming the bulk of daily calories in the morning optimizes weight loss by burning calories more efficiently and quickly.

“There are a lot of myths surrounding the timing of eating and how it might influence either body weight or health,” said senior author Alexandra Johnstone, PhD, a researcher at the Rowett Institute, University of Aberdeen, who specializes in appetite control. “This has been driven largely by the circadian rhythm field. But we in the nutrition field have wondered how this could be possible. Where would the energy go? We decided to take a closer look at how time of day interacts with metabolism.”

Her team undertook a randomized crossover trial of 30 overweight and obese subjects recruited via social media ads. Participants – 16 men and 14 women – had a mean age of 51 years, and body mass index of 27-42 kg/ m² but were otherwise healthy. The researchers compared two calorie-restricted but isoenergetic weight loss diets: morning-loaded calories with 45% of intake at breakfast, 35% at lunch, and 20% at dinner, and evening-loaded calories with the inverse proportions of 20%, 35%, and 45% at breakfast, lunch, and dinner, respectively.

Each diet was followed for 4 weeks, with a controlled baseline diet in which calories were balanced throughout the day provided for 1 week at the outset and during a 1-week washout period between the two intervention diets. Each person’s calorie intake was fixed, referenced to their individual measured resting metabolic rate, to assess the effect on weight loss and energy expenditure of meal timing under isoenergetic intake. Both diets were designed to provide the same nutrient composition of 30% protein, 35% carbohydrate, and 35% fat.

All food and beverages were provided, “making this the most rigorously controlled study to assess timing of eating in humans to date,” the team said, “with the aim of accounting for all aspects of energy balance.”
 

No optimum time to eat for weight loss

Results showed that both diets resulted in significant weight reduction at the end of each dietary intervention period, with subjects losing an average of just over 3 kg during each of the 4-week periods. However, there was no difference in weight loss between the morning-loaded and evening-loaded diets.

The relative size of breakfast and dinner – whether a person eats the largest meal early or late in the day – does not have an impact on metabolism, the team said. This challenges previous studies that have suggested that “evening eaters” – now a majority of the U.K. population – have a greater likelihood of gaining weight and greater difficulty in losing it.

“Participants were provided with all their meals for 8 weeks and their energy expenditure and body composition monitored for changes, using gold standard techniques at the Rowett Institute,” Dr. Johnstone said. “The same number of calories was consumed by volunteers at different times of the day, with energy expenditure measures using analysis of urine.

“This study is important because it challenges the previously held belief that eating at different times of the day leads to differential energy expenditure. The research shows that under weight loss conditions there is no optimum time to eat in order to manage weight, and that change in body weight is determined by energy balance.”
 

Meal timing reduces hunger but does not affect weight loss

However, the research also revealed that when subjects consumed the morning-loaded (big breakfast) diet, they reported feeling significantly less hungry later in the day. “Morning-loaded intake may assist with compliance to weight loss regime, through a greater suppression of appetite,” the authors said, adding that this “could foster easier weight loss in the real world.”

“The participants reported that their appetites were better controlled on the days they ate a bigger breakfast and that they felt satiated throughout the rest of the day,” Dr. Johnstone said.

“We know that appetite control is important to achieve weight loss, and our study suggests that those consuming the most calories in the morning felt less hungry, in contrast to when they consumed more calories in the evening period.

“This could be quite useful in the real-world environment, versus in the research setting that we were working in.”
 

‘Major finding’ for chrono-nutrition

Coauthor Jonathan Johnston, PhD, professor of chronobiology and integrative physiology at the University of Surrey, said: “This is a major finding for the field of meal timing (‘chrono-nutrition’) research. Many aspects of human biology change across the day and we are starting to understand how this interacts with food intake.

“Our new research shows that, in weight loss conditions, the size of breakfast and dinner regulates our appetite but not the total amount of energy that our bodies use,” Dr. Johnston said. “We plan to build upon this research to improve the health of the general population and specific groups, e.g, shift workers.”

It’s possible that shift workers could have different metabolic responses, due to the disruption of their circadian rhythms, the team said. Dr. Johnstone noted that this type of experiment could also be applied to the study of intermittent fasting (time-restricted eating), to help determine the best time of day for people to consume their calories.

“One thing that’s important to note is that when it comes to timing and dieting, there is not likely going to be one diet that fits all,” she concluded. “Figuring this out is going to be the future of diet studies, but it’s something that’s very difficult to measure.”
 

Great variability in individual responses to diets

Commenting on the study, Helena Gibson-Moore, RNutr (PH), nutrition scientist and spokesperson for the British Nutrition Foundation, said: “With about two in three adults in the UK either overweight or obese, it’s important that research continues to look into effective strategies for people to lose weight.” She described the study as “interesting,” and a challenge to previous research supporting “front-loading” calories earlier in the day as more effective for weight loss.

“However, whilst in this study there were no differences in weight loss, participants did report significantly lower hunger when eating a higher proportion of calories in the morning,” she said. “Therefore, for people who prefer having a big breakfast this may still be a useful way to help compliance to a weight loss regime through feeling less hungry in the evening, which in turn may lead to a reduced calorie intake later in the day.

“However, research has shown that as individuals we respond to diets in different ways. For example, a study comparing weight loss after a healthy low-fat diet vs. a healthy low-carbohydrate diet showed similar mean weight loss at 12 months, but there was large variability in the personal responses to each diet with some participants actually gaining weight.

“Differences in individual responses to dietary exposures has led to research into a personalized nutrition approach which requires collection of personal data and then provides individualized advice based on this.” Research has suggested that personalized dietary and physical activity advice was more effective than conventional generalized advice, she said.

“The bottom line for effective weight loss is that it is clear there is ‘no one size fits all’ approach and different weight loss strategies can work for different people but finding effective strategies for long-term sustainability of weight loss continues to be the major challenge. There are many factors that impact successful weight management and for some people it may not just be what we eat that is important, but also how and when we eat.”

This study was funded by the Medical Research Council and the Scottish Government, Rural and Environment Science and Analytical Services Division.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.co.uk.

The old saying ‘breakfast like a king, lunch like a prince, and dine like a pauper’ is wrong, at least in terms of weight control, according to a new study, published in Cell Metabolism, from the University of Aberdeen. The idea that ‘front-loading’ calories early in the day might help dieting attempts was based on the belief that consuming the bulk of daily calories in the morning optimizes weight loss by burning calories more efficiently and quickly.

“There are a lot of myths surrounding the timing of eating and how it might influence either body weight or health,” said senior author Alexandra Johnstone, PhD, a researcher at the Rowett Institute, University of Aberdeen, who specializes in appetite control. “This has been driven largely by the circadian rhythm field. But we in the nutrition field have wondered how this could be possible. Where would the energy go? We decided to take a closer look at how time of day interacts with metabolism.”

Her team undertook a randomized crossover trial of 30 overweight and obese subjects recruited via social media ads. Participants – 16 men and 14 women – had a mean age of 51 years, and body mass index of 27-42 kg/ m² but were otherwise healthy. The researchers compared two calorie-restricted but isoenergetic weight loss diets: morning-loaded calories with 45% of intake at breakfast, 35% at lunch, and 20% at dinner, and evening-loaded calories with the inverse proportions of 20%, 35%, and 45% at breakfast, lunch, and dinner, respectively.

Each diet was followed for 4 weeks, with a controlled baseline diet in which calories were balanced throughout the day provided for 1 week at the outset and during a 1-week washout period between the two intervention diets. Each person’s calorie intake was fixed, referenced to their individual measured resting metabolic rate, to assess the effect on weight loss and energy expenditure of meal timing under isoenergetic intake. Both diets were designed to provide the same nutrient composition of 30% protein, 35% carbohydrate, and 35% fat.

All food and beverages were provided, “making this the most rigorously controlled study to assess timing of eating in humans to date,” the team said, “with the aim of accounting for all aspects of energy balance.”
 

No optimum time to eat for weight loss

Results showed that both diets resulted in significant weight reduction at the end of each dietary intervention period, with subjects losing an average of just over 3 kg during each of the 4-week periods. However, there was no difference in weight loss between the morning-loaded and evening-loaded diets.

The relative size of breakfast and dinner – whether a person eats the largest meal early or late in the day – does not have an impact on metabolism, the team said. This challenges previous studies that have suggested that “evening eaters” – now a majority of the U.K. population – have a greater likelihood of gaining weight and greater difficulty in losing it.

“Participants were provided with all their meals for 8 weeks and their energy expenditure and body composition monitored for changes, using gold standard techniques at the Rowett Institute,” Dr. Johnstone said. “The same number of calories was consumed by volunteers at different times of the day, with energy expenditure measures using analysis of urine.

“This study is important because it challenges the previously held belief that eating at different times of the day leads to differential energy expenditure. The research shows that under weight loss conditions there is no optimum time to eat in order to manage weight, and that change in body weight is determined by energy balance.”
 

Meal timing reduces hunger but does not affect weight loss

However, the research also revealed that when subjects consumed the morning-loaded (big breakfast) diet, they reported feeling significantly less hungry later in the day. “Morning-loaded intake may assist with compliance to weight loss regime, through a greater suppression of appetite,” the authors said, adding that this “could foster easier weight loss in the real world.”

“The participants reported that their appetites were better controlled on the days they ate a bigger breakfast and that they felt satiated throughout the rest of the day,” Dr. Johnstone said.

“We know that appetite control is important to achieve weight loss, and our study suggests that those consuming the most calories in the morning felt less hungry, in contrast to when they consumed more calories in the evening period.

“This could be quite useful in the real-world environment, versus in the research setting that we were working in.”
 

‘Major finding’ for chrono-nutrition

Coauthor Jonathan Johnston, PhD, professor of chronobiology and integrative physiology at the University of Surrey, said: “This is a major finding for the field of meal timing (‘chrono-nutrition’) research. Many aspects of human biology change across the day and we are starting to understand how this interacts with food intake.

“Our new research shows that, in weight loss conditions, the size of breakfast and dinner regulates our appetite but not the total amount of energy that our bodies use,” Dr. Johnston said. “We plan to build upon this research to improve the health of the general population and specific groups, e.g, shift workers.”

It’s possible that shift workers could have different metabolic responses, due to the disruption of their circadian rhythms, the team said. Dr. Johnstone noted that this type of experiment could also be applied to the study of intermittent fasting (time-restricted eating), to help determine the best time of day for people to consume their calories.

“One thing that’s important to note is that when it comes to timing and dieting, there is not likely going to be one diet that fits all,” she concluded. “Figuring this out is going to be the future of diet studies, but it’s something that’s very difficult to measure.”
 

Great variability in individual responses to diets

Commenting on the study, Helena Gibson-Moore, RNutr (PH), nutrition scientist and spokesperson for the British Nutrition Foundation, said: “With about two in three adults in the UK either overweight or obese, it’s important that research continues to look into effective strategies for people to lose weight.” She described the study as “interesting,” and a challenge to previous research supporting “front-loading” calories earlier in the day as more effective for weight loss.

“However, whilst in this study there were no differences in weight loss, participants did report significantly lower hunger when eating a higher proportion of calories in the morning,” she said. “Therefore, for people who prefer having a big breakfast this may still be a useful way to help compliance to a weight loss regime through feeling less hungry in the evening, which in turn may lead to a reduced calorie intake later in the day.

“However, research has shown that as individuals we respond to diets in different ways. For example, a study comparing weight loss after a healthy low-fat diet vs. a healthy low-carbohydrate diet showed similar mean weight loss at 12 months, but there was large variability in the personal responses to each diet with some participants actually gaining weight.

“Differences in individual responses to dietary exposures has led to research into a personalized nutrition approach which requires collection of personal data and then provides individualized advice based on this.” Research has suggested that personalized dietary and physical activity advice was more effective than conventional generalized advice, she said.

“The bottom line for effective weight loss is that it is clear there is ‘no one size fits all’ approach and different weight loss strategies can work for different people but finding effective strategies for long-term sustainability of weight loss continues to be the major challenge. There are many factors that impact successful weight management and for some people it may not just be what we eat that is important, but also how and when we eat.”

This study was funded by the Medical Research Council and the Scottish Government, Rural and Environment Science and Analytical Services Division.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.co.uk.

During a medical malpractice trial in New Jersey, jurors waited nearly 4 hours for the physician defendant to show up. When he did arrive, the body-building surgeon was sporting two thick gold chains and a diamond pinky ring, and had the top buttons of his shirt open enough to reveal his chest hair.

“This trial was in a very rural, farming community,” recalls medical liability defense attorney Catherine Flynn, of Flynn Watts LLC, based in Parsippany, N.J. “Many of the jurors were wearing flannel shirts and jeans. The doctor’s wife walked in wearing a five-carat diamond ring and other jewelry.”

Ms. Flynn took the couple aside and asked them to remove the jewelry. She explained that the opulent accessories could damage the jury’s view of the physician. The surgeon and his wife, however, refused to remove their jewelry, she said. They didn’t think it was a big deal.

The case against the surgeon involved intraoperative damage to a patient when the physician inadvertently removed a portion of nerve in the area of the procedure. After repair of the nerve, the patient had a positive result. However, the patient alleged the surgeon’s negligence resulted in permanent damage despite the successful repair.

Jurors ultimately found the physician negligent in the case and awarded the plaintiff $1.2 million. Ms. Flynn believes that physician’s flamboyant attire and arrogant nature tainted the jury’s decision.

“In certain counties in New Jersey, his attire would not have been a problem,” she said. “In this rural, farming county, it was a huge problem. You have to know your audience. There are a lot of other things that come into play in a medical malpractice case, but when it comes to damages in a case, you don’t want to be sending the message that supports what somebody’s bias may already be telling them about a doctor.”

The surgeon appealed the verdict, and the case ultimately settled for a lesser amount, according to Ms. Flynn.

An over-the-top wardrobe is just one way that physicians can negatively influence jurors during legal trials. From subtle facial expressions to sudden outbursts to downright rudeness, attorneys have witnessed countless examples of physicians sabotaging their own trials. Legal experts say the cringeworthy experiences are good reminders that jurors are often judging more than just evidence.  

“The minute you enter the courthouse, jurors or potential jurors are sizing you up,” says health law attorney Michael Clark, of Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP, based in Houston. “The same phenomenon occurs in a deposition. Awareness of how you are being assessed at all times, and the image that is needed, is important since a negative impression by jurors can have a detrimental effect on a physician’s case.”
 

Juror: We didn’t like the doctor’s shoes

In another case, attorneys warned a physician defendant against dressing in his signature wardrobe during his trial. Against their advice, the doctor showed up daily to his trial in bright pastel, monochromatic suits with matching Gucci-brand shoes, said medical liability defense attorney Meredith C. Lander, of Kaufman Borgeest & Ryan LLP, based in Connecticut. On the witness stand, the doctor was long-winded and wasn’t “terribly likable,” Ms. Lander said.

However, the evidence weighed in the physician’s favor, and there was strong testimony by defense experts. The physician won the case, Ms. Lander said, but after the verdict, the jury foreperson approached the trial attorney and made some disparaging remarks about the defendant.

“The foreperson said the jury didn’t like the doctor or his ‘Gucci suits and shoes,’ but they believed the experts,” Ms. Lander said.

Disruptive behavior can also harm jurors’ perception of physicians, Ms. Flynn adds. During one instance, a surgeon insisted on sitting next to Ms. Flynn, although she generally requests clients sit in the first row so that jurors are not so focused on their reactions during testimony. The surgeon loudly peppered Ms. Flynn with questions as witnesses testified, prompting a reprimand from the judge.

“The judge admonished the doctor several times and said, ‘Doctor, you’re raising your voice. You’ll get a chance to speak with your attorney during the break,’ ” Ms. Flynn recalled. “The doctor refused to stop talking, and the judge told him in front of the jury to go sit in the back of the courtroom. His reaction was, ‘Why do I have to move?! I need to sit here!’ ”

The surgeon eventually moved to the back of the courtroom and a sheriff’s deputy stood next to him. Testimony continued until a note in the form of a paper airplane landed on the table in front of Ms. Flynn. She carefully crumpled the note and tossed it in the wastebasket. Luckily, this drew a laugh from jurors, she said. 

But things got worse when the surgeon testified. Rather than answer the questions, he interrupted and started telling jurors his own version of events.

“The judge finally said, ‘Doctor, if you don’t listen to your attorney and answer her questions, I’m going to make you get off the stand,’ ” Ms. Flynn said. “That was the most unbelievable, egregious self-sabotage trial moment I’ve ever experienced.”

Fortunately, the physician’s legal case was strong, and the experts who testified drove the defense’s side home, Ms. Flynn said. The surgeon won the case.
 

Attorney: Watch what you say in the elevator

Other, more subtle behaviors – while often unintentional – can also be damaging.

Physicians often let their guard down while outside the courtroom and can unknowingly wind up next to a juror in an elevator or standing in a hallway, said Laura Postilion, a partner at Quintairos, Prieto, Wood & Boyer, P.A., based in Chicago.

“For instance, a doctor is in an elevator and feels that some witness on the stand was lying,” Ms. Postilion said. “They might be very upset about it and start ranting about a witness lying, not realizing there is a juror is in the elevator with you.”

Physicians should also be cautious when speaking on the phone to their family or friends during a trial break.

“At the Daley Center in downtown Chicago, there are these long corridors and long line of windows; a lot of people will stand there during breaks. A doctor may be talking to his or her spouse and saying, ‘Yeah, this juror is sleeping!’ Jurors are [often] looking for drama. They’re looking for somebody letting their guard down. Hearing a doctor speak badly about them would certainly give them a reason to dislike the physician.”

Ms. Postilion warns against talking about jurors in or outside of the courtroom. This includes parking structures, she said.

Physicians can take additional steps to save themselves from negative judgment from jurors, attorneys say. Even before the trial starts, Ms. Postilion advises clients to make their social media accounts private. Some curious jurors may look up a physician’s social media accounts to learn more about their personal life, political leanings, or social beliefs, which could prejudice them against the doctor, she said.

Once on the stand, the words and tone used are key. The last thing a physician defendant wants is to come across as arrogant or condescending to jurors, said medical liability defense attorney Michael Moroney, of Flynn Watts LLC.

“For instance, a defendant might say, ‘Well, let me make this simple for you,’ as if they’re talking to a bunch of schoolchildren,” he said. “You don’t know who’s on the jury. That type of language can be offensive.”

Ms. Lander counsels her clients to refrain from using the common phrase, “honestly,” before answering questions on the stand.

“Everything you’re saying on the stand is presumed to be honest,” she said. “When you start an answer with, ‘Honestly…’ out of habit, it really does undercut everything that follows and everything else that’s already been said. It suggests that you were not being honest in your other answers.”
 

Attitude, body language speak volumes

Keep in mind that plaintiffs’ attorneys will try their best to rattle physicians on the stand and get them to appear unlikeable, says Mr. Clark, the Houston-based health law attorney. Physicians who lose their cool and begin arguing with attorneys play into their strategy.

“Plaintiffs’ attorneys have been trained in ways to get under their skin,” he said. “Righteous indignation and annoyance are best left for a rare occasion. Think about how you feel in a social setting when people are bickering in front of you. It’s uncomfortable at best. That’s how a jury feels too.”

Body language is also important, Mr. Clark notes. Physicians should avoid crossed arms, leaning back and rocking, or putting a hand on their mouth while testifying, he said. Many attorneys have practice sessions with their clients and record the interaction so that doctors can watch it and see how they look.

“Know your strengths and weaknesses,” he said. “Get help from your lawyer and perhaps consultants about how to improve these skills. Practice and preparation are important.”

Ms. Postilion goes over courtroom clothing with physician clients before trial. Anything “too flashy, too high-end, or too dumpy” should be avoided, she said. Getting accustomed to the courtroom and practicing in an empty courtroom are good ways to ensure that a physician’s voice is loud enough and projecting far enough in the courtroom, she adds.

“The doctor should try to be the best version of him- or herself to jurors,” she said. “A jury can pick up someone who’s trying to be something they’re not. A good attorney can help the doctor find the best version of themselves and capitalize on it. What is it that you want the jury to know about your care of the patient? Take that overall feeling and make sure it’s clearly expressed to the jury.”

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

During a medical malpractice trial in New Jersey, jurors waited nearly 4 hours for the physician defendant to show up. When he did arrive, the body-building surgeon was sporting two thick gold chains and a diamond pinky ring, and had the top buttons of his shirt open enough to reveal his chest hair.

“This trial was in a very rural, farming community,” recalls medical liability defense attorney Catherine Flynn, of Flynn Watts LLC, based in Parsippany, N.J. “Many of the jurors were wearing flannel shirts and jeans. The doctor’s wife walked in wearing a five-carat diamond ring and other jewelry.”

Ms. Flynn took the couple aside and asked them to remove the jewelry. She explained that the opulent accessories could damage the jury’s view of the physician. The surgeon and his wife, however, refused to remove their jewelry, she said. They didn’t think it was a big deal.

The case against the surgeon involved intraoperative damage to a patient when the physician inadvertently removed a portion of nerve in the area of the procedure. After repair of the nerve, the patient had a positive result. However, the patient alleged the surgeon’s negligence resulted in permanent damage despite the successful repair.

Jurors ultimately found the physician negligent in the case and awarded the plaintiff $1.2 million. Ms. Flynn believes that physician’s flamboyant attire and arrogant nature tainted the jury’s decision.

“In certain counties in New Jersey, his attire would not have been a problem,” she said. “In this rural, farming county, it was a huge problem. You have to know your audience. There are a lot of other things that come into play in a medical malpractice case, but when it comes to damages in a case, you don’t want to be sending the message that supports what somebody’s bias may already be telling them about a doctor.”

The surgeon appealed the verdict, and the case ultimately settled for a lesser amount, according to Ms. Flynn.

An over-the-top wardrobe is just one way that physicians can negatively influence jurors during legal trials. From subtle facial expressions to sudden outbursts to downright rudeness, attorneys have witnessed countless examples of physicians sabotaging their own trials. Legal experts say the cringeworthy experiences are good reminders that jurors are often judging more than just evidence.  

“The minute you enter the courthouse, jurors or potential jurors are sizing you up,” says health law attorney Michael Clark, of Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP, based in Houston. “The same phenomenon occurs in a deposition. Awareness of how you are being assessed at all times, and the image that is needed, is important since a negative impression by jurors can have a detrimental effect on a physician’s case.”
 

Juror: We didn’t like the doctor’s shoes

In another case, attorneys warned a physician defendant against dressing in his signature wardrobe during his trial. Against their advice, the doctor showed up daily to his trial in bright pastel, monochromatic suits with matching Gucci-brand shoes, said medical liability defense attorney Meredith C. Lander, of Kaufman Borgeest & Ryan LLP, based in Connecticut. On the witness stand, the doctor was long-winded and wasn’t “terribly likable,” Ms. Lander said.

However, the evidence weighed in the physician’s favor, and there was strong testimony by defense experts. The physician won the case, Ms. Lander said, but after the verdict, the jury foreperson approached the trial attorney and made some disparaging remarks about the defendant.

“The foreperson said the jury didn’t like the doctor or his ‘Gucci suits and shoes,’ but they believed the experts,” Ms. Lander said.

Disruptive behavior can also harm jurors’ perception of physicians, Ms. Flynn adds. During one instance, a surgeon insisted on sitting next to Ms. Flynn, although she generally requests clients sit in the first row so that jurors are not so focused on their reactions during testimony. The surgeon loudly peppered Ms. Flynn with questions as witnesses testified, prompting a reprimand from the judge.

“The judge admonished the doctor several times and said, ‘Doctor, you’re raising your voice. You’ll get a chance to speak with your attorney during the break,’ ” Ms. Flynn recalled. “The doctor refused to stop talking, and the judge told him in front of the jury to go sit in the back of the courtroom. His reaction was, ‘Why do I have to move?! I need to sit here!’ ”

The surgeon eventually moved to the back of the courtroom and a sheriff’s deputy stood next to him. Testimony continued until a note in the form of a paper airplane landed on the table in front of Ms. Flynn. She carefully crumpled the note and tossed it in the wastebasket. Luckily, this drew a laugh from jurors, she said. 

But things got worse when the surgeon testified. Rather than answer the questions, he interrupted and started telling jurors his own version of events.

“The judge finally said, ‘Doctor, if you don’t listen to your attorney and answer her questions, I’m going to make you get off the stand,’ ” Ms. Flynn said. “That was the most unbelievable, egregious self-sabotage trial moment I’ve ever experienced.”

Fortunately, the physician’s legal case was strong, and the experts who testified drove the defense’s side home, Ms. Flynn said. The surgeon won the case.
 

Attorney: Watch what you say in the elevator

Other, more subtle behaviors – while often unintentional – can also be damaging.

Physicians often let their guard down while outside the courtroom and can unknowingly wind up next to a juror in an elevator or standing in a hallway, said Laura Postilion, a partner at Quintairos, Prieto, Wood & Boyer, P.A., based in Chicago.

“For instance, a doctor is in an elevator and feels that some witness on the stand was lying,” Ms. Postilion said. “They might be very upset about it and start ranting about a witness lying, not realizing there is a juror is in the elevator with you.”

Physicians should also be cautious when speaking on the phone to their family or friends during a trial break.

“At the Daley Center in downtown Chicago, there are these long corridors and long line of windows; a lot of people will stand there during breaks. A doctor may be talking to his or her spouse and saying, ‘Yeah, this juror is sleeping!’ Jurors are [often] looking for drama. They’re looking for somebody letting their guard down. Hearing a doctor speak badly about them would certainly give them a reason to dislike the physician.”

Ms. Postilion warns against talking about jurors in or outside of the courtroom. This includes parking structures, she said.

Physicians can take additional steps to save themselves from negative judgment from jurors, attorneys say. Even before the trial starts, Ms. Postilion advises clients to make their social media accounts private. Some curious jurors may look up a physician’s social media accounts to learn more about their personal life, political leanings, or social beliefs, which could prejudice them against the doctor, she said.

Once on the stand, the words and tone used are key. The last thing a physician defendant wants is to come across as arrogant or condescending to jurors, said medical liability defense attorney Michael Moroney, of Flynn Watts LLC.

“For instance, a defendant might say, ‘Well, let me make this simple for you,’ as if they’re talking to a bunch of schoolchildren,” he said. “You don’t know who’s on the jury. That type of language can be offensive.”

Ms. Lander counsels her clients to refrain from using the common phrase, “honestly,” before answering questions on the stand.

“Everything you’re saying on the stand is presumed to be honest,” she said. “When you start an answer with, ‘Honestly…’ out of habit, it really does undercut everything that follows and everything else that’s already been said. It suggests that you were not being honest in your other answers.”
 

Attitude, body language speak volumes

Keep in mind that plaintiffs’ attorneys will try their best to rattle physicians on the stand and get them to appear unlikeable, says Mr. Clark, the Houston-based health law attorney. Physicians who lose their cool and begin arguing with attorneys play into their strategy.

“Plaintiffs’ attorneys have been trained in ways to get under their skin,” he said. “Righteous indignation and annoyance are best left for a rare occasion. Think about how you feel in a social setting when people are bickering in front of you. It’s uncomfortable at best. That’s how a jury feels too.”

Body language is also important, Mr. Clark notes. Physicians should avoid crossed arms, leaning back and rocking, or putting a hand on their mouth while testifying, he said. Many attorneys have practice sessions with their clients and record the interaction so that doctors can watch it and see how they look.

“Know your strengths and weaknesses,” he said. “Get help from your lawyer and perhaps consultants about how to improve these skills. Practice and preparation are important.”

Ms. Postilion goes over courtroom clothing with physician clients before trial. Anything “too flashy, too high-end, or too dumpy” should be avoided, she said. Getting accustomed to the courtroom and practicing in an empty courtroom are good ways to ensure that a physician’s voice is loud enough and projecting far enough in the courtroom, she adds.

“The doctor should try to be the best version of him- or herself to jurors,” she said. “A jury can pick up someone who’s trying to be something they’re not. A good attorney can help the doctor find the best version of themselves and capitalize on it. What is it that you want the jury to know about your care of the patient? Take that overall feeling and make sure it’s clearly expressed to the jury.”

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

During a medical malpractice trial in New Jersey, jurors waited nearly 4 hours for the physician defendant to show up. When he did arrive, the body-building surgeon was sporting two thick gold chains and a diamond pinky ring, and had the top buttons of his shirt open enough to reveal his chest hair.

“This trial was in a very rural, farming community,” recalls medical liability defense attorney Catherine Flynn, of Flynn Watts LLC, based in Parsippany, N.J. “Many of the jurors were wearing flannel shirts and jeans. The doctor’s wife walked in wearing a five-carat diamond ring and other jewelry.”

Ms. Flynn took the couple aside and asked them to remove the jewelry. She explained that the opulent accessories could damage the jury’s view of the physician. The surgeon and his wife, however, refused to remove their jewelry, she said. They didn’t think it was a big deal.

The case against the surgeon involved intraoperative damage to a patient when the physician inadvertently removed a portion of nerve in the area of the procedure. After repair of the nerve, the patient had a positive result. However, the patient alleged the surgeon’s negligence resulted in permanent damage despite the successful repair.

Jurors ultimately found the physician negligent in the case and awarded the plaintiff $1.2 million. Ms. Flynn believes that physician’s flamboyant attire and arrogant nature tainted the jury’s decision.

“In certain counties in New Jersey, his attire would not have been a problem,” she said. “In this rural, farming county, it was a huge problem. You have to know your audience. There are a lot of other things that come into play in a medical malpractice case, but when it comes to damages in a case, you don’t want to be sending the message that supports what somebody’s bias may already be telling them about a doctor.”

The surgeon appealed the verdict, and the case ultimately settled for a lesser amount, according to Ms. Flynn.

An over-the-top wardrobe is just one way that physicians can negatively influence jurors during legal trials. From subtle facial expressions to sudden outbursts to downright rudeness, attorneys have witnessed countless examples of physicians sabotaging their own trials. Legal experts say the cringeworthy experiences are good reminders that jurors are often judging more than just evidence.  

“The minute you enter the courthouse, jurors or potential jurors are sizing you up,” says health law attorney Michael Clark, of Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP, based in Houston. “The same phenomenon occurs in a deposition. Awareness of how you are being assessed at all times, and the image that is needed, is important since a negative impression by jurors can have a detrimental effect on a physician’s case.”
 

Juror: We didn’t like the doctor’s shoes

In another case, attorneys warned a physician defendant against dressing in his signature wardrobe during his trial. Against their advice, the doctor showed up daily to his trial in bright pastel, monochromatic suits with matching Gucci-brand shoes, said medical liability defense attorney Meredith C. Lander, of Kaufman Borgeest & Ryan LLP, based in Connecticut. On the witness stand, the doctor was long-winded and wasn’t “terribly likable,” Ms. Lander said.

However, the evidence weighed in the physician’s favor, and there was strong testimony by defense experts. The physician won the case, Ms. Lander said, but after the verdict, the jury foreperson approached the trial attorney and made some disparaging remarks about the defendant.

“The foreperson said the jury didn’t like the doctor or his ‘Gucci suits and shoes,’ but they believed the experts,” Ms. Lander said.

Disruptive behavior can also harm jurors’ perception of physicians, Ms. Flynn adds. During one instance, a surgeon insisted on sitting next to Ms. Flynn, although she generally requests clients sit in the first row so that jurors are not so focused on their reactions during testimony. The surgeon loudly peppered Ms. Flynn with questions as witnesses testified, prompting a reprimand from the judge.

“The judge admonished the doctor several times and said, ‘Doctor, you’re raising your voice. You’ll get a chance to speak with your attorney during the break,’ ” Ms. Flynn recalled. “The doctor refused to stop talking, and the judge told him in front of the jury to go sit in the back of the courtroom. His reaction was, ‘Why do I have to move?! I need to sit here!’ ”

The surgeon eventually moved to the back of the courtroom and a sheriff’s deputy stood next to him. Testimony continued until a note in the form of a paper airplane landed on the table in front of Ms. Flynn. She carefully crumpled the note and tossed it in the wastebasket. Luckily, this drew a laugh from jurors, she said. 

But things got worse when the surgeon testified. Rather than answer the questions, he interrupted and started telling jurors his own version of events.

“The judge finally said, ‘Doctor, if you don’t listen to your attorney and answer her questions, I’m going to make you get off the stand,’ ” Ms. Flynn said. “That was the most unbelievable, egregious self-sabotage trial moment I’ve ever experienced.”

Fortunately, the physician’s legal case was strong, and the experts who testified drove the defense’s side home, Ms. Flynn said. The surgeon won the case.
 

Attorney: Watch what you say in the elevator

Other, more subtle behaviors – while often unintentional – can also be damaging.

Physicians often let their guard down while outside the courtroom and can unknowingly wind up next to a juror in an elevator or standing in a hallway, said Laura Postilion, a partner at Quintairos, Prieto, Wood & Boyer, P.A., based in Chicago.

“For instance, a doctor is in an elevator and feels that some witness on the stand was lying,” Ms. Postilion said. “They might be very upset about it and start ranting about a witness lying, not realizing there is a juror is in the elevator with you.”

Physicians should also be cautious when speaking on the phone to their family or friends during a trial break.

“At the Daley Center in downtown Chicago, there are these long corridors and long line of windows; a lot of people will stand there during breaks. A doctor may be talking to his or her spouse and saying, ‘Yeah, this juror is sleeping!’ Jurors are [often] looking for drama. They’re looking for somebody letting their guard down. Hearing a doctor speak badly about them would certainly give them a reason to dislike the physician.”

Ms. Postilion warns against talking about jurors in or outside of the courtroom. This includes parking structures, she said.

Physicians can take additional steps to save themselves from negative judgment from jurors, attorneys say. Even before the trial starts, Ms. Postilion advises clients to make their social media accounts private. Some curious jurors may look up a physician’s social media accounts to learn more about their personal life, political leanings, or social beliefs, which could prejudice them against the doctor, she said.

Once on the stand, the words and tone used are key. The last thing a physician defendant wants is to come across as arrogant or condescending to jurors, said medical liability defense attorney Michael Moroney, of Flynn Watts LLC.

“For instance, a defendant might say, ‘Well, let me make this simple for you,’ as if they’re talking to a bunch of schoolchildren,” he said. “You don’t know who’s on the jury. That type of language can be offensive.”

Ms. Lander counsels her clients to refrain from using the common phrase, “honestly,” before answering questions on the stand.

“Everything you’re saying on the stand is presumed to be honest,” she said. “When you start an answer with, ‘Honestly…’ out of habit, it really does undercut everything that follows and everything else that’s already been said. It suggests that you were not being honest in your other answers.”
 

Attitude, body language speak volumes

Keep in mind that plaintiffs’ attorneys will try their best to rattle physicians on the stand and get them to appear unlikeable, says Mr. Clark, the Houston-based health law attorney. Physicians who lose their cool and begin arguing with attorneys play into their strategy.

“Plaintiffs’ attorneys have been trained in ways to get under their skin,” he said. “Righteous indignation and annoyance are best left for a rare occasion. Think about how you feel in a social setting when people are bickering in front of you. It’s uncomfortable at best. That’s how a jury feels too.”

Body language is also important, Mr. Clark notes. Physicians should avoid crossed arms, leaning back and rocking, or putting a hand on their mouth while testifying, he said. Many attorneys have practice sessions with their clients and record the interaction so that doctors can watch it and see how they look.

“Know your strengths and weaknesses,” he said. “Get help from your lawyer and perhaps consultants about how to improve these skills. Practice and preparation are important.”

Ms. Postilion goes over courtroom clothing with physician clients before trial. Anything “too flashy, too high-end, or too dumpy” should be avoided, she said. Getting accustomed to the courtroom and practicing in an empty courtroom are good ways to ensure that a physician’s voice is loud enough and projecting far enough in the courtroom, she adds.

“The doctor should try to be the best version of him- or herself to jurors,” she said. “A jury can pick up someone who’s trying to be something they’re not. A good attorney can help the doctor find the best version of themselves and capitalize on it. What is it that you want the jury to know about your care of the patient? Take that overall feeling and make sure it’s clearly expressed to the jury.”

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

Patients with melanoma who are deficient in vitamin D have significantly worse overall survival than those with higher levels, according to research presented at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

Whereas the 5-year overall survival was 90% when vitamin D serum levels were above a 10 ng/mL threshold, it was 84% when levels fell below it. Notably, the gap in overall survival between those above and below the threshold appeared to widen as time went on.

The research adds to existing evidence that “vitamin D levels can play an important and independent role in patients’ survival outcomes,” study investigator Inés Gracia-Darder, MD, told this news organization. “The important application in clinical practice would be to know if vitamin D supplementation influences the survival of melanoma patients,” said Dr. Gracia-Darder, a clinical specialist in dermatology at the Hospital Universitari Son Espases, Mallorca, Spain.

Dr. Inés Gracia-Darder

Known association, but not much data

“It is not a new finding,” but there are limited data, especially in melanoma, said Julie De Smedt, MD, of KU Leuven, Belgium, who was asked to comment on the results. Other groups have shown, certainly for cancer in general, that vitamin D can have an effect on overall survival.

“Low levels of vitamin D are associated with the pathological parameters of the melanoma, such as the thickness of the tumor,” Dr. De Smedt said in an interview, indicating that it’s not just overall survival that might be affected.

“So we assume that also has an effect on melanoma-specific survival,” she added.

That assumption, however, is not supported by the data Dr. Gracia-Darder presented, as there was no difference in melanoma-specific survival among the two groups of patients that had been studied.
 

Retrospective cohort analysis

Vitamin D levels had been studied in 264 patients who were included in the retrospective cohort analysis. All had invasive melanomas, and all had been seen at the Hospital Clinic of Barcelona between January 1998 and June 2021. Their mean age was 57 years, and the median follow-up was 6.7 years.

For inclusion, all patients had to have had their vitamin D levels measured after being diagnosed with melanoma; those with a 25-hydroxyvitamin D3 serum level of less than 10 ng/mL were deemed to be vitamin D deficient, whereas those with levels of 10 ng/mL and above were deemed normal or insufficient.

A measurement less than 10 ng/mL is considered vitamin D deficiency, Dr. De Smedt said. “But there is a difference between countries, and there’s also a difference between societies,” noting the cut-off used in the lab where she works is 20 ng/mL. This makes it difficult to compare studies, she said.
 

Independent association with overall survival

Seasonal variation in vitamin D levels were considered as a possible confounding factor, but Dr. Gracia-Darder noted that there was a similar distribution of measurements taken between October to March and April to September.

Univariate and multivariate analyses established vitamin D deficiency as being independently associated with overall survival with hazard ratios of 2.34 and 2.45, respectively.

Other predictive factors were having a higher Breslow index, as well as older age and gender.
 

Time to recommend vitamin D supplementation?

So should patients with melanoma have their vitamin D levels routinely checked? And what about advising them to take vitamin D supplements?

“In our practice, we analyze the vitamin D levels of our patients,” Dr. Gracia-Darder said. Patients are told to limit their exposure to the sun because of their skin cancer, so they are very likely to become vitamin D deficient.

While dietary changes or supplements might be suggested, there’s no real evidence to support upping vitamin D levels to date, so “future prospective studies are needed,” Dr. Gracia-Darder added.

Such studies have already started, including one in Italy, one in Australia, and another study that Dr. De Smedt has been involved with for the past few years.

Called the ViDMe study, it’s a multicenter, randomized, double-blind trial in which patients are being given a high-dose oral vitamin D supplement or placebo once a month for at least 1 year. About 430 patients with a first cutaneous malignant melanoma have been included in the trial, which started in December 2012.

It is hoped that the results will show that the supplementation will have had a protective effect on the risk of relapse and that there will be a correlation between vitamin D levels in the blood and vitamin D receptor immunoreactivity in the tumor.

“The study is still blinded,” Dr. De Smedt said. “We will unblind in the coming months and then at the end of the year, maybe next year, we will have the results.”

The study reported by Dr. Gracia-Darder did not receive any specific funding. Dr. Gracia-Darder disclosed that the melanoma unit where the study was performed receives many grants and funds to carry out research. She reported no other relevant financial relationships. Dr. De Smedt had no relevant financial relationships. The ViDMe study is sponsored by the Universitaire Ziekenhuizen Leuven.

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

Patients with melanoma who are deficient in vitamin D have significantly worse overall survival than those with higher levels, according to research presented at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

Whereas the 5-year overall survival was 90% when vitamin D serum levels were above a 10 ng/mL threshold, it was 84% when levels fell below it. Notably, the gap in overall survival between those above and below the threshold appeared to widen as time went on.

The research adds to existing evidence that “vitamin D levels can play an important and independent role in patients’ survival outcomes,” study investigator Inés Gracia-Darder, MD, told this news organization. “The important application in clinical practice would be to know if vitamin D supplementation influences the survival of melanoma patients,” said Dr. Gracia-Darder, a clinical specialist in dermatology at the Hospital Universitari Son Espases, Mallorca, Spain.

Dr. Inés Gracia-Darder

Known association, but not much data

“It is not a new finding,” but there are limited data, especially in melanoma, said Julie De Smedt, MD, of KU Leuven, Belgium, who was asked to comment on the results. Other groups have shown, certainly for cancer in general, that vitamin D can have an effect on overall survival.

“Low levels of vitamin D are associated with the pathological parameters of the melanoma, such as the thickness of the tumor,” Dr. De Smedt said in an interview, indicating that it’s not just overall survival that might be affected.

“So we assume that also has an effect on melanoma-specific survival,” she added.

That assumption, however, is not supported by the data Dr. Gracia-Darder presented, as there was no difference in melanoma-specific survival among the two groups of patients that had been studied.
 

Retrospective cohort analysis

Vitamin D levels had been studied in 264 patients who were included in the retrospective cohort analysis. All had invasive melanomas, and all had been seen at the Hospital Clinic of Barcelona between January 1998 and June 2021. Their mean age was 57 years, and the median follow-up was 6.7 years.

For inclusion, all patients had to have had their vitamin D levels measured after being diagnosed with melanoma; those with a 25-hydroxyvitamin D3 serum level of less than 10 ng/mL were deemed to be vitamin D deficient, whereas those with levels of 10 ng/mL and above were deemed normal or insufficient.

A measurement less than 10 ng/mL is considered vitamin D deficiency, Dr. De Smedt said. “But there is a difference between countries, and there’s also a difference between societies,” noting the cut-off used in the lab where she works is 20 ng/mL. This makes it difficult to compare studies, she said.
 

Independent association with overall survival

Seasonal variation in vitamin D levels were considered as a possible confounding factor, but Dr. Gracia-Darder noted that there was a similar distribution of measurements taken between October to March and April to September.

Univariate and multivariate analyses established vitamin D deficiency as being independently associated with overall survival with hazard ratios of 2.34 and 2.45, respectively.

Other predictive factors were having a higher Breslow index, as well as older age and gender.
 

Time to recommend vitamin D supplementation?

So should patients with melanoma have their vitamin D levels routinely checked? And what about advising them to take vitamin D supplements?

“In our practice, we analyze the vitamin D levels of our patients,” Dr. Gracia-Darder said. Patients are told to limit their exposure to the sun because of their skin cancer, so they are very likely to become vitamin D deficient.

While dietary changes or supplements might be suggested, there’s no real evidence to support upping vitamin D levels to date, so “future prospective studies are needed,” Dr. Gracia-Darder added.

Such studies have already started, including one in Italy, one in Australia, and another study that Dr. De Smedt has been involved with for the past few years.

Called the ViDMe study, it’s a multicenter, randomized, double-blind trial in which patients are being given a high-dose oral vitamin D supplement or placebo once a month for at least 1 year. About 430 patients with a first cutaneous malignant melanoma have been included in the trial, which started in December 2012.

It is hoped that the results will show that the supplementation will have had a protective effect on the risk of relapse and that there will be a correlation between vitamin D levels in the blood and vitamin D receptor immunoreactivity in the tumor.

“The study is still blinded,” Dr. De Smedt said. “We will unblind in the coming months and then at the end of the year, maybe next year, we will have the results.”

The study reported by Dr. Gracia-Darder did not receive any specific funding. Dr. Gracia-Darder disclosed that the melanoma unit where the study was performed receives many grants and funds to carry out research. She reported no other relevant financial relationships. Dr. De Smedt had no relevant financial relationships. The ViDMe study is sponsored by the Universitaire Ziekenhuizen Leuven.

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

Patients with melanoma who are deficient in vitamin D have significantly worse overall survival than those with higher levels, according to research presented at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

Whereas the 5-year overall survival was 90% when vitamin D serum levels were above a 10 ng/mL threshold, it was 84% when levels fell below it. Notably, the gap in overall survival between those above and below the threshold appeared to widen as time went on.

The research adds to existing evidence that “vitamin D levels can play an important and independent role in patients’ survival outcomes,” study investigator Inés Gracia-Darder, MD, told this news organization. “The important application in clinical practice would be to know if vitamin D supplementation influences the survival of melanoma patients,” said Dr. Gracia-Darder, a clinical specialist in dermatology at the Hospital Universitari Son Espases, Mallorca, Spain.

Dr. Inés Gracia-Darder

Known association, but not much data

“It is not a new finding,” but there are limited data, especially in melanoma, said Julie De Smedt, MD, of KU Leuven, Belgium, who was asked to comment on the results. Other groups have shown, certainly for cancer in general, that vitamin D can have an effect on overall survival.

“Low levels of vitamin D are associated with the pathological parameters of the melanoma, such as the thickness of the tumor,” Dr. De Smedt said in an interview, indicating that it’s not just overall survival that might be affected.

“So we assume that also has an effect on melanoma-specific survival,” she added.

That assumption, however, is not supported by the data Dr. Gracia-Darder presented, as there was no difference in melanoma-specific survival among the two groups of patients that had been studied.
 

Retrospective cohort analysis

Vitamin D levels had been studied in 264 patients who were included in the retrospective cohort analysis. All had invasive melanomas, and all had been seen at the Hospital Clinic of Barcelona between January 1998 and June 2021. Their mean age was 57 years, and the median follow-up was 6.7 years.

For inclusion, all patients had to have had their vitamin D levels measured after being diagnosed with melanoma; those with a 25-hydroxyvitamin D3 serum level of less than 10 ng/mL were deemed to be vitamin D deficient, whereas those with levels of 10 ng/mL and above were deemed normal or insufficient.

A measurement less than 10 ng/mL is considered vitamin D deficiency, Dr. De Smedt said. “But there is a difference between countries, and there’s also a difference between societies,” noting the cut-off used in the lab where she works is 20 ng/mL. This makes it difficult to compare studies, she said.
 

Independent association with overall survival

Seasonal variation in vitamin D levels were considered as a possible confounding factor, but Dr. Gracia-Darder noted that there was a similar distribution of measurements taken between October to March and April to September.

Univariate and multivariate analyses established vitamin D deficiency as being independently associated with overall survival with hazard ratios of 2.34 and 2.45, respectively.

Other predictive factors were having a higher Breslow index, as well as older age and gender.
 

Time to recommend vitamin D supplementation?

So should patients with melanoma have their vitamin D levels routinely checked? And what about advising them to take vitamin D supplements?

“In our practice, we analyze the vitamin D levels of our patients,” Dr. Gracia-Darder said. Patients are told to limit their exposure to the sun because of their skin cancer, so they are very likely to become vitamin D deficient.

While dietary changes or supplements might be suggested, there’s no real evidence to support upping vitamin D levels to date, so “future prospective studies are needed,” Dr. Gracia-Darder added.

Such studies have already started, including one in Italy, one in Australia, and another study that Dr. De Smedt has been involved with for the past few years.

Called the ViDMe study, it’s a multicenter, randomized, double-blind trial in which patients are being given a high-dose oral vitamin D supplement or placebo once a month for at least 1 year. About 430 patients with a first cutaneous malignant melanoma have been included in the trial, which started in December 2012.

It is hoped that the results will show that the supplementation will have had a protective effect on the risk of relapse and that there will be a correlation between vitamin D levels in the blood and vitamin D receptor immunoreactivity in the tumor.

“The study is still blinded,” Dr. De Smedt said. “We will unblind in the coming months and then at the end of the year, maybe next year, we will have the results.”

The study reported by Dr. Gracia-Darder did not receive any specific funding. Dr. Gracia-Darder disclosed that the melanoma unit where the study was performed receives many grants and funds to carry out research. She reported no other relevant financial relationships. Dr. De Smedt had no relevant financial relationships. The ViDMe study is sponsored by the Universitaire Ziekenhuizen Leuven.

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

Warfarin is associated with higher rates of upper gastrointestinal bleeding but not overall or lower GI bleeding rates, compared with direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), according to a new nationwide report from Iceland.

In addition, warfarin is associated with higher rates of major GI bleeding, compared with apixaban.

“Although there has been a myriad of studies comparing GI bleeding rates between warfarin and DOACs, very few studies have compared upper and lower GI bleeding rates specifically,” Arnar Ingason, MD, PhD, a gastroenterology resident at the University of Iceland and Landspitali University Hospital, Reykjavik, said in an interview.

“Knowing whether the risk of upper and lower GI bleeding differs between warfarin and DOACs is important, as it can help guide oral anticoagulant selection,” he said.

“Given that warfarin was associated with higher rates of upper GI bleeding compared to DOACs in our study, warfarin may not be optimal for patients with high risk of upper GI bleeding, such as patients with previous history of upper GI bleeding,” Dr. Ingason added.

The study was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
 

Analyzing bleed rates

Dr. Ingason and colleagues analyzed data from electronic medical records for more than 7,000 patients in Iceland who began a prescription for oral anticoagulants between 2014 and 2019. They used inverse probability weighting to yield balanced study groups and calculate the rates of overall, major, upper, and lower GI bleeding. All events of gastrointestinal bleeding were manually confirmed by chart review.

Clinically relevant GI bleeding was defined as bleeding that led to medical intervention, unscheduled physician contact, or temporary cessation of treatment. Upper GI bleeding was defined as hematemesis or a confirmed upper GI bleed site on endoscopy, whereas lower gastrointestinal bleeding was defined as hematochezia or a confirmed lower GI bleed site on endoscopy. Patients with melena and uncertain bleeding site on endoscopy were classified as having a gastrointestinal bleed of unknown location.

Major bleeding was defined as a drop in hemoglobin of at least 20 g/L, transfusion of two or more packs of red blood cells, or bleeding into a closed compartment such as the retroperitoneum.

In total, 295 gastrointestinal bleed events were identified, with 150 events (51%) classified as lower, 105 events (36%) classified as upper, and 40 events (14%) of an unknown location. About 71% required hospitalization, and 63% met the criteria for major bleeding. Five patients died, including three taking warfarin and the other two taking apixaban and rivaroxaban.

Overall, warfarin was associated with double the rate of upper GI bleeding, with 1.7 events per 100 person-years, compared with 0.8 events per 100 person-years for DOACs. The rates of lower GI bleeding were similar for the drugs.

Specifically, warfarin was associated with nearly 5.5 times higher rates of upper gastrointestinal bleeding, compared with dabigatran (Pradaxa, Boehringer Ingelheim), 2.6 times higher than apixaban (Eliquis, Bristol-Myers Squibb), and 1.7 times higher than rivaroxaban (Xarelto, Janssen). The risk for upper GI bleeding also was higher in men taking warfarin.

Warfarin was associated with higher rates of major bleeding, compared with apixaban, with 2.3 events per 100 person-years versus 1.5 events per 100 person-years. Otherwise, overall and major bleed rates were similar for users of warfarin and DOACs.

“GI bleeding among cardiac patients on anticoagulants and antiplatelets is the fastest growing group of GI bleeders,” Neena Abraham, MD, professor of medicine and a gastroenterologist at the Mayo Clinic in Scottsdale, Ariz., said in an interview.

Dr. Abraham, who wasn’t involved with this study, runs a dedicated cardiogastroenterology practice and has studied these patients’ bleeding risk for 20 years.

“This is a group that is ever increasing with aging baby boomers,” she said. “It is anticipated by 2040 that more than 40% of the U.S. adult population will have one or more cardiovascular conditions requiring the chronic prescription of anticoagulant or antiplatelet drugs.”
 

Considering future research

In this study, peptic ulcer disease was a proportionally less common cause of upper GI bleeding for warfarin at 18%, compared with DOACs at 39%. At the same time, the absolute propensity-weighted incidence rates of peptic ulcer–induced bleeding were similar, with 0.3 events per 100 person-years for both groups.

“As warfarin is not thought to induce peptic ulcer disease but rather promote bleeding from pre-existing lesions, one explanation may be that peptic ulcer disease almost always leads to overt bleeding in anticoagulated patients, while other lesions, such as mucosal erosions and angiodysplasias, may be more likely to lead to overt bleeding in warfarin patients due to a potentially more intense anticoagulation,” Dr. Ingason said.

Dr. Ingason and colleagues now plan to compare GI bleeding severity between warfarin and DOACs. Previous studies have suggested that GI bleeding may be more severe in patients receiving warfarin than in those receiving DOACs, he said.

In addition, large studies with manual verification of GI bleed events could better estimate the potential differences in the sources of upper and lower bleeding between warfarin and DOACs, Dr. Ingason noted.

“Some DOACs, specifically dabigatran, are known to have a mucosal effect on the luminal GI tract, as well as a systemic effect,” Dr. Abraham said. “This pharmacologic effect may contribute to an increase in lower gastrointestinal bleeding in the setting of colonic diverticulosis or mucosal injuries from inflammatory processes.”

Ongoing research should also look at different ways to reduce anticoagulant-related GI bleeding among cardiac patients, she noted.

“Our research group continues to study the risk of cardiac and bleeding adverse events in patients prescribed to DOACs compared to those patients who receive a left atrial appendage occlusion device,” Dr. Abraham said. “This device often permits patients at high risk of GI bleeding to transition off anticoagulant and antiplatelet drugs.”

The study was funded by the Icelandic Centre for Research and the Landspitali University Hospital Research Fund. The funders had no role in the design, conduct, or reporting of the study. The authors declared no competing interests. Dr. Abraham reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Warfarin is associated with higher rates of upper gastrointestinal bleeding but not overall or lower GI bleeding rates, compared with direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), according to a new nationwide report from Iceland.

In addition, warfarin is associated with higher rates of major GI bleeding, compared with apixaban.

“Although there has been a myriad of studies comparing GI bleeding rates between warfarin and DOACs, very few studies have compared upper and lower GI bleeding rates specifically,” Arnar Ingason, MD, PhD, a gastroenterology resident at the University of Iceland and Landspitali University Hospital, Reykjavik, said in an interview.

“Knowing whether the risk of upper and lower GI bleeding differs between warfarin and DOACs is important, as it can help guide oral anticoagulant selection,” he said.

“Given that warfarin was associated with higher rates of upper GI bleeding compared to DOACs in our study, warfarin may not be optimal for patients with high risk of upper GI bleeding, such as patients with previous history of upper GI bleeding,” Dr. Ingason added.

The study was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
 

Analyzing bleed rates

Dr. Ingason and colleagues analyzed data from electronic medical records for more than 7,000 patients in Iceland who began a prescription for oral anticoagulants between 2014 and 2019. They used inverse probability weighting to yield balanced study groups and calculate the rates of overall, major, upper, and lower GI bleeding. All events of gastrointestinal bleeding were manually confirmed by chart review.

Clinically relevant GI bleeding was defined as bleeding that led to medical intervention, unscheduled physician contact, or temporary cessation of treatment. Upper GI bleeding was defined as hematemesis or a confirmed upper GI bleed site on endoscopy, whereas lower gastrointestinal bleeding was defined as hematochezia or a confirmed lower GI bleed site on endoscopy. Patients with melena and uncertain bleeding site on endoscopy were classified as having a gastrointestinal bleed of unknown location.

Major bleeding was defined as a drop in hemoglobin of at least 20 g/L, transfusion of two or more packs of red blood cells, or bleeding into a closed compartment such as the retroperitoneum.

In total, 295 gastrointestinal bleed events were identified, with 150 events (51%) classified as lower, 105 events (36%) classified as upper, and 40 events (14%) of an unknown location. About 71% required hospitalization, and 63% met the criteria for major bleeding. Five patients died, including three taking warfarin and the other two taking apixaban and rivaroxaban.

Overall, warfarin was associated with double the rate of upper GI bleeding, with 1.7 events per 100 person-years, compared with 0.8 events per 100 person-years for DOACs. The rates of lower GI bleeding were similar for the drugs.

Specifically, warfarin was associated with nearly 5.5 times higher rates of upper gastrointestinal bleeding, compared with dabigatran (Pradaxa, Boehringer Ingelheim), 2.6 times higher than apixaban (Eliquis, Bristol-Myers Squibb), and 1.7 times higher than rivaroxaban (Xarelto, Janssen). The risk for upper GI bleeding also was higher in men taking warfarin.

Warfarin was associated with higher rates of major bleeding, compared with apixaban, with 2.3 events per 100 person-years versus 1.5 events per 100 person-years. Otherwise, overall and major bleed rates were similar for users of warfarin and DOACs.

“GI bleeding among cardiac patients on anticoagulants and antiplatelets is the fastest growing group of GI bleeders,” Neena Abraham, MD, professor of medicine and a gastroenterologist at the Mayo Clinic in Scottsdale, Ariz., said in an interview.

Dr. Abraham, who wasn’t involved with this study, runs a dedicated cardiogastroenterology practice and has studied these patients’ bleeding risk for 20 years.

“This is a group that is ever increasing with aging baby boomers,” she said. “It is anticipated by 2040 that more than 40% of the U.S. adult population will have one or more cardiovascular conditions requiring the chronic prescription of anticoagulant or antiplatelet drugs.”
 

Considering future research

In this study, peptic ulcer disease was a proportionally less common cause of upper GI bleeding for warfarin at 18%, compared with DOACs at 39%. At the same time, the absolute propensity-weighted incidence rates of peptic ulcer–induced bleeding were similar, with 0.3 events per 100 person-years for both groups.

“As warfarin is not thought to induce peptic ulcer disease but rather promote bleeding from pre-existing lesions, one explanation may be that peptic ulcer disease almost always leads to overt bleeding in anticoagulated patients, while other lesions, such as mucosal erosions and angiodysplasias, may be more likely to lead to overt bleeding in warfarin patients due to a potentially more intense anticoagulation,” Dr. Ingason said.

Dr. Ingason and colleagues now plan to compare GI bleeding severity between warfarin and DOACs. Previous studies have suggested that GI bleeding may be more severe in patients receiving warfarin than in those receiving DOACs, he said.

In addition, large studies with manual verification of GI bleed events could better estimate the potential differences in the sources of upper and lower bleeding between warfarin and DOACs, Dr. Ingason noted.

“Some DOACs, specifically dabigatran, are known to have a mucosal effect on the luminal GI tract, as well as a systemic effect,” Dr. Abraham said. “This pharmacologic effect may contribute to an increase in lower gastrointestinal bleeding in the setting of colonic diverticulosis or mucosal injuries from inflammatory processes.”

Ongoing research should also look at different ways to reduce anticoagulant-related GI bleeding among cardiac patients, she noted.

“Our research group continues to study the risk of cardiac and bleeding adverse events in patients prescribed to DOACs compared to those patients who receive a left atrial appendage occlusion device,” Dr. Abraham said. “This device often permits patients at high risk of GI bleeding to transition off anticoagulant and antiplatelet drugs.”

The study was funded by the Icelandic Centre for Research and the Landspitali University Hospital Research Fund. The funders had no role in the design, conduct, or reporting of the study. The authors declared no competing interests. Dr. Abraham reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Warfarin is associated with higher rates of upper gastrointestinal bleeding but not overall or lower GI bleeding rates, compared with direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), according to a new nationwide report from Iceland.

In addition, warfarin is associated with higher rates of major GI bleeding, compared with apixaban.

“Although there has been a myriad of studies comparing GI bleeding rates between warfarin and DOACs, very few studies have compared upper and lower GI bleeding rates specifically,” Arnar Ingason, MD, PhD, a gastroenterology resident at the University of Iceland and Landspitali University Hospital, Reykjavik, said in an interview.

“Knowing whether the risk of upper and lower GI bleeding differs between warfarin and DOACs is important, as it can help guide oral anticoagulant selection,” he said.

“Given that warfarin was associated with higher rates of upper GI bleeding compared to DOACs in our study, warfarin may not be optimal for patients with high risk of upper GI bleeding, such as patients with previous history of upper GI bleeding,” Dr. Ingason added.

The study was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
 

Analyzing bleed rates

Dr. Ingason and colleagues analyzed data from electronic medical records for more than 7,000 patients in Iceland who began a prescription for oral anticoagulants between 2014 and 2019. They used inverse probability weighting to yield balanced study groups and calculate the rates of overall, major, upper, and lower GI bleeding. All events of gastrointestinal bleeding were manually confirmed by chart review.

Clinically relevant GI bleeding was defined as bleeding that led to medical intervention, unscheduled physician contact, or temporary cessation of treatment. Upper GI bleeding was defined as hematemesis or a confirmed upper GI bleed site on endoscopy, whereas lower gastrointestinal bleeding was defined as hematochezia or a confirmed lower GI bleed site on endoscopy. Patients with melena and uncertain bleeding site on endoscopy were classified as having a gastrointestinal bleed of unknown location.

Major bleeding was defined as a drop in hemoglobin of at least 20 g/L, transfusion of two or more packs of red blood cells, or bleeding into a closed compartment such as the retroperitoneum.

In total, 295 gastrointestinal bleed events were identified, with 150 events (51%) classified as lower, 105 events (36%) classified as upper, and 40 events (14%) of an unknown location. About 71% required hospitalization, and 63% met the criteria for major bleeding. Five patients died, including three taking warfarin and the other two taking apixaban and rivaroxaban.

Overall, warfarin was associated with double the rate of upper GI bleeding, with 1.7 events per 100 person-years, compared with 0.8 events per 100 person-years for DOACs. The rates of lower GI bleeding were similar for the drugs.

Specifically, warfarin was associated with nearly 5.5 times higher rates of upper gastrointestinal bleeding, compared with dabigatran (Pradaxa, Boehringer Ingelheim), 2.6 times higher than apixaban (Eliquis, Bristol-Myers Squibb), and 1.7 times higher than rivaroxaban (Xarelto, Janssen). The risk for upper GI bleeding also was higher in men taking warfarin.

Warfarin was associated with higher rates of major bleeding, compared with apixaban, with 2.3 events per 100 person-years versus 1.5 events per 100 person-years. Otherwise, overall and major bleed rates were similar for users of warfarin and DOACs.

“GI bleeding among cardiac patients on anticoagulants and antiplatelets is the fastest growing group of GI bleeders,” Neena Abraham, MD, professor of medicine and a gastroenterologist at the Mayo Clinic in Scottsdale, Ariz., said in an interview.

Dr. Abraham, who wasn’t involved with this study, runs a dedicated cardiogastroenterology practice and has studied these patients’ bleeding risk for 20 years.

“This is a group that is ever increasing with aging baby boomers,” she said. “It is anticipated by 2040 that more than 40% of the U.S. adult population will have one or more cardiovascular conditions requiring the chronic prescription of anticoagulant or antiplatelet drugs.”
 

Considering future research

In this study, peptic ulcer disease was a proportionally less common cause of upper GI bleeding for warfarin at 18%, compared with DOACs at 39%. At the same time, the absolute propensity-weighted incidence rates of peptic ulcer–induced bleeding were similar, with 0.3 events per 100 person-years for both groups.

“As warfarin is not thought to induce peptic ulcer disease but rather promote bleeding from pre-existing lesions, one explanation may be that peptic ulcer disease almost always leads to overt bleeding in anticoagulated patients, while other lesions, such as mucosal erosions and angiodysplasias, may be more likely to lead to overt bleeding in warfarin patients due to a potentially more intense anticoagulation,” Dr. Ingason said.

Dr. Ingason and colleagues now plan to compare GI bleeding severity between warfarin and DOACs. Previous studies have suggested that GI bleeding may be more severe in patients receiving warfarin than in those receiving DOACs, he said.

In addition, large studies with manual verification of GI bleed events could better estimate the potential differences in the sources of upper and lower bleeding between warfarin and DOACs, Dr. Ingason noted.

“Some DOACs, specifically dabigatran, are known to have a mucosal effect on the luminal GI tract, as well as a systemic effect,” Dr. Abraham said. “This pharmacologic effect may contribute to an increase in lower gastrointestinal bleeding in the setting of colonic diverticulosis or mucosal injuries from inflammatory processes.”

Ongoing research should also look at different ways to reduce anticoagulant-related GI bleeding among cardiac patients, she noted.

“Our research group continues to study the risk of cardiac and bleeding adverse events in patients prescribed to DOACs compared to those patients who receive a left atrial appendage occlusion device,” Dr. Abraham said. “This device often permits patients at high risk of GI bleeding to transition off anticoagulant and antiplatelet drugs.”

The study was funded by the Icelandic Centre for Research and the Landspitali University Hospital Research Fund. The funders had no role in the design, conduct, or reporting of the study. The authors declared no competing interests. Dr. Abraham reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The influenza vaccine is linked to a significantly lower risk of ischemic stroke, with the reduced risk apparent at a population level even outside of flu season, in new findings that suggest the vaccine itself, and not just avoidance of the virus, may be beneficial.

“We postulate that influenza vaccination may have a protective effect against stroke that may be partly independent of influenza prevention,” study investigator Francisco J. de Abajo, MD, PhD, MPH, of the University of Alcalá, Madrid, said in an interview.

Jovanmandic/Thinkstock

“Although the study is observational and this finding can also be explained by unmeasured confounding factors, we feel that a direct biological effect of vaccine cannot be ruled out and this finding opens new avenues for investigation.”

The study was published online in Neurology.
 

‘Not a spurious association’

While there is a well-established link between seasonal influenza and increased ischemic stroke risk, the role of flu vaccination in stroke prevention is unclear.

In the nested case-control study, researchers evaluated data from primary care practices in Spain between 2001 and 2015. They identified 14,322 patients with first-time ischemic stroke. Of these, 9,542 had noncardioembolic stroke and 4,780 had cardioembolic stroke.

Each case was matched with five controls from the population of age- and sex-matched controls without stroke (n = 71,610).

Those in the stroke group had a slightly higher rate of flu vaccination than controls, at 41.4% versus 40.5% (odds ratio, 1.05).

Adjusted analysis revealed those who received flu vaccination were less likely to experience ischemic stroke within 15-30 days of vaccination (OR, 0.79) and, to a lesser degree, over up to 150 days (OR, 0.92).

The reduced risk associated with the flu vaccine was observed with both types of ischemic stroke and appeared to offer stroke protection outside of flu season.

The reduced risk was also found in subgroup comparisons in men, women, those aged over and under 65 years, and those with intermediate and high vascular risk.

Importantly, a separate analysis of pneumococcal vaccination did not show a similar reduction in stroke risk (adjusted OR, 1.08).

“The lack of protection found with the pneumococcal vaccine actually reinforces the hypothesis that the protection of influenza vaccine is not a spurious association, as both vaccines might share the same biases and confounding factors,” Dr. de Abajo said.
 

Anti-inflammatory effect?

Influenza infection is known to induce a systemic inflammatory response that “can precipitate atheroma plaque rupture mediated by elevated concentrations of reactive proteins and cytokines,” the investigators noted, and so, avoiding infection could prevent those effects.

The results are consistent with other studies that have shown similar findings, including recent data from the INTERSTROKE trial. However, the reduced risk observed in the current study even in years without a flu epidemic expands on previous findings.

“This finding suggests that other mechanisms different from the prevention of influenza infection – e.g., a direct biological effect – could account for the risk reduction found,” the investigators wrote.

In terms of the nature of that effect, Dr. de Abajo noted that, “at this stage, we can only speculate.

“Having said that, there are some pieces of evidence that suggest influenza vaccination may release anti-inflammatory mediators that can stabilize the atheroma plaque. This is an interesting hypothesis that should be addressed in the near future,” he added.
 

‘More than just flu prevention’

In an accompanying editorial, Dixon Yang, MD, and Mitchell S.V. Elkind, MD, agree that the findings point to intriguing potential unexpected benefits of the vaccine.

“This case-control study ... importantly suggests the influenza vaccine is more than just about preventing the flu,” they wrote.

Dr. Elkind said in an interview that the mechanism could indeed involve an anti-inflammatory effect.

“There is some evidence that antibiotics also have anti-inflammatory properties that might reduce risk of stroke or the brain damage from a stroke,” he noted. “So, it is plausible that some of the effect of the vaccine on reducing risk of stroke may be through a reduction in inflammation.”

Dr. Elkind noted that the magnitude of the reduction observed with the vaccine, though not substantial, is important. “The magnitude of effect for any one individual may be modest, but it is in the ballpark of the effect of other commonly used approaches to stroke prevention, such as taking an aspirin a day, which reduces risk of stroke by about 20%. But because influenza is so common, the impact of even a small effect for an individual can have a large impact at the population level. So, the results are of public health significance.”

The study received support from the Biomedical Research Foundation of the Prince of Asturias University Hospital and the Institute of Health Carlos III in Madrid. Dr. Elkind has reported receiving ancillary funding but no personal compensation from Roche for a federally funded trial of stroke prevention.

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

The influenza vaccine is linked to a significantly lower risk of ischemic stroke, with the reduced risk apparent at a population level even outside of flu season, in new findings that suggest the vaccine itself, and not just avoidance of the virus, may be beneficial.

“We postulate that influenza vaccination may have a protective effect against stroke that may be partly independent of influenza prevention,” study investigator Francisco J. de Abajo, MD, PhD, MPH, of the University of Alcalá, Madrid, said in an interview.

Jovanmandic/Thinkstock

“Although the study is observational and this finding can also be explained by unmeasured confounding factors, we feel that a direct biological effect of vaccine cannot be ruled out and this finding opens new avenues for investigation.”

The study was published online in Neurology.
 

‘Not a spurious association’

While there is a well-established link between seasonal influenza and increased ischemic stroke risk, the role of flu vaccination in stroke prevention is unclear.

In the nested case-control study, researchers evaluated data from primary care practices in Spain between 2001 and 2015. They identified 14,322 patients with first-time ischemic stroke. Of these, 9,542 had noncardioembolic stroke and 4,780 had cardioembolic stroke.

Each case was matched with five controls from the population of age- and sex-matched controls without stroke (n = 71,610).

Those in the stroke group had a slightly higher rate of flu vaccination than controls, at 41.4% versus 40.5% (odds ratio, 1.05).

Adjusted analysis revealed those who received flu vaccination were less likely to experience ischemic stroke within 15-30 days of vaccination (OR, 0.79) and, to a lesser degree, over up to 150 days (OR, 0.92).

The reduced risk associated with the flu vaccine was observed with both types of ischemic stroke and appeared to offer stroke protection outside of flu season.

The reduced risk was also found in subgroup comparisons in men, women, those aged over and under 65 years, and those with intermediate and high vascular risk.

Importantly, a separate analysis of pneumococcal vaccination did not show a similar reduction in stroke risk (adjusted OR, 1.08).

“The lack of protection found with the pneumococcal vaccine actually reinforces the hypothesis that the protection of influenza vaccine is not a spurious association, as both vaccines might share the same biases and confounding factors,” Dr. de Abajo said.
 

Anti-inflammatory effect?

Influenza infection is known to induce a systemic inflammatory response that “can precipitate atheroma plaque rupture mediated by elevated concentrations of reactive proteins and cytokines,” the investigators noted, and so, avoiding infection could prevent those effects.

The results are consistent with other studies that have shown similar findings, including recent data from the INTERSTROKE trial. However, the reduced risk observed in the current study even in years without a flu epidemic expands on previous findings.

“This finding suggests that other mechanisms different from the prevention of influenza infection – e.g., a direct biological effect – could account for the risk reduction found,” the investigators wrote.

In terms of the nature of that effect, Dr. de Abajo noted that, “at this stage, we can only speculate.

“Having said that, there are some pieces of evidence that suggest influenza vaccination may release anti-inflammatory mediators that can stabilize the atheroma plaque. This is an interesting hypothesis that should be addressed in the near future,” he added.
 

‘More than just flu prevention’

In an accompanying editorial, Dixon Yang, MD, and Mitchell S.V. Elkind, MD, agree that the findings point to intriguing potential unexpected benefits of the vaccine.

“This case-control study ... importantly suggests the influenza vaccine is more than just about preventing the flu,” they wrote.

Dr. Elkind said in an interview that the mechanism could indeed involve an anti-inflammatory effect.

“There is some evidence that antibiotics also have anti-inflammatory properties that might reduce risk of stroke or the brain damage from a stroke,” he noted. “So, it is plausible that some of the effect of the vaccine on reducing risk of stroke may be through a reduction in inflammation.”

Dr. Elkind noted that the magnitude of the reduction observed with the vaccine, though not substantial, is important. “The magnitude of effect for any one individual may be modest, but it is in the ballpark of the effect of other commonly used approaches to stroke prevention, such as taking an aspirin a day, which reduces risk of stroke by about 20%. But because influenza is so common, the impact of even a small effect for an individual can have a large impact at the population level. So, the results are of public health significance.”

The study received support from the Biomedical Research Foundation of the Prince of Asturias University Hospital and the Institute of Health Carlos III in Madrid. Dr. Elkind has reported receiving ancillary funding but no personal compensation from Roche for a federally funded trial of stroke prevention.

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

The influenza vaccine is linked to a significantly lower risk of ischemic stroke, with the reduced risk apparent at a population level even outside of flu season, in new findings that suggest the vaccine itself, and not just avoidance of the virus, may be beneficial.

“We postulate that influenza vaccination may have a protective effect against stroke that may be partly independent of influenza prevention,” study investigator Francisco J. de Abajo, MD, PhD, MPH, of the University of Alcalá, Madrid, said in an interview.

Jovanmandic/Thinkstock

“Although the study is observational and this finding can also be explained by unmeasured confounding factors, we feel that a direct biological effect of vaccine cannot be ruled out and this finding opens new avenues for investigation.”

The study was published online in Neurology.
 

‘Not a spurious association’

While there is a well-established link between seasonal influenza and increased ischemic stroke risk, the role of flu vaccination in stroke prevention is unclear.

In the nested case-control study, researchers evaluated data from primary care practices in Spain between 2001 and 2015. They identified 14,322 patients with first-time ischemic stroke. Of these, 9,542 had noncardioembolic stroke and 4,780 had cardioembolic stroke.

Each case was matched with five controls from the population of age- and sex-matched controls without stroke (n = 71,610).

Those in the stroke group had a slightly higher rate of flu vaccination than controls, at 41.4% versus 40.5% (odds ratio, 1.05).

Adjusted analysis revealed those who received flu vaccination were less likely to experience ischemic stroke within 15-30 days of vaccination (OR, 0.79) and, to a lesser degree, over up to 150 days (OR, 0.92).

The reduced risk associated with the flu vaccine was observed with both types of ischemic stroke and appeared to offer stroke protection outside of flu season.

The reduced risk was also found in subgroup comparisons in men, women, those aged over and under 65 years, and those with intermediate and high vascular risk.

Importantly, a separate analysis of pneumococcal vaccination did not show a similar reduction in stroke risk (adjusted OR, 1.08).

“The lack of protection found with the pneumococcal vaccine actually reinforces the hypothesis that the protection of influenza vaccine is not a spurious association, as both vaccines might share the same biases and confounding factors,” Dr. de Abajo said.
 

Anti-inflammatory effect?

Influenza infection is known to induce a systemic inflammatory response that “can precipitate atheroma plaque rupture mediated by elevated concentrations of reactive proteins and cytokines,” the investigators noted, and so, avoiding infection could prevent those effects.

The results are consistent with other studies that have shown similar findings, including recent data from the INTERSTROKE trial. However, the reduced risk observed in the current study even in years without a flu epidemic expands on previous findings.

“This finding suggests that other mechanisms different from the prevention of influenza infection – e.g., a direct biological effect – could account for the risk reduction found,” the investigators wrote.

In terms of the nature of that effect, Dr. de Abajo noted that, “at this stage, we can only speculate.

“Having said that, there are some pieces of evidence that suggest influenza vaccination may release anti-inflammatory mediators that can stabilize the atheroma plaque. This is an interesting hypothesis that should be addressed in the near future,” he added.
 

‘More than just flu prevention’

In an accompanying editorial, Dixon Yang, MD, and Mitchell S.V. Elkind, MD, agree that the findings point to intriguing potential unexpected benefits of the vaccine.

“This case-control study ... importantly suggests the influenza vaccine is more than just about preventing the flu,” they wrote.

Dr. Elkind said in an interview that the mechanism could indeed involve an anti-inflammatory effect.

“There is some evidence that antibiotics also have anti-inflammatory properties that might reduce risk of stroke or the brain damage from a stroke,” he noted. “So, it is plausible that some of the effect of the vaccine on reducing risk of stroke may be through a reduction in inflammation.”

Dr. Elkind noted that the magnitude of the reduction observed with the vaccine, though not substantial, is important. “The magnitude of effect for any one individual may be modest, but it is in the ballpark of the effect of other commonly used approaches to stroke prevention, such as taking an aspirin a day, which reduces risk of stroke by about 20%. But because influenza is so common, the impact of even a small effect for an individual can have a large impact at the population level. So, the results are of public health significance.”

The study received support from the Biomedical Research Foundation of the Prince of Asturias University Hospital and the Institute of Health Carlos III in Madrid. Dr. Elkind has reported receiving ancillary funding but no personal compensation from Roche for a federally funded trial of stroke prevention.

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

Almost half the people who were hospitalized with COVID-19 last spring had been fully vaccinated and received a third dose or booster shot, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says.

Unvaccinated adults were 3.4 times more likely to be hospitalized with COVID than those who were vaccinated, the CDC said.

The CDC report considered hospitalization numbers from March 20 to May 31, when the omicron subvariant BA.2 was the dominant strain. Researchers found 39.1% of patients had received a primary vaccination series and at least one booster or additional dose; 5% were fully vaccinated with two boosters.

“Adults should stay up to date with COVID-19 vaccination, including booster doses,” the CDC said. “Multiple nonpharmaceutical and medical prevention measures should be used to protect persons at high risk for severe SARS-CoV-2, regardless of vaccination status.”

Older adults and people with underlying medical conditions who become infected with the coronavirus are more likely to be hospitalized.

The study also found that hospitalization rates among people over 65 increased threefold over the study period. Rates among people under 65 rose 1.7 times.

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

Almost half the people who were hospitalized with COVID-19 last spring had been fully vaccinated and received a third dose or booster shot, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says.

Unvaccinated adults were 3.4 times more likely to be hospitalized with COVID than those who were vaccinated, the CDC said.

The CDC report considered hospitalization numbers from March 20 to May 31, when the omicron subvariant BA.2 was the dominant strain. Researchers found 39.1% of patients had received a primary vaccination series and at least one booster or additional dose; 5% were fully vaccinated with two boosters.

“Adults should stay up to date with COVID-19 vaccination, including booster doses,” the CDC said. “Multiple nonpharmaceutical and medical prevention measures should be used to protect persons at high risk for severe SARS-CoV-2, regardless of vaccination status.”

Older adults and people with underlying medical conditions who become infected with the coronavirus are more likely to be hospitalized.

The study also found that hospitalization rates among people over 65 increased threefold over the study period. Rates among people under 65 rose 1.7 times.

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

Almost half the people who were hospitalized with COVID-19 last spring had been fully vaccinated and received a third dose or booster shot, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says.

Unvaccinated adults were 3.4 times more likely to be hospitalized with COVID than those who were vaccinated, the CDC said.

The CDC report considered hospitalization numbers from March 20 to May 31, when the omicron subvariant BA.2 was the dominant strain. Researchers found 39.1% of patients had received a primary vaccination series and at least one booster or additional dose; 5% were fully vaccinated with two boosters.

“Adults should stay up to date with COVID-19 vaccination, including booster doses,” the CDC said. “Multiple nonpharmaceutical and medical prevention measures should be used to protect persons at high risk for severe SARS-CoV-2, regardless of vaccination status.”

Older adults and people with underlying medical conditions who become infected with the coronavirus are more likely to be hospitalized.

The study also found that hospitalization rates among people over 65 increased threefold over the study period. Rates among people under 65 rose 1.7 times.

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

Women who are pregnant or breastfeeding showed no long-term adverse reactions after a third or booster dose of COVID-19 vaccine, according to a study of more than 17,000 individuals.

Doctors and health professionals continue to recommend COVID-19 vaccine boosters or third doses for adolescents and adults more than 5 months after their initial vaccinations with the Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2 or Moderna mRNA-1273 primary vaccine series or more than 2 months after receiving the Janssen JNJ-78436735 vaccine, Alisa Kachikis, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues wrote in JAMA Network Open.

Although multiple studies have shown that the COVID-19 primary series is safe and well tolerated in pregnant and lactating women, information on the safety and tolerability of boosters are lacking, the researchers noted.

“COVID-19 will be with us for a while, and it is important to continue to provide data on COVID-19 vaccines in these groups, particularly because there still are many questions about the vaccine, and because pregnant individuals have been, understandably, more hesitant to receive COVID-19 vaccines,” Dr. Kachikis said in an interview. “The findings of this study that COVID-19 booster doses are well tolerated among pregnant and lactating individuals are especially pertinent with the new COVID-19 boosters available this fall.”

In the new study, the researchers reviewed data from 17,014 participants who were part of an ongoing online prospective study of COVID-19 vaccines in pregnant and lactating individuals. Data were collected between October 2021 and April 2022 through an online survey.

The study population included 2,009 participants (11.8%) who were pregnant at the time of their booster or third dose, 10,279 (60.4%) who were lactating, and 4,726 (27.8%) who were neither pregnant nor lactating. The mean age of the participants was 33.3 years; 92.1% self-identified as White, 94.5% self-identified as non-Hispanic, and 99.7% self-identified as female.

The receipt of a booster was similar across trimesters; 26.4%, 36.5%, and 37.1% of participants received boosters or third doses in the first, second, and third trimester, respectively. The primary outcome was self-reported vaccine reactions within 24 hours of the dose.

Overall, 82.8% of the respondents reported a reaction at the site of the injection, such as redness, pain, or swelling, and 67.9% reported at least one systemic symptom, such as aches and pains, headache, chills, or fever. The most frequently reported symptoms across all groups were injection-site pain (82.2%) and fatigue (54.4%).

The pregnant women were significantly more likely than nonpregnant or nonlactating individuals to report any local reaction at the injection site (adjusted odds ratio, 1.2; P = .01), but less likely to report any systemic reaction (aOR, 0.7; P < .001).

The majority (97.6%) of the pregnant respondents and 96.0% of those lactating reported no obstetric or lactation concerns after vaccination.

Overall, a majority of the respondents reported that recommendations from public health authorities were helpful in their decision to receive a COVID-19 booster or third dose (90.0% of pregnant respondents, 89.9% of lactating respondents, and 88.1% of those neither pregnant nor lactating).

Although vaccine uptake in the current study population was high (91.1% overall and 95.0% of those pregnant), “the importance of the health care professional’s recommendation is pertinent given the ongoing increased vaccine hesitancy among pregnant individuals in the context of the COVID-19 vaccine,” the researchers emphasized.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the reliance on self-reports and a convenience sample composed mainly of health care workers because of their vaccine eligibility at the time the study started, which limits generalizability, the researchers noted. Analyses on the pregnancy outcomes of those who were pregnant when vaccinated are in progress.

The results were strengthened by the large study population that included participants from all 50 states and several territories, and ability to compare results between pregnant and lactating individuals with those who were neither pregnant nor lactating, but were of childbearing age, they said.

The results support the safety of COVID-19 boosters for pregnant and breastfeeding individuals, and these data are important to inform discussions between patients and clinicians to boost vaccine uptake and acceptance in this population, they concluded.

“Our earlier data analysis showed that pregnant and lactating individuals did very well with the initial COVID-19 vaccine series, so it was not very surprising that they also did well with COVID-19 booster or third doses,” Dr. Kachikis said in an interview.

There are two takeaway messages for clinicians, she said: “First, pregnant and lactating individuals tolerated the COVID-19 booster well. The second is that clinicians are very important when it comes to vaccine acceptance.”

“In our study, we found that, while pregnant participants were more likely to report that they were hesitant to receive the booster, they also were more likely to have discussed the COVID-19 booster with their health care provider, and to have received a recommendation to receive the booster. So, spending a little bit of extra time with patients discussing COVID-19 boosters and recommending them can make a significant difference,” she said.

The message of the study is highly reassuring for pregnant and lactating individuals, Dr. Kachikis added. “Most of the participants reported that they had fewer symptoms with the COVID-19 booster compared to the primary vaccine series, which is good news, especially since a new COVID-19 booster is being recommended for the fall.”
 

Reassuring findings for doctors and patients

The current study is especially timely, as updated COVID-19 boosters have now been recommended for most individuals by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Martina L. Badell, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview.

The findings support previous studies on the tolerability of COVID-19 vaccinations in pregnant and lactating persons, said Dr. Badell, who was not involved in the study.

The reassuring message for clinicians is that COVID-19 booster vaccinations are similarly well tolerated in pregnancy and lactation as they are in nonpregnant individuals, said Dr. Badell. “Given the risks of COVID infections in pregnancy and neonates, reassuring data on the tolerability and safety of vaccination in this population is very important.” Also, the researchers found that all three cohorts reported that recommendations from public or medical health authorities helped them make a decision about vaccination; “thus the more data to support these recommendations, the better,” she emphasized.

If you are pregnant or breastfeeding, the message from the study is that COVID-19 booster vaccinations are similarly well tolerated by those who are pregnant or breastfeeding and those who are not, said Dr. Badell.

“This study provides additional support for the strong recommendation to encourage not only COVID-19 vaccination in pregnancy and lactation, but booster vaccinations specifically,” and pregnant and breastfeeding individuals should not be excluded from the new CDC recommendations for COVID-19 boosters, she said.
 

Future research suggestions

Next steps for research include evaluating the obstetrical and neonatal outcomes in pregnancy and lactation following COVID- 19 boosters, Dr. Badell added.

Dr. Kachikis suggested studies try to answer the remaining questions about COVID-19 vaccines and the immunity of pregnant and lactating persons, particularly since they were excluded from the early clinical trials in 2020.

The study was supported by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, a Women’s Reproductive Health Research Award, and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health. \Dr. Kachikis disclosed serving as a research consultant for Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline and as an unpaid consultant for GlaxoSmithKline unrelated to the current study, as well as grant support from Merck and Pfizer unrelated to the current study. Dr. Badell had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Women who are pregnant or breastfeeding showed no long-term adverse reactions after a third or booster dose of COVID-19 vaccine, according to a study of more than 17,000 individuals.

Doctors and health professionals continue to recommend COVID-19 vaccine boosters or third doses for adolescents and adults more than 5 months after their initial vaccinations with the Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2 or Moderna mRNA-1273 primary vaccine series or more than 2 months after receiving the Janssen JNJ-78436735 vaccine, Alisa Kachikis, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues wrote in JAMA Network Open.

Although multiple studies have shown that the COVID-19 primary series is safe and well tolerated in pregnant and lactating women, information on the safety and tolerability of boosters are lacking, the researchers noted.

“COVID-19 will be with us for a while, and it is important to continue to provide data on COVID-19 vaccines in these groups, particularly because there still are many questions about the vaccine, and because pregnant individuals have been, understandably, more hesitant to receive COVID-19 vaccines,” Dr. Kachikis said in an interview. “The findings of this study that COVID-19 booster doses are well tolerated among pregnant and lactating individuals are especially pertinent with the new COVID-19 boosters available this fall.”

In the new study, the researchers reviewed data from 17,014 participants who were part of an ongoing online prospective study of COVID-19 vaccines in pregnant and lactating individuals. Data were collected between October 2021 and April 2022 through an online survey.

The study population included 2,009 participants (11.8%) who were pregnant at the time of their booster or third dose, 10,279 (60.4%) who were lactating, and 4,726 (27.8%) who were neither pregnant nor lactating. The mean age of the participants was 33.3 years; 92.1% self-identified as White, 94.5% self-identified as non-Hispanic, and 99.7% self-identified as female.

The receipt of a booster was similar across trimesters; 26.4%, 36.5%, and 37.1% of participants received boosters or third doses in the first, second, and third trimester, respectively. The primary outcome was self-reported vaccine reactions within 24 hours of the dose.

Overall, 82.8% of the respondents reported a reaction at the site of the injection, such as redness, pain, or swelling, and 67.9% reported at least one systemic symptom, such as aches and pains, headache, chills, or fever. The most frequently reported symptoms across all groups were injection-site pain (82.2%) and fatigue (54.4%).

The pregnant women were significantly more likely than nonpregnant or nonlactating individuals to report any local reaction at the injection site (adjusted odds ratio, 1.2; P = .01), but less likely to report any systemic reaction (aOR, 0.7; P < .001).

The majority (97.6%) of the pregnant respondents and 96.0% of those lactating reported no obstetric or lactation concerns after vaccination.

Overall, a majority of the respondents reported that recommendations from public health authorities were helpful in their decision to receive a COVID-19 booster or third dose (90.0% of pregnant respondents, 89.9% of lactating respondents, and 88.1% of those neither pregnant nor lactating).

Although vaccine uptake in the current study population was high (91.1% overall and 95.0% of those pregnant), “the importance of the health care professional’s recommendation is pertinent given the ongoing increased vaccine hesitancy among pregnant individuals in the context of the COVID-19 vaccine,” the researchers emphasized.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the reliance on self-reports and a convenience sample composed mainly of health care workers because of their vaccine eligibility at the time the study started, which limits generalizability, the researchers noted. Analyses on the pregnancy outcomes of those who were pregnant when vaccinated are in progress.

The results were strengthened by the large study population that included participants from all 50 states and several territories, and ability to compare results between pregnant and lactating individuals with those who were neither pregnant nor lactating, but were of childbearing age, they said.

The results support the safety of COVID-19 boosters for pregnant and breastfeeding individuals, and these data are important to inform discussions between patients and clinicians to boost vaccine uptake and acceptance in this population, they concluded.

“Our earlier data analysis showed that pregnant and lactating individuals did very well with the initial COVID-19 vaccine series, so it was not very surprising that they also did well with COVID-19 booster or third doses,” Dr. Kachikis said in an interview.

There are two takeaway messages for clinicians, she said: “First, pregnant and lactating individuals tolerated the COVID-19 booster well. The second is that clinicians are very important when it comes to vaccine acceptance.”

“In our study, we found that, while pregnant participants were more likely to report that they were hesitant to receive the booster, they also were more likely to have discussed the COVID-19 booster with their health care provider, and to have received a recommendation to receive the booster. So, spending a little bit of extra time with patients discussing COVID-19 boosters and recommending them can make a significant difference,” she said.

The message of the study is highly reassuring for pregnant and lactating individuals, Dr. Kachikis added. “Most of the participants reported that they had fewer symptoms with the COVID-19 booster compared to the primary vaccine series, which is good news, especially since a new COVID-19 booster is being recommended for the fall.”
 

Reassuring findings for doctors and patients

The current study is especially timely, as updated COVID-19 boosters have now been recommended for most individuals by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Martina L. Badell, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview.

The findings support previous studies on the tolerability of COVID-19 vaccinations in pregnant and lactating persons, said Dr. Badell, who was not involved in the study.

The reassuring message for clinicians is that COVID-19 booster vaccinations are similarly well tolerated in pregnancy and lactation as they are in nonpregnant individuals, said Dr. Badell. “Given the risks of COVID infections in pregnancy and neonates, reassuring data on the tolerability and safety of vaccination in this population is very important.” Also, the researchers found that all three cohorts reported that recommendations from public or medical health authorities helped them make a decision about vaccination; “thus the more data to support these recommendations, the better,” she emphasized.

If you are pregnant or breastfeeding, the message from the study is that COVID-19 booster vaccinations are similarly well tolerated by those who are pregnant or breastfeeding and those who are not, said Dr. Badell.

“This study provides additional support for the strong recommendation to encourage not only COVID-19 vaccination in pregnancy and lactation, but booster vaccinations specifically,” and pregnant and breastfeeding individuals should not be excluded from the new CDC recommendations for COVID-19 boosters, she said.
 

Future research suggestions

Next steps for research include evaluating the obstetrical and neonatal outcomes in pregnancy and lactation following COVID- 19 boosters, Dr. Badell added.

Dr. Kachikis suggested studies try to answer the remaining questions about COVID-19 vaccines and the immunity of pregnant and lactating persons, particularly since they were excluded from the early clinical trials in 2020.

The study was supported by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, a Women’s Reproductive Health Research Award, and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health. \Dr. Kachikis disclosed serving as a research consultant for Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline and as an unpaid consultant for GlaxoSmithKline unrelated to the current study, as well as grant support from Merck and Pfizer unrelated to the current study. Dr. Badell had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Women who are pregnant or breastfeeding showed no long-term adverse reactions after a third or booster dose of COVID-19 vaccine, according to a study of more than 17,000 individuals.

Doctors and health professionals continue to recommend COVID-19 vaccine boosters or third doses for adolescents and adults more than 5 months after their initial vaccinations with the Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2 or Moderna mRNA-1273 primary vaccine series or more than 2 months after receiving the Janssen JNJ-78436735 vaccine, Alisa Kachikis, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues wrote in JAMA Network Open.

Although multiple studies have shown that the COVID-19 primary series is safe and well tolerated in pregnant and lactating women, information on the safety and tolerability of boosters are lacking, the researchers noted.

“COVID-19 will be with us for a while, and it is important to continue to provide data on COVID-19 vaccines in these groups, particularly because there still are many questions about the vaccine, and because pregnant individuals have been, understandably, more hesitant to receive COVID-19 vaccines,” Dr. Kachikis said in an interview. “The findings of this study that COVID-19 booster doses are well tolerated among pregnant and lactating individuals are especially pertinent with the new COVID-19 boosters available this fall.”

In the new study, the researchers reviewed data from 17,014 participants who were part of an ongoing online prospective study of COVID-19 vaccines in pregnant and lactating individuals. Data were collected between October 2021 and April 2022 through an online survey.

The study population included 2,009 participants (11.8%) who were pregnant at the time of their booster or third dose, 10,279 (60.4%) who were lactating, and 4,726 (27.8%) who were neither pregnant nor lactating. The mean age of the participants was 33.3 years; 92.1% self-identified as White, 94.5% self-identified as non-Hispanic, and 99.7% self-identified as female.

The receipt of a booster was similar across trimesters; 26.4%, 36.5%, and 37.1% of participants received boosters or third doses in the first, second, and third trimester, respectively. The primary outcome was self-reported vaccine reactions within 24 hours of the dose.

Overall, 82.8% of the respondents reported a reaction at the site of the injection, such as redness, pain, or swelling, and 67.9% reported at least one systemic symptom, such as aches and pains, headache, chills, or fever. The most frequently reported symptoms across all groups were injection-site pain (82.2%) and fatigue (54.4%).

The pregnant women were significantly more likely than nonpregnant or nonlactating individuals to report any local reaction at the injection site (adjusted odds ratio, 1.2; P = .01), but less likely to report any systemic reaction (aOR, 0.7; P < .001).

The majority (97.6%) of the pregnant respondents and 96.0% of those lactating reported no obstetric or lactation concerns after vaccination.

Overall, a majority of the respondents reported that recommendations from public health authorities were helpful in their decision to receive a COVID-19 booster or third dose (90.0% of pregnant respondents, 89.9% of lactating respondents, and 88.1% of those neither pregnant nor lactating).

Although vaccine uptake in the current study population was high (91.1% overall and 95.0% of those pregnant), “the importance of the health care professional’s recommendation is pertinent given the ongoing increased vaccine hesitancy among pregnant individuals in the context of the COVID-19 vaccine,” the researchers emphasized.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the reliance on self-reports and a convenience sample composed mainly of health care workers because of their vaccine eligibility at the time the study started, which limits generalizability, the researchers noted. Analyses on the pregnancy outcomes of those who were pregnant when vaccinated are in progress.

The results were strengthened by the large study population that included participants from all 50 states and several territories, and ability to compare results between pregnant and lactating individuals with those who were neither pregnant nor lactating, but were of childbearing age, they said.

The results support the safety of COVID-19 boosters for pregnant and breastfeeding individuals, and these data are important to inform discussions between patients and clinicians to boost vaccine uptake and acceptance in this population, they concluded.

“Our earlier data analysis showed that pregnant and lactating individuals did very well with the initial COVID-19 vaccine series, so it was not very surprising that they also did well with COVID-19 booster or third doses,” Dr. Kachikis said in an interview.

There are two takeaway messages for clinicians, she said: “First, pregnant and lactating individuals tolerated the COVID-19 booster well. The second is that clinicians are very important when it comes to vaccine acceptance.”

“In our study, we found that, while pregnant participants were more likely to report that they were hesitant to receive the booster, they also were more likely to have discussed the COVID-19 booster with their health care provider, and to have received a recommendation to receive the booster. So, spending a little bit of extra time with patients discussing COVID-19 boosters and recommending them can make a significant difference,” she said.

The message of the study is highly reassuring for pregnant and lactating individuals, Dr. Kachikis added. “Most of the participants reported that they had fewer symptoms with the COVID-19 booster compared to the primary vaccine series, which is good news, especially since a new COVID-19 booster is being recommended for the fall.”
 

Reassuring findings for doctors and patients

The current study is especially timely, as updated COVID-19 boosters have now been recommended for most individuals by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Martina L. Badell, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview.

The findings support previous studies on the tolerability of COVID-19 vaccinations in pregnant and lactating persons, said Dr. Badell, who was not involved in the study.

The reassuring message for clinicians is that COVID-19 booster vaccinations are similarly well tolerated in pregnancy and lactation as they are in nonpregnant individuals, said Dr. Badell. “Given the risks of COVID infections in pregnancy and neonates, reassuring data on the tolerability and safety of vaccination in this population is very important.” Also, the researchers found that all three cohorts reported that recommendations from public or medical health authorities helped them make a decision about vaccination; “thus the more data to support these recommendations, the better,” she emphasized.

If you are pregnant or breastfeeding, the message from the study is that COVID-19 booster vaccinations are similarly well tolerated by those who are pregnant or breastfeeding and those who are not, said Dr. Badell.

“This study provides additional support for the strong recommendation to encourage not only COVID-19 vaccination in pregnancy and lactation, but booster vaccinations specifically,” and pregnant and breastfeeding individuals should not be excluded from the new CDC recommendations for COVID-19 boosters, she said.
 

Future research suggestions

Next steps for research include evaluating the obstetrical and neonatal outcomes in pregnancy and lactation following COVID- 19 boosters, Dr. Badell added.

Dr. Kachikis suggested studies try to answer the remaining questions about COVID-19 vaccines and the immunity of pregnant and lactating persons, particularly since they were excluded from the early clinical trials in 2020.

The study was supported by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, a Women’s Reproductive Health Research Award, and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health. \Dr. Kachikis disclosed serving as a research consultant for Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline and as an unpaid consultant for GlaxoSmithKline unrelated to the current study, as well as grant support from Merck and Pfizer unrelated to the current study. Dr. Badell had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Unvaccinated people may be 10 times more likely than fully vaccinated people to be hospitalized for the Omicron variant of COVID-19, suggests a large study conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The data, which included almost 200,000 COVID-19–associated hospitalizations across 13 states, also showed that vaccinated, hospitalized patients were more often older and already dealing with other health conditions, compared with unvaccinated, hospitalized patients, reported lead author Fiona P. Havers, MD, of the CDC, Atlanta.

“Unlike previously published reports and web pages … this study reports hospitalization rates by vaccination status and clinical and demographic characteristics of hospitalized patients, beginning with the period when vaccines first became available, and includes comparisons of unvaccinated persons, persons vaccinated with a primary series without a booster dose, and those vaccinated with a primary series and at least 1 booster dose,” the investigators wrote in JAMA Internal Medicine.

In total, the investigators reviewed 192,509 hospitalizations involving patients 18 years and older. The study period spanned from Jan. 1, 2021, to April 30, 2022. Data were reported month by month, showing that the relative monthly hospitalization rate peaked in May 2021, when it was 17.7 times higher for unvaccinated versus vaccinated individuals (with or without a booster).

To account for differences in clinical course between Delta and Omicron, the investigators also analyzed data sorted into two time periods: July-December 2021 (Delta predominant) and January-April 2022 (Omicron BA.1 predominant). These analyses revealed the greater hospitalization risk presented by Delta. Specifically, unvaccinated people were 12.2 times more likely to be hospitalized for Delta than vaccinated people, with or without a booster, versus 6.8 times for Omicron BA.1.

Study shows power of the booster

A closer look at the Omicron BA.1 data showed the power of a booster dose. From January to April 2022, individuals who were fully vaccinated with a booster dose were 10.5 times less likely than unvaccinated individuals to be hospitalized for Omicron BA.1. Plus, boosted people were 2.5 times less likely to be hospitalized for Omicron BA.1 than people who got vaccinated but skipped the booster.

“The high hospitalization rates in unvaccinated compared with vaccinated persons with and without a booster dose underscores the importance of COVID-19 vaccinations in preventing hospitalizations and suggests that increasing vaccination coverage, including booster dose coverage, can prevent hospitalizations, serious illness, and death,” the investigators wrote.

The study also revealed that vaccinated hospitalized patients were significantly older, on average, than unvaccinated hospitalized patients (median, 70 vs. 58 years; P < .001). They were also significantly more likely to have three or more underlying medical conditions (77.8% vs. 51.6%; P < .001)

“A greater proportion of hospitalized cases among vaccinated persons occurred in individuals with medical fragility who were older, more likely to reside in long-term care facilities, and have three or more underlying medical conditions, including immunosuppressive conditions,” the investigators wrote.

New variants outpacing data, vaccines remain essential

While data from April 2022 alone showed a 3.5-fold higher rate of hospitalization among unvaccinated versus vaccinated individuals with or without a booster, newer data suggest that emerging strains of Omicron are putting more people in the hospital.

A recent report by the CDC showed weekly hospitalization rates climbing from March 20 to May 31, 2022, which coincided with predominance of the newer Omicron BA.2 variant. While unvaccinated people were still around 3.5 times more likely to be hospitalized than vaccinated people, overall hospitalization rates jumped 3-fold for people 65 years and older, and 1.7-fold for adults younger than 65. Adding further complexity to this constantly evolving situation is that Omicron BA.2 has since been joined by the BA.4 and BA.5 lineages, for which vaccines are now available.

In the paper published in JAMA Internal Medicine, the CDC report, and in a comment for this article, the CDC offered the same take-home message: Get vaccinated.

“These findings reinforce previous research illustrating how vaccination provides protection from hospitalization due to COVID-19,” a CDC spokesperson said. “COVID-19 vaccines are proven to help prevent serious COVID-19 illness, and everyone ages 6 months and older should stay up to date with COVID-19 vaccines.”

The study published in JAMA Internal Medicine was supported by the CDC. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Sanofi, GSK, MedImmune, and others.

Unvaccinated people may be 10 times more likely than fully vaccinated people to be hospitalized for the Omicron variant of COVID-19, suggests a large study conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The data, which included almost 200,000 COVID-19–associated hospitalizations across 13 states, also showed that vaccinated, hospitalized patients were more often older and already dealing with other health conditions, compared with unvaccinated, hospitalized patients, reported lead author Fiona P. Havers, MD, of the CDC, Atlanta.

“Unlike previously published reports and web pages … this study reports hospitalization rates by vaccination status and clinical and demographic characteristics of hospitalized patients, beginning with the period when vaccines first became available, and includes comparisons of unvaccinated persons, persons vaccinated with a primary series without a booster dose, and those vaccinated with a primary series and at least 1 booster dose,” the investigators wrote in JAMA Internal Medicine.

In total, the investigators reviewed 192,509 hospitalizations involving patients 18 years and older. The study period spanned from Jan. 1, 2021, to April 30, 2022. Data were reported month by month, showing that the relative monthly hospitalization rate peaked in May 2021, when it was 17.7 times higher for unvaccinated versus vaccinated individuals (with or without a booster).

To account for differences in clinical course between Delta and Omicron, the investigators also analyzed data sorted into two time periods: July-December 2021 (Delta predominant) and January-April 2022 (Omicron BA.1 predominant). These analyses revealed the greater hospitalization risk presented by Delta. Specifically, unvaccinated people were 12.2 times more likely to be hospitalized for Delta than vaccinated people, with or without a booster, versus 6.8 times for Omicron BA.1.

Study shows power of the booster

A closer look at the Omicron BA.1 data showed the power of a booster dose. From January to April 2022, individuals who were fully vaccinated with a booster dose were 10.5 times less likely than unvaccinated individuals to be hospitalized for Omicron BA.1. Plus, boosted people were 2.5 times less likely to be hospitalized for Omicron BA.1 than people who got vaccinated but skipped the booster.

“The high hospitalization rates in unvaccinated compared with vaccinated persons with and without a booster dose underscores the importance of COVID-19 vaccinations in preventing hospitalizations and suggests that increasing vaccination coverage, including booster dose coverage, can prevent hospitalizations, serious illness, and death,” the investigators wrote.

The study also revealed that vaccinated hospitalized patients were significantly older, on average, than unvaccinated hospitalized patients (median, 70 vs. 58 years; P < .001). They were also significantly more likely to have three or more underlying medical conditions (77.8% vs. 51.6%; P < .001)

“A greater proportion of hospitalized cases among vaccinated persons occurred in individuals with medical fragility who were older, more likely to reside in long-term care facilities, and have three or more underlying medical conditions, including immunosuppressive conditions,” the investigators wrote.

New variants outpacing data, vaccines remain essential

While data from April 2022 alone showed a 3.5-fold higher rate of hospitalization among unvaccinated versus vaccinated individuals with or without a booster, newer data suggest that emerging strains of Omicron are putting more people in the hospital.

A recent report by the CDC showed weekly hospitalization rates climbing from March 20 to May 31, 2022, which coincided with predominance of the newer Omicron BA.2 variant. While unvaccinated people were still around 3.5 times more likely to be hospitalized than vaccinated people, overall hospitalization rates jumped 3-fold for people 65 years and older, and 1.7-fold for adults younger than 65. Adding further complexity to this constantly evolving situation is that Omicron BA.2 has since been joined by the BA.4 and BA.5 lineages, for which vaccines are now available.

In the paper published in JAMA Internal Medicine, the CDC report, and in a comment for this article, the CDC offered the same take-home message: Get vaccinated.

“These findings reinforce previous research illustrating how vaccination provides protection from hospitalization due to COVID-19,” a CDC spokesperson said. “COVID-19 vaccines are proven to help prevent serious COVID-19 illness, and everyone ages 6 months and older should stay up to date with COVID-19 vaccines.”

The study published in JAMA Internal Medicine was supported by the CDC. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Sanofi, GSK, MedImmune, and others.

Unvaccinated people may be 10 times more likely than fully vaccinated people to be hospitalized for the Omicron variant of COVID-19, suggests a large study conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The data, which included almost 200,000 COVID-19–associated hospitalizations across 13 states, also showed that vaccinated, hospitalized patients were more often older and already dealing with other health conditions, compared with unvaccinated, hospitalized patients, reported lead author Fiona P. Havers, MD, of the CDC, Atlanta.

“Unlike previously published reports and web pages … this study reports hospitalization rates by vaccination status and clinical and demographic characteristics of hospitalized patients, beginning with the period when vaccines first became available, and includes comparisons of unvaccinated persons, persons vaccinated with a primary series without a booster dose, and those vaccinated with a primary series and at least 1 booster dose,” the investigators wrote in JAMA Internal Medicine.

In total, the investigators reviewed 192,509 hospitalizations involving patients 18 years and older. The study period spanned from Jan. 1, 2021, to April 30, 2022. Data were reported month by month, showing that the relative monthly hospitalization rate peaked in May 2021, when it was 17.7 times higher for unvaccinated versus vaccinated individuals (with or without a booster).

To account for differences in clinical course between Delta and Omicron, the investigators also analyzed data sorted into two time periods: July-December 2021 (Delta predominant) and January-April 2022 (Omicron BA.1 predominant). These analyses revealed the greater hospitalization risk presented by Delta. Specifically, unvaccinated people were 12.2 times more likely to be hospitalized for Delta than vaccinated people, with or without a booster, versus 6.8 times for Omicron BA.1.

Study shows power of the booster

A closer look at the Omicron BA.1 data showed the power of a booster dose. From January to April 2022, individuals who were fully vaccinated with a booster dose were 10.5 times less likely than unvaccinated individuals to be hospitalized for Omicron BA.1. Plus, boosted people were 2.5 times less likely to be hospitalized for Omicron BA.1 than people who got vaccinated but skipped the booster.

“The high hospitalization rates in unvaccinated compared with vaccinated persons with and without a booster dose underscores the importance of COVID-19 vaccinations in preventing hospitalizations and suggests that increasing vaccination coverage, including booster dose coverage, can prevent hospitalizations, serious illness, and death,” the investigators wrote.

The study also revealed that vaccinated hospitalized patients were significantly older, on average, than unvaccinated hospitalized patients (median, 70 vs. 58 years; P < .001). They were also significantly more likely to have three or more underlying medical conditions (77.8% vs. 51.6%; P < .001)

“A greater proportion of hospitalized cases among vaccinated persons occurred in individuals with medical fragility who were older, more likely to reside in long-term care facilities, and have three or more underlying medical conditions, including immunosuppressive conditions,” the investigators wrote.

New variants outpacing data, vaccines remain essential

While data from April 2022 alone showed a 3.5-fold higher rate of hospitalization among unvaccinated versus vaccinated individuals with or without a booster, newer data suggest that emerging strains of Omicron are putting more people in the hospital.

A recent report by the CDC showed weekly hospitalization rates climbing from March 20 to May 31, 2022, which coincided with predominance of the newer Omicron BA.2 variant. While unvaccinated people were still around 3.5 times more likely to be hospitalized than vaccinated people, overall hospitalization rates jumped 3-fold for people 65 years and older, and 1.7-fold for adults younger than 65. Adding further complexity to this constantly evolving situation is that Omicron BA.2 has since been joined by the BA.4 and BA.5 lineages, for which vaccines are now available.

In the paper published in JAMA Internal Medicine, the CDC report, and in a comment for this article, the CDC offered the same take-home message: Get vaccinated.

“These findings reinforce previous research illustrating how vaccination provides protection from hospitalization due to COVID-19,” a CDC spokesperson said. “COVID-19 vaccines are proven to help prevent serious COVID-19 illness, and everyone ages 6 months and older should stay up to date with COVID-19 vaccines.”

The study published in JAMA Internal Medicine was supported by the CDC. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Sanofi, GSK, MedImmune, and others.

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has submitted an interim final rule amending its medical regulations to remove the exclusion on abortion counseling and establish exceptions to the exclusion on abortions.

With this rule, the VA will now offer veterans abortion counseling and abortions—specifically, when the life or health of the pregnant veteran would be endangered if the pregnancy were carried to term, or in cases of rape or incest. Beneficiaries enrolled in CHAMPVA will have the same access to care.

“As abortion bans come into force across the country,” the interim final rule indicates, “veterans in many states are no longer assured access to abortion services in their communities, even when those services are needed… Unless VA removes its existing prohibitions on abortion-related care and makes clear that needed abortion-related care is authorized, these veterans will face serious threats to their life and health.”

“This is a patient safety decision,” said Denis McDonough, Secretary of Veterans Affairs. “Pregnant veterans and VA beneficiaries deserve to have access to world-class reproductive care when they need it most. That’s what our nation owes them, and that’s what we at VA will deliver.”

The rule is the VA’s latest response to the June 24, 2022, Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization Supreme Court decision, which overruled Roe v Wade and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v Casey. “After Dobbs,” according to the rule summary, “certain States have begun to enforce existing abortion bans and restrictions on care, and are proposing and enacting new ones, creating urgent risks to the lives and health of pregnant veterans and CHAMPVA beneficiaries in these states.” The VA is “acting to help to ensure that, irrespective of what laws or policies States may impose” veterans will be able to receive needed care.

Restricting access to abortion care has well-documented adverse health consequences, including a higher risk of loss of future fertility, significant morbidity, or death. Veterans are also at greater risk of experiencing pregnancy-related complications due to increased rates of chronic health conditions. “We came to this decision after listening to VA health care providers and veterans across the country, who sounded the alarm that abortion restrictions are creating a medical emergency for those we serve,” said Under Secretary for Health Shereef Elnahal, MD, MBA. “Offering this care will save veterans’ health and lives, and there is nothing more important than that.”

Services will be authorized immediately after the interim final rule is published. VA is taking steps to guarantee abortion-related care anywhere in the country. VA employees, when working within the scope of their federal employment, may provide authorized services regardless of state restrictions.

The determination of whether the “life and health of the pregnant veteran would be endangered if the pregnancy were carried to term” will be made on a case-by-case basis after “careful consultation” between VA health care professionals and their patients, the VA says. In cases of rape or incest, self-reporting from a veteran or VA beneficiary will constitute sufficient evidence that an act of rape or incest occurred.

The interim final rule will be available for public comment for 30 days after it is published.

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has submitted an interim final rule amending its medical regulations to remove the exclusion on abortion counseling and establish exceptions to the exclusion on abortions.

With this rule, the VA will now offer veterans abortion counseling and abortions—specifically, when the life or health of the pregnant veteran would be endangered if the pregnancy were carried to term, or in cases of rape or incest. Beneficiaries enrolled in CHAMPVA will have the same access to care.

“As abortion bans come into force across the country,” the interim final rule indicates, “veterans in many states are no longer assured access to abortion services in their communities, even when those services are needed… Unless VA removes its existing prohibitions on abortion-related care and makes clear that needed abortion-related care is authorized, these veterans will face serious threats to their life and health.”

“This is a patient safety decision,” said Denis McDonough, Secretary of Veterans Affairs. “Pregnant veterans and VA beneficiaries deserve to have access to world-class reproductive care when they need it most. That’s what our nation owes them, and that’s what we at VA will deliver.”

The rule is the VA’s latest response to the June 24, 2022, Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization Supreme Court decision, which overruled Roe v Wade and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v Casey. “After Dobbs,” according to the rule summary, “certain States have begun to enforce existing abortion bans and restrictions on care, and are proposing and enacting new ones, creating urgent risks to the lives and health of pregnant veterans and CHAMPVA beneficiaries in these states.” The VA is “acting to help to ensure that, irrespective of what laws or policies States may impose” veterans will be able to receive needed care.

Restricting access to abortion care has well-documented adverse health consequences, including a higher risk of loss of future fertility, significant morbidity, or death. Veterans are also at greater risk of experiencing pregnancy-related complications due to increased rates of chronic health conditions. “We came to this decision after listening to VA health care providers and veterans across the country, who sounded the alarm that abortion restrictions are creating a medical emergency for those we serve,” said Under Secretary for Health Shereef Elnahal, MD, MBA. “Offering this care will save veterans’ health and lives, and there is nothing more important than that.”

Services will be authorized immediately after the interim final rule is published. VA is taking steps to guarantee abortion-related care anywhere in the country. VA employees, when working within the scope of their federal employment, may provide authorized services regardless of state restrictions.

The determination of whether the “life and health of the pregnant veteran would be endangered if the pregnancy were carried to term” will be made on a case-by-case basis after “careful consultation” between VA health care professionals and their patients, the VA says. In cases of rape or incest, self-reporting from a veteran or VA beneficiary will constitute sufficient evidence that an act of rape or incest occurred.

The interim final rule will be available for public comment for 30 days after it is published.

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has submitted an interim final rule amending its medical regulations to remove the exclusion on abortion counseling and establish exceptions to the exclusion on abortions.

With this rule, the VA will now offer veterans abortion counseling and abortions—specifically, when the life or health of the pregnant veteran would be endangered if the pregnancy were carried to term, or in cases of rape or incest. Beneficiaries enrolled in CHAMPVA will have the same access to care.

“As abortion bans come into force across the country,” the interim final rule indicates, “veterans in many states are no longer assured access to abortion services in their communities, even when those services are needed… Unless VA removes its existing prohibitions on abortion-related care and makes clear that needed abortion-related care is authorized, these veterans will face serious threats to their life and health.”

“This is a patient safety decision,” said Denis McDonough, Secretary of Veterans Affairs. “Pregnant veterans and VA beneficiaries deserve to have access to world-class reproductive care when they need it most. That’s what our nation owes them, and that’s what we at VA will deliver.”

The rule is the VA’s latest response to the June 24, 2022, Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization Supreme Court decision, which overruled Roe v Wade and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v Casey. “After Dobbs,” according to the rule summary, “certain States have begun to enforce existing abortion bans and restrictions on care, and are proposing and enacting new ones, creating urgent risks to the lives and health of pregnant veterans and CHAMPVA beneficiaries in these states.” The VA is “acting to help to ensure that, irrespective of what laws or policies States may impose” veterans will be able to receive needed care.

Restricting access to abortion care has well-documented adverse health consequences, including a higher risk of loss of future fertility, significant morbidity, or death. Veterans are also at greater risk of experiencing pregnancy-related complications due to increased rates of chronic health conditions. “We came to this decision after listening to VA health care providers and veterans across the country, who sounded the alarm that abortion restrictions are creating a medical emergency for those we serve,” said Under Secretary for Health Shereef Elnahal, MD, MBA. “Offering this care will save veterans’ health and lives, and there is nothing more important than that.”

Services will be authorized immediately after the interim final rule is published. VA is taking steps to guarantee abortion-related care anywhere in the country. VA employees, when working within the scope of their federal employment, may provide authorized services regardless of state restrictions.

The determination of whether the “life and health of the pregnant veteran would be endangered if the pregnancy were carried to term” will be made on a case-by-case basis after “careful consultation” between VA health care professionals and their patients, the VA says. In cases of rape or incest, self-reporting from a veteran or VA beneficiary will constitute sufficient evidence that an act of rape or incest occurred.

The interim final rule will be available for public comment for 30 days after it is published.