News

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has recommended that all adults aged 19-59 years receive a vaccination for hepatitis B.

It also added that adults aged 60 years or older without known risk factors for hepatitis B may get vaccinated.

The agency earlier recommended the vaccination for all infants and children under the age of 19 years and for adults aged 60 years or older with known risk factors.

The CDC said it wants to expand vaccinations because, after decades of progress, the number of new hepatitis B infections is increasing among adults. Acute hepatitis B infections among adults lead to chronic hepatitis B disease in an estimated 2%-6% of cases, and can result in cirrhosis, liver cancer, and death.

Among adults aged 40-49 years, the rate of cases increased from 1.9 per 100,000 people in 2011 to 2.7 per 100,000 in 2019. Among adults aged 50-59 years, the rate increased during this period from 1.1 to 1.6 per 100,000.

Most adults aren’t vaccinated. Among adults aged 19 years or older, only 30.0% reported that they’d received at least the three recommended doses of the vaccine. The rate was 40.3% for adults aged 19-49 years, and 19.1% for adults aged 50 years or older.

Hepatitis B infection rates are particularly elevated among African Americans.

Even among adults with chronic liver disease, the vaccination rate is only 33.0%. And, among travelers to countries where the virus has been endemic since 1995, only 38.9% were vaccinated.

In a 2018 survey of internal medicine and family physicians, 68% said their patients had not told them about risk factors, making it difficult to assess whether the patients needed the vaccine according to the recommendations at the time. These risk factors include injection drug use, incarceration, and multiple sex partners, experiences the patients may not have been willing to discuss.

CDC researchers calculated that universal adult hepatitis B vaccination would cost $153,000 for every quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. For adults aged 19-59 years, a QALY would cost $117,000 because infections are more prevalent in that age group.

The CDC specified that it intends its new guidelines to prompt physicians to offer the vaccine to adults aged 60 years or older rather than wait for them to request it.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved both three-dose and two-dose hepatitis B vaccines, with evidence showing similar seroprotection and adverse events.

People who have already completed their vaccination or have a history of hepatitis B infection should only receive additional vaccinations in specific cases, as detailed in the CDC’s 2018 recommendations.

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has recommended that all adults aged 19-59 years receive a vaccination for hepatitis B.

It also added that adults aged 60 years or older without known risk factors for hepatitis B may get vaccinated.

The agency earlier recommended the vaccination for all infants and children under the age of 19 years and for adults aged 60 years or older with known risk factors.

The CDC said it wants to expand vaccinations because, after decades of progress, the number of new hepatitis B infections is increasing among adults. Acute hepatitis B infections among adults lead to chronic hepatitis B disease in an estimated 2%-6% of cases, and can result in cirrhosis, liver cancer, and death.

Among adults aged 40-49 years, the rate of cases increased from 1.9 per 100,000 people in 2011 to 2.7 per 100,000 in 2019. Among adults aged 50-59 years, the rate increased during this period from 1.1 to 1.6 per 100,000.

Most adults aren’t vaccinated. Among adults aged 19 years or older, only 30.0% reported that they’d received at least the three recommended doses of the vaccine. The rate was 40.3% for adults aged 19-49 years, and 19.1% for adults aged 50 years or older.

Hepatitis B infection rates are particularly elevated among African Americans.

Even among adults with chronic liver disease, the vaccination rate is only 33.0%. And, among travelers to countries where the virus has been endemic since 1995, only 38.9% were vaccinated.

In a 2018 survey of internal medicine and family physicians, 68% said their patients had not told them about risk factors, making it difficult to assess whether the patients needed the vaccine according to the recommendations at the time. These risk factors include injection drug use, incarceration, and multiple sex partners, experiences the patients may not have been willing to discuss.

CDC researchers calculated that universal adult hepatitis B vaccination would cost $153,000 for every quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. For adults aged 19-59 years, a QALY would cost $117,000 because infections are more prevalent in that age group.

The CDC specified that it intends its new guidelines to prompt physicians to offer the vaccine to adults aged 60 years or older rather than wait for them to request it.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved both three-dose and two-dose hepatitis B vaccines, with evidence showing similar seroprotection and adverse events.

People who have already completed their vaccination or have a history of hepatitis B infection should only receive additional vaccinations in specific cases, as detailed in the CDC’s 2018 recommendations.

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has recommended that all adults aged 19-59 years receive a vaccination for hepatitis B.

It also added that adults aged 60 years or older without known risk factors for hepatitis B may get vaccinated.

The agency earlier recommended the vaccination for all infants and children under the age of 19 years and for adults aged 60 years or older with known risk factors.

The CDC said it wants to expand vaccinations because, after decades of progress, the number of new hepatitis B infections is increasing among adults. Acute hepatitis B infections among adults lead to chronic hepatitis B disease in an estimated 2%-6% of cases, and can result in cirrhosis, liver cancer, and death.

Among adults aged 40-49 years, the rate of cases increased from 1.9 per 100,000 people in 2011 to 2.7 per 100,000 in 2019. Among adults aged 50-59 years, the rate increased during this period from 1.1 to 1.6 per 100,000.

Most adults aren’t vaccinated. Among adults aged 19 years or older, only 30.0% reported that they’d received at least the three recommended doses of the vaccine. The rate was 40.3% for adults aged 19-49 years, and 19.1% for adults aged 50 years or older.

Hepatitis B infection rates are particularly elevated among African Americans.

Even among adults with chronic liver disease, the vaccination rate is only 33.0%. And, among travelers to countries where the virus has been endemic since 1995, only 38.9% were vaccinated.

In a 2018 survey of internal medicine and family physicians, 68% said their patients had not told them about risk factors, making it difficult to assess whether the patients needed the vaccine according to the recommendations at the time. These risk factors include injection drug use, incarceration, and multiple sex partners, experiences the patients may not have been willing to discuss.

CDC researchers calculated that universal adult hepatitis B vaccination would cost $153,000 for every quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. For adults aged 19-59 years, a QALY would cost $117,000 because infections are more prevalent in that age group.

The CDC specified that it intends its new guidelines to prompt physicians to offer the vaccine to adults aged 60 years or older rather than wait for them to request it.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved both three-dose and two-dose hepatitis B vaccines, with evidence showing similar seroprotection and adverse events.

People who have already completed their vaccination or have a history of hepatitis B infection should only receive additional vaccinations in specific cases, as detailed in the CDC’s 2018 recommendations.

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

The new heart failure (HF) guidelines released by three North American societies had a lot of catching up to do given the significant, even paradigm-shifting, additions to available treatment options in the last few years.

The landscape now includes both new and repurposed drug therapies that benefit almost without regard to ejection fraction (EF), and evidence-based urgency to engage patients early on with at least four core medication classes, so-called quadruple therapy.

Catherine Hackett/MDedge News

The guideline document offers a roadmap for navigating those key issues and many others and uses some creative tactics. They include the introduction of generalist-friendly labels for the traditional but obscurely named four stages of HF severity that, it is hoped, will have wider reach and expand the use of effective therapies.

It introduces additional disease-staging terminology that characterizes the syndrome as a continuum:  

• “At risk for HF” for stage A, applied to asymptomatic patients with risk factors such as diabetes or hypertension but no known cardiac changes.
• “Pre-HF” for stage B, which adds cardiac structural changes or elevated natriuretic peptides, still in the absence of symptoms.
• “Symptomatic HF” for stage C, that is, structural disease with current or previous symptoms.
• “Advanced HF” for stage D, characterized by severe debilitating symptoms or repeated hospitalizations even with guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT).

The new terms should be “easier for primary care physicians as well as nonspecialists” to remember and use effectively “and easier to translate to the patients,” compared with the solely alphabetical staging labels appearing in the guidelines for more than 15 years, Biykem Bozkurt, MD, PhD, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, said in an interview.

An emphasis on “at risk for HF” and “pre-HF” in the new document may help efforts to expand primary prevention of HF and management of preclinical HF. The guideline, Dr. Bozkurt said, includes specific treatment recommendations for those early stages.

The document also updates and sometimes introduces “recommendations for advanced heart failure, acute heart failure, and comorbidities – specifically for atrial fibrillation, iron deficiency, sleep apnea, coronary artery disease, and valvular heart disease,” Dr. Bozkurt observed, as well as for cardiomyopathy and HF related to pregnancy and cancer chemotherapy. “So, it’s a very comprehensive guideline.”

Dr. Bozkurt is vice chair of the guideline writing committee and helped introduce the guideline at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology. The document, developed by the ACC, the American Heart Association, and the Heart Failure Society of America, was published April 1, 2022, in the societies’ flagship journals, Journal of the American College of Cardiology, Circulation, and the Journal of Cardiac Failure, respectively. It replaces the 2013 guideline from the ACC and AHA and the ACC/AHA/HFSA–focused update from 2017.

“We really need to treat early, and then we need to treat appropriately,” Douglas L. Mann, MD, Washington University in St. Louis, said in an interview. Dr. Mann, who was not involved in development of the new guideline, said he is “enthusiastic” about the new staging terminology.

“I think it makes it easier to convey the message that these people do need medicines, will benefit from medicines, and in some cases heart failure can be preventable,” he said. “I’m in favor of anything that simplifies it and makes it more readily interpretable by busy doctors who aren’t specialists.”

With the new staging terminology and in other ways, the guideline seems to appreciate cardiomyopathy as a journey from preclinical to advanced symptomatic stages – the preclinical “at-risk” stage tightening focus on primary prevention – and updated thinking on classification of HF by EF.

For example, there is new consideration of “HF with improved ejection fraction” (HFimpEF), which suggests the patient may be evolving from HF with reduced EF (HFrEF) to HF with EF that is preserved or mildly reduced, or vice versa.

With HFimpEF, which identifies patients previously with an EF of 40% or lower that improves to beyond 40% at follow-up testing, patients should continue on the medications they had been previously taking for HFrEF, Dr. Bozkurt said.

Patients at risk for HF, in stage A by the older terminology, are characterized by one or more significant HF risk factors, such as hypertension, diabetes, or coronary disease, as they have been in prior guidelines. But the new document, Dr. Bozkurt observed, adds genetic cardiomyopathies and exposure to cardiotoxic agents to the list.

Perhaps surprisingly, the guideline also includes elevated natriuretic peptides as an indicator of “at risk for HF,” with implications for screening. The evidence suggests that, “for patients who are at risk for heart failure, natriuretic peptide-based screening, followed by team-based care, can prevent development of left ventricular dysfunction in heart failure,” Dr. Bozkurt said.

Persons at risk for HF realistically encompass a huge swath of the population given the world prevalence of high blood pressure, obesity, and diabetes. Management of stage A, therefore, focuses on established tenets of primary cardiovascular prevention, such as weight and BP control, exercise, and healthy dietary choices.

They may well be eligible for treatment with sodium-glucose transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, which have been “game changers,” Dr. Mann said. “Now you can give them to diabetics and it’s going to prevent heart failure and [cardiovascular] events. We didn’t have a drug like that before, so I think that places a lot of emphasis on aggressive treatment of diabetes.”

For patients with symptomatic HF, the document touts multidisciplinary care and early initiation of drugs from each of four drug classes. Such quadruple therapy includes an SGLT2 inhibitor along with a beta-blocker, a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA), and a renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitor: the “core foundational therapies” for patients with HFrEF, Dr. Bozkurt observed.

Of note, she said, the angiotensin receptor–neprilysin inhibitor sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto, Novartis) is the preferred RAS inhibitor. But “if the ARNI cannot be used, then use ACE inhibitors.” If the patient is intolerant of ACE inhibitors because of cough or angioedema, then the choice should be an angiotensin-receptor blocker.

“We have very effective therapies offering survival and morbidity benefits as well as improvements in quality of life and reverse remodeling,” Dr. Bozkurt observed. “The most important message is that optimization of therapies, including all of these medication classes, saves lives.”

The guideline also includes, for the first time, a series of “value statements” on cost-effectiveness of different therapies that assign a “high-value” rating to MRAs, hydralazine, and isosorbide dinitrate in otherwise optimally treated self-identified African Americans, and device therapy in appropriately selected patients. The statements hold SGLT2 inhibitors in chronic symptomatic HF and cardiac transplantation in advanced GDMT-resistant HF to be of “intermediate” value.

The value statements, Dr. Bozkurt noted, “are included throughout the document when there is evidence; when there is a high-quality cost-effectiveness study published.”

Dr. Bozkurt disclosed receiving honoraria or consulting fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Baxter International, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Sanofi-Aventis, scPharmaceuticals, and Vifor Pharma; serving on a data safety monitoring board for LivaNova USA; and holding other relationships with Abbott Laboratories and Relypsa. Dr. Mann disclosed receiving honoraria or consulting fees from MyoKardia, Novartis, and Novo Nordisk.

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

The new heart failure (HF) guidelines released by three North American societies had a lot of catching up to do given the significant, even paradigm-shifting, additions to available treatment options in the last few years.

The landscape now includes both new and repurposed drug therapies that benefit almost without regard to ejection fraction (EF), and evidence-based urgency to engage patients early on with at least four core medication classes, so-called quadruple therapy.

Catherine Hackett/MDedge News

The guideline document offers a roadmap for navigating those key issues and many others and uses some creative tactics. They include the introduction of generalist-friendly labels for the traditional but obscurely named four stages of HF severity that, it is hoped, will have wider reach and expand the use of effective therapies.

It introduces additional disease-staging terminology that characterizes the syndrome as a continuum:  

• “At risk for HF” for stage A, applied to asymptomatic patients with risk factors such as diabetes or hypertension but no known cardiac changes.
• “Pre-HF” for stage B, which adds cardiac structural changes or elevated natriuretic peptides, still in the absence of symptoms.
• “Symptomatic HF” for stage C, that is, structural disease with current or previous symptoms.
• “Advanced HF” for stage D, characterized by severe debilitating symptoms or repeated hospitalizations even with guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT).

The new terms should be “easier for primary care physicians as well as nonspecialists” to remember and use effectively “and easier to translate to the patients,” compared with the solely alphabetical staging labels appearing in the guidelines for more than 15 years, Biykem Bozkurt, MD, PhD, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, said in an interview.

An emphasis on “at risk for HF” and “pre-HF” in the new document may help efforts to expand primary prevention of HF and management of preclinical HF. The guideline, Dr. Bozkurt said, includes specific treatment recommendations for those early stages.

The document also updates and sometimes introduces “recommendations for advanced heart failure, acute heart failure, and comorbidities – specifically for atrial fibrillation, iron deficiency, sleep apnea, coronary artery disease, and valvular heart disease,” Dr. Bozkurt observed, as well as for cardiomyopathy and HF related to pregnancy and cancer chemotherapy. “So, it’s a very comprehensive guideline.”

Dr. Bozkurt is vice chair of the guideline writing committee and helped introduce the guideline at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology. The document, developed by the ACC, the American Heart Association, and the Heart Failure Society of America, was published April 1, 2022, in the societies’ flagship journals, Journal of the American College of Cardiology, Circulation, and the Journal of Cardiac Failure, respectively. It replaces the 2013 guideline from the ACC and AHA and the ACC/AHA/HFSA–focused update from 2017.

“We really need to treat early, and then we need to treat appropriately,” Douglas L. Mann, MD, Washington University in St. Louis, said in an interview. Dr. Mann, who was not involved in development of the new guideline, said he is “enthusiastic” about the new staging terminology.

“I think it makes it easier to convey the message that these people do need medicines, will benefit from medicines, and in some cases heart failure can be preventable,” he said. “I’m in favor of anything that simplifies it and makes it more readily interpretable by busy doctors who aren’t specialists.”

With the new staging terminology and in other ways, the guideline seems to appreciate cardiomyopathy as a journey from preclinical to advanced symptomatic stages – the preclinical “at-risk” stage tightening focus on primary prevention – and updated thinking on classification of HF by EF.

For example, there is new consideration of “HF with improved ejection fraction” (HFimpEF), which suggests the patient may be evolving from HF with reduced EF (HFrEF) to HF with EF that is preserved or mildly reduced, or vice versa.

With HFimpEF, which identifies patients previously with an EF of 40% or lower that improves to beyond 40% at follow-up testing, patients should continue on the medications they had been previously taking for HFrEF, Dr. Bozkurt said.

Patients at risk for HF, in stage A by the older terminology, are characterized by one or more significant HF risk factors, such as hypertension, diabetes, or coronary disease, as they have been in prior guidelines. But the new document, Dr. Bozkurt observed, adds genetic cardiomyopathies and exposure to cardiotoxic agents to the list.

Perhaps surprisingly, the guideline also includes elevated natriuretic peptides as an indicator of “at risk for HF,” with implications for screening. The evidence suggests that, “for patients who are at risk for heart failure, natriuretic peptide-based screening, followed by team-based care, can prevent development of left ventricular dysfunction in heart failure,” Dr. Bozkurt said.

Persons at risk for HF realistically encompass a huge swath of the population given the world prevalence of high blood pressure, obesity, and diabetes. Management of stage A, therefore, focuses on established tenets of primary cardiovascular prevention, such as weight and BP control, exercise, and healthy dietary choices.

They may well be eligible for treatment with sodium-glucose transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, which have been “game changers,” Dr. Mann said. “Now you can give them to diabetics and it’s going to prevent heart failure and [cardiovascular] events. We didn’t have a drug like that before, so I think that places a lot of emphasis on aggressive treatment of diabetes.”

For patients with symptomatic HF, the document touts multidisciplinary care and early initiation of drugs from each of four drug classes. Such quadruple therapy includes an SGLT2 inhibitor along with a beta-blocker, a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA), and a renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitor: the “core foundational therapies” for patients with HFrEF, Dr. Bozkurt observed.

Of note, she said, the angiotensin receptor–neprilysin inhibitor sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto, Novartis) is the preferred RAS inhibitor. But “if the ARNI cannot be used, then use ACE inhibitors.” If the patient is intolerant of ACE inhibitors because of cough or angioedema, then the choice should be an angiotensin-receptor blocker.

“We have very effective therapies offering survival and morbidity benefits as well as improvements in quality of life and reverse remodeling,” Dr. Bozkurt observed. “The most important message is that optimization of therapies, including all of these medication classes, saves lives.”

The guideline also includes, for the first time, a series of “value statements” on cost-effectiveness of different therapies that assign a “high-value” rating to MRAs, hydralazine, and isosorbide dinitrate in otherwise optimally treated self-identified African Americans, and device therapy in appropriately selected patients. The statements hold SGLT2 inhibitors in chronic symptomatic HF and cardiac transplantation in advanced GDMT-resistant HF to be of “intermediate” value.

The value statements, Dr. Bozkurt noted, “are included throughout the document when there is evidence; when there is a high-quality cost-effectiveness study published.”

Dr. Bozkurt disclosed receiving honoraria or consulting fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Baxter International, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Sanofi-Aventis, scPharmaceuticals, and Vifor Pharma; serving on a data safety monitoring board for LivaNova USA; and holding other relationships with Abbott Laboratories and Relypsa. Dr. Mann disclosed receiving honoraria or consulting fees from MyoKardia, Novartis, and Novo Nordisk.

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

The new heart failure (HF) guidelines released by three North American societies had a lot of catching up to do given the significant, even paradigm-shifting, additions to available treatment options in the last few years.

The landscape now includes both new and repurposed drug therapies that benefit almost without regard to ejection fraction (EF), and evidence-based urgency to engage patients early on with at least four core medication classes, so-called quadruple therapy.

Catherine Hackett/MDedge News

The guideline document offers a roadmap for navigating those key issues and many others and uses some creative tactics. They include the introduction of generalist-friendly labels for the traditional but obscurely named four stages of HF severity that, it is hoped, will have wider reach and expand the use of effective therapies.

It introduces additional disease-staging terminology that characterizes the syndrome as a continuum:  

• “At risk for HF” for stage A, applied to asymptomatic patients with risk factors such as diabetes or hypertension but no known cardiac changes.
• “Pre-HF” for stage B, which adds cardiac structural changes or elevated natriuretic peptides, still in the absence of symptoms.
• “Symptomatic HF” for stage C, that is, structural disease with current or previous symptoms.
• “Advanced HF” for stage D, characterized by severe debilitating symptoms or repeated hospitalizations even with guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT).

The new terms should be “easier for primary care physicians as well as nonspecialists” to remember and use effectively “and easier to translate to the patients,” compared with the solely alphabetical staging labels appearing in the guidelines for more than 15 years, Biykem Bozkurt, MD, PhD, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, said in an interview.

An emphasis on “at risk for HF” and “pre-HF” in the new document may help efforts to expand primary prevention of HF and management of preclinical HF. The guideline, Dr. Bozkurt said, includes specific treatment recommendations for those early stages.

The document also updates and sometimes introduces “recommendations for advanced heart failure, acute heart failure, and comorbidities – specifically for atrial fibrillation, iron deficiency, sleep apnea, coronary artery disease, and valvular heart disease,” Dr. Bozkurt observed, as well as for cardiomyopathy and HF related to pregnancy and cancer chemotherapy. “So, it’s a very comprehensive guideline.”

Dr. Bozkurt is vice chair of the guideline writing committee and helped introduce the guideline at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology. The document, developed by the ACC, the American Heart Association, and the Heart Failure Society of America, was published April 1, 2022, in the societies’ flagship journals, Journal of the American College of Cardiology, Circulation, and the Journal of Cardiac Failure, respectively. It replaces the 2013 guideline from the ACC and AHA and the ACC/AHA/HFSA–focused update from 2017.

“We really need to treat early, and then we need to treat appropriately,” Douglas L. Mann, MD, Washington University in St. Louis, said in an interview. Dr. Mann, who was not involved in development of the new guideline, said he is “enthusiastic” about the new staging terminology.

“I think it makes it easier to convey the message that these people do need medicines, will benefit from medicines, and in some cases heart failure can be preventable,” he said. “I’m in favor of anything that simplifies it and makes it more readily interpretable by busy doctors who aren’t specialists.”

With the new staging terminology and in other ways, the guideline seems to appreciate cardiomyopathy as a journey from preclinical to advanced symptomatic stages – the preclinical “at-risk” stage tightening focus on primary prevention – and updated thinking on classification of HF by EF.

For example, there is new consideration of “HF with improved ejection fraction” (HFimpEF), which suggests the patient may be evolving from HF with reduced EF (HFrEF) to HF with EF that is preserved or mildly reduced, or vice versa.

With HFimpEF, which identifies patients previously with an EF of 40% or lower that improves to beyond 40% at follow-up testing, patients should continue on the medications they had been previously taking for HFrEF, Dr. Bozkurt said.

Patients at risk for HF, in stage A by the older terminology, are characterized by one or more significant HF risk factors, such as hypertension, diabetes, or coronary disease, as they have been in prior guidelines. But the new document, Dr. Bozkurt observed, adds genetic cardiomyopathies and exposure to cardiotoxic agents to the list.

Perhaps surprisingly, the guideline also includes elevated natriuretic peptides as an indicator of “at risk for HF,” with implications for screening. The evidence suggests that, “for patients who are at risk for heart failure, natriuretic peptide-based screening, followed by team-based care, can prevent development of left ventricular dysfunction in heart failure,” Dr. Bozkurt said.

Persons at risk for HF realistically encompass a huge swath of the population given the world prevalence of high blood pressure, obesity, and diabetes. Management of stage A, therefore, focuses on established tenets of primary cardiovascular prevention, such as weight and BP control, exercise, and healthy dietary choices.

They may well be eligible for treatment with sodium-glucose transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, which have been “game changers,” Dr. Mann said. “Now you can give them to diabetics and it’s going to prevent heart failure and [cardiovascular] events. We didn’t have a drug like that before, so I think that places a lot of emphasis on aggressive treatment of diabetes.”

For patients with symptomatic HF, the document touts multidisciplinary care and early initiation of drugs from each of four drug classes. Such quadruple therapy includes an SGLT2 inhibitor along with a beta-blocker, a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA), and a renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitor: the “core foundational therapies” for patients with HFrEF, Dr. Bozkurt observed.

Of note, she said, the angiotensin receptor–neprilysin inhibitor sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto, Novartis) is the preferred RAS inhibitor. But “if the ARNI cannot be used, then use ACE inhibitors.” If the patient is intolerant of ACE inhibitors because of cough or angioedema, then the choice should be an angiotensin-receptor blocker.

“We have very effective therapies offering survival and morbidity benefits as well as improvements in quality of life and reverse remodeling,” Dr. Bozkurt observed. “The most important message is that optimization of therapies, including all of these medication classes, saves lives.”

The guideline also includes, for the first time, a series of “value statements” on cost-effectiveness of different therapies that assign a “high-value” rating to MRAs, hydralazine, and isosorbide dinitrate in otherwise optimally treated self-identified African Americans, and device therapy in appropriately selected patients. The statements hold SGLT2 inhibitors in chronic symptomatic HF and cardiac transplantation in advanced GDMT-resistant HF to be of “intermediate” value.

The value statements, Dr. Bozkurt noted, “are included throughout the document when there is evidence; when there is a high-quality cost-effectiveness study published.”

Dr. Bozkurt disclosed receiving honoraria or consulting fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Baxter International, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Sanofi-Aventis, scPharmaceuticals, and Vifor Pharma; serving on a data safety monitoring board for LivaNova USA; and holding other relationships with Abbott Laboratories and Relypsa. Dr. Mann disclosed receiving honoraria or consulting fees from MyoKardia, Novartis, and Novo Nordisk.

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

WASHINGTON – Results from new analyses further fleshed out the potent effect by the investigational SGLT1&2 inhibitor sotagliflozin on major cardiovascular adverse events in patients with type 2 diabetes, chronic kidney disease, and at high risk for cardiovascular disease in the SCORED trial that randomized more than 10,000 patients.

In prespecified, secondary analyses of the SCORED results, treatment with sotagliflozin during a median of 16 months was linked to a significant 21% risk reduction relative to placebo for the combined incidence of total major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), which included cardiovascular death, first and recurrent episodes of nonfatal MI, and nonfatal stroke among the 5,144 randomized patients who entered the trial with a history of cardiovascular disease (CVD), Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, said at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Among the 5,440 patients in the study who did not have a history of CVD (although they did have at least one major risk factor or at least two minor risk factors), treatment with sotagliflozin was linked to a significant 26% relative risk reduction in total MACE events.

Part of these overall MACE benefits resulted from similar improvements from sotagliflozin treatment on the individual outcomes of total nonfatal MI and total nonfatal strokes. Treatment with sotagliflozin cut these MIs by a significant 31% in patients with a history of CVD relative to patients who received placebo, and by a relative 34% in those without a CVD event in their history, a difference compared with placebo that fell short of significance, said Dr. Bhatt, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and executive director of interventional cardiovascular programs at Brigham and Women’s Health, both in Boston.

Treatment with sotagliflozin also cut total nonfatal strokes by 31% relative to placebo in patients with a history of CVD, and by a relative 38% in those without a CVD history. Both differences fell short of significance.
 

An early MACE benefit and a stroke benefit

“This stroke benefit has not been clearly seen” with any agent from the closely related sodium-glucose cotransport-2 (SGLT2) inhibitor class, and “the MACE benefit appeared very early,” within 3 months from the start of sotagliflozin treatment, “which may be because of the SGLT1 inhibition,” Dr. Bhatt said during his report.

The SGLT1 receptor is the primary mechanism cells in the gut use to absorb glucose and galactose in the human gastrointestinal tract, Dr. Bhatt explained, while the SGLT2 receptor appears on kidney cells and is the major player in the reabsorption of filtered glucose. The SGLT2 inhibitor class includes the agents canagliflozin (Invokana), dapagliflozin (Farxiga), and empagliflozin (Jardiance), while sotagliflozin inhibits both SGLT1 and SGLT2.

Main results from SCORED appeared in a report first released in late 2020, and showed that for the study’s primary endpoint treatment with sotagliflozin linked with a significant 26% relative risk reduction for the composite of cardiovascular deaths, hospitalizations for heart failure, and urgent visits for heart failure (N Engl J Med. 2021 Jan 14;384[2]:129-39). Patient follow-up in SCORED was not as long as originally planned when the study stopped early due to a loss of funding from a sponsor that was triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic.

MACE results ‘heterogeneous’ from SGLT2 inhibitors

Sotagliflozin and agents from the SGLT2 inhibitor class “have been consistent” in their benefits for reducing cardiovascular death and hospitalization for heart failure, but for MACE, the results from the SGLT2 inhibitors “have been more heterogeneous,” and the effect of sotagliflozin on MACE “were different in SCORED,” commented Michelle L. O’Donoghue, MD, MPH, a cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston who was not involved with this work.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“The results suggest a benefit [from sotagliflozin] on atherosclerotic events, which could be a potential advantage” compared with the SGLT2 inhibitors, “but the heterogeneity of this effect” among these agents means that more confirmatory data are needed for sotagliflozin, Dr. O’Donoghue said in an interview.

“There is a lot of enthusiasm for the concept” of combined inhibition of the SGLT1 and 2 receptors, and if more evidence for unique benefits of this effect accumulate “it may lead to increased enthusiasm for sotagliflozin,” she said. “A lot will also depend on pricing decisions” for sotagliflozin, if it receives U.S. marketing approval from the Food and Drug Administration. Decisions about which agent from the SGLT2 inhibitor class to prescribe “are often being made based on price right now,” Dr. O’Donoghue said.

Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, the company developing sotagliflozin, has announced plans to resubmit its new drug application for sotagliflozin to the FDA later in 2022, with the agency’s approval decision likely occurring late in 2022 or sometime during 2023. In February, the company withdrew its December 2021 application to correct a “technical issue” it had found.

An additional analysis reported by Dr. Bhatt used combined data from SCORED as well as several additional randomized trials of sotagliflozin involving a total of more than 20,000 patients that showed a significant 21% reduction in the incidence of MACE compared with placebo.

During his talk, Dr. Bhatt said that sotagliflozin was potentially superior to the agents that inhibit only SGLT2. In an interview, he based this tentative assessment on at least four attributes of sotagliflozin that have emerged from trial results:

• The drug’s ability to significantly reduce MACE and to have this effect apparent within a few months of treatment onset;
• The significantly reduced rate of stroke with sotagliflozin (when patients are not subdivided into those with or without a history of CVD) that has not yet been seen with any SGLT2 inhibitor;
• The ability of sotagliflozin to reduce hemoglobin A1c levels in patients with type 2 diabetes even when their estimated glomerular filtration rate is less than 30 mL/min per 1.73 m², an effect not seen with SGLT2 inhibitors and possibly explained by sotagliflozin having an effect on gut absorption of glucose in addition to its SGLT2 inhibitory effect in the kidney;
• And the proven ability of sotagliflozin to be safe and effective when initiated in patients hospitalized for heart failure, a property that so far has only also been shown for the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin in the EMPULSE trial (Nature Med. 2022 Mar;28: 568-74).

SCORED was sponsored by Sanofi and Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, the companies originally developing sotagliflozin, although with the withdrawal of Sanofi’s support, further development is now sponsored entirely by Lexicon. Dr. Bhatt received research funding from Sanofi and Lexicon that was paid to Brigham and Women’s Health, and he has been an advisor to numerous companies. Dr. O’Donoghue has been a consultant to Amgen, Janssen, and Novartis, and has received research funding from Amgen, AZ MedImmune, Intarcia, Janssen, Merck, and Novartis.
 

WASHINGTON – Results from new analyses further fleshed out the potent effect by the investigational SGLT1&2 inhibitor sotagliflozin on major cardiovascular adverse events in patients with type 2 diabetes, chronic kidney disease, and at high risk for cardiovascular disease in the SCORED trial that randomized more than 10,000 patients.

In prespecified, secondary analyses of the SCORED results, treatment with sotagliflozin during a median of 16 months was linked to a significant 21% risk reduction relative to placebo for the combined incidence of total major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), which included cardiovascular death, first and recurrent episodes of nonfatal MI, and nonfatal stroke among the 5,144 randomized patients who entered the trial with a history of cardiovascular disease (CVD), Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, said at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Among the 5,440 patients in the study who did not have a history of CVD (although they did have at least one major risk factor or at least two minor risk factors), treatment with sotagliflozin was linked to a significant 26% relative risk reduction in total MACE events.

Part of these overall MACE benefits resulted from similar improvements from sotagliflozin treatment on the individual outcomes of total nonfatal MI and total nonfatal strokes. Treatment with sotagliflozin cut these MIs by a significant 31% in patients with a history of CVD relative to patients who received placebo, and by a relative 34% in those without a CVD event in their history, a difference compared with placebo that fell short of significance, said Dr. Bhatt, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and executive director of interventional cardiovascular programs at Brigham and Women’s Health, both in Boston.

Treatment with sotagliflozin also cut total nonfatal strokes by 31% relative to placebo in patients with a history of CVD, and by a relative 38% in those without a CVD history. Both differences fell short of significance.
 

An early MACE benefit and a stroke benefit

“This stroke benefit has not been clearly seen” with any agent from the closely related sodium-glucose cotransport-2 (SGLT2) inhibitor class, and “the MACE benefit appeared very early,” within 3 months from the start of sotagliflozin treatment, “which may be because of the SGLT1 inhibition,” Dr. Bhatt said during his report.

The SGLT1 receptor is the primary mechanism cells in the gut use to absorb glucose and galactose in the human gastrointestinal tract, Dr. Bhatt explained, while the SGLT2 receptor appears on kidney cells and is the major player in the reabsorption of filtered glucose. The SGLT2 inhibitor class includes the agents canagliflozin (Invokana), dapagliflozin (Farxiga), and empagliflozin (Jardiance), while sotagliflozin inhibits both SGLT1 and SGLT2.

Main results from SCORED appeared in a report first released in late 2020, and showed that for the study’s primary endpoint treatment with sotagliflozin linked with a significant 26% relative risk reduction for the composite of cardiovascular deaths, hospitalizations for heart failure, and urgent visits for heart failure (N Engl J Med. 2021 Jan 14;384[2]:129-39). Patient follow-up in SCORED was not as long as originally planned when the study stopped early due to a loss of funding from a sponsor that was triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic.

MACE results ‘heterogeneous’ from SGLT2 inhibitors

Sotagliflozin and agents from the SGLT2 inhibitor class “have been consistent” in their benefits for reducing cardiovascular death and hospitalization for heart failure, but for MACE, the results from the SGLT2 inhibitors “have been more heterogeneous,” and the effect of sotagliflozin on MACE “were different in SCORED,” commented Michelle L. O’Donoghue, MD, MPH, a cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston who was not involved with this work.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“The results suggest a benefit [from sotagliflozin] on atherosclerotic events, which could be a potential advantage” compared with the SGLT2 inhibitors, “but the heterogeneity of this effect” among these agents means that more confirmatory data are needed for sotagliflozin, Dr. O’Donoghue said in an interview.

“There is a lot of enthusiasm for the concept” of combined inhibition of the SGLT1 and 2 receptors, and if more evidence for unique benefits of this effect accumulate “it may lead to increased enthusiasm for sotagliflozin,” she said. “A lot will also depend on pricing decisions” for sotagliflozin, if it receives U.S. marketing approval from the Food and Drug Administration. Decisions about which agent from the SGLT2 inhibitor class to prescribe “are often being made based on price right now,” Dr. O’Donoghue said.

Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, the company developing sotagliflozin, has announced plans to resubmit its new drug application for sotagliflozin to the FDA later in 2022, with the agency’s approval decision likely occurring late in 2022 or sometime during 2023. In February, the company withdrew its December 2021 application to correct a “technical issue” it had found.

An additional analysis reported by Dr. Bhatt used combined data from SCORED as well as several additional randomized trials of sotagliflozin involving a total of more than 20,000 patients that showed a significant 21% reduction in the incidence of MACE compared with placebo.

During his talk, Dr. Bhatt said that sotagliflozin was potentially superior to the agents that inhibit only SGLT2. In an interview, he based this tentative assessment on at least four attributes of sotagliflozin that have emerged from trial results:

• The drug’s ability to significantly reduce MACE and to have this effect apparent within a few months of treatment onset;
• The significantly reduced rate of stroke with sotagliflozin (when patients are not subdivided into those with or without a history of CVD) that has not yet been seen with any SGLT2 inhibitor;
• The ability of sotagliflozin to reduce hemoglobin A1c levels in patients with type 2 diabetes even when their estimated glomerular filtration rate is less than 30 mL/min per 1.73 m², an effect not seen with SGLT2 inhibitors and possibly explained by sotagliflozin having an effect on gut absorption of glucose in addition to its SGLT2 inhibitory effect in the kidney;
• And the proven ability of sotagliflozin to be safe and effective when initiated in patients hospitalized for heart failure, a property that so far has only also been shown for the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin in the EMPULSE trial (Nature Med. 2022 Mar;28: 568-74).

SCORED was sponsored by Sanofi and Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, the companies originally developing sotagliflozin, although with the withdrawal of Sanofi’s support, further development is now sponsored entirely by Lexicon. Dr. Bhatt received research funding from Sanofi and Lexicon that was paid to Brigham and Women’s Health, and he has been an advisor to numerous companies. Dr. O’Donoghue has been a consultant to Amgen, Janssen, and Novartis, and has received research funding from Amgen, AZ MedImmune, Intarcia, Janssen, Merck, and Novartis.
 

WASHINGTON – Results from new analyses further fleshed out the potent effect by the investigational SGLT1&2 inhibitor sotagliflozin on major cardiovascular adverse events in patients with type 2 diabetes, chronic kidney disease, and at high risk for cardiovascular disease in the SCORED trial that randomized more than 10,000 patients.

In prespecified, secondary analyses of the SCORED results, treatment with sotagliflozin during a median of 16 months was linked to a significant 21% risk reduction relative to placebo for the combined incidence of total major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), which included cardiovascular death, first and recurrent episodes of nonfatal MI, and nonfatal stroke among the 5,144 randomized patients who entered the trial with a history of cardiovascular disease (CVD), Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, said at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Among the 5,440 patients in the study who did not have a history of CVD (although they did have at least one major risk factor or at least two minor risk factors), treatment with sotagliflozin was linked to a significant 26% relative risk reduction in total MACE events.

Part of these overall MACE benefits resulted from similar improvements from sotagliflozin treatment on the individual outcomes of total nonfatal MI and total nonfatal strokes. Treatment with sotagliflozin cut these MIs by a significant 31% in patients with a history of CVD relative to patients who received placebo, and by a relative 34% in those without a CVD event in their history, a difference compared with placebo that fell short of significance, said Dr. Bhatt, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and executive director of interventional cardiovascular programs at Brigham and Women’s Health, both in Boston.

Treatment with sotagliflozin also cut total nonfatal strokes by 31% relative to placebo in patients with a history of CVD, and by a relative 38% in those without a CVD history. Both differences fell short of significance.
 

An early MACE benefit and a stroke benefit

“This stroke benefit has not been clearly seen” with any agent from the closely related sodium-glucose cotransport-2 (SGLT2) inhibitor class, and “the MACE benefit appeared very early,” within 3 months from the start of sotagliflozin treatment, “which may be because of the SGLT1 inhibition,” Dr. Bhatt said during his report.

The SGLT1 receptor is the primary mechanism cells in the gut use to absorb glucose and galactose in the human gastrointestinal tract, Dr. Bhatt explained, while the SGLT2 receptor appears on kidney cells and is the major player in the reabsorption of filtered glucose. The SGLT2 inhibitor class includes the agents canagliflozin (Invokana), dapagliflozin (Farxiga), and empagliflozin (Jardiance), while sotagliflozin inhibits both SGLT1 and SGLT2.

Main results from SCORED appeared in a report first released in late 2020, and showed that for the study’s primary endpoint treatment with sotagliflozin linked with a significant 26% relative risk reduction for the composite of cardiovascular deaths, hospitalizations for heart failure, and urgent visits for heart failure (N Engl J Med. 2021 Jan 14;384[2]:129-39). Patient follow-up in SCORED was not as long as originally planned when the study stopped early due to a loss of funding from a sponsor that was triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic.

MACE results ‘heterogeneous’ from SGLT2 inhibitors

Sotagliflozin and agents from the SGLT2 inhibitor class “have been consistent” in their benefits for reducing cardiovascular death and hospitalization for heart failure, but for MACE, the results from the SGLT2 inhibitors “have been more heterogeneous,” and the effect of sotagliflozin on MACE “were different in SCORED,” commented Michelle L. O’Donoghue, MD, MPH, a cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston who was not involved with this work.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“The results suggest a benefit [from sotagliflozin] on atherosclerotic events, which could be a potential advantage” compared with the SGLT2 inhibitors, “but the heterogeneity of this effect” among these agents means that more confirmatory data are needed for sotagliflozin, Dr. O’Donoghue said in an interview.

“There is a lot of enthusiasm for the concept” of combined inhibition of the SGLT1 and 2 receptors, and if more evidence for unique benefits of this effect accumulate “it may lead to increased enthusiasm for sotagliflozin,” she said. “A lot will also depend on pricing decisions” for sotagliflozin, if it receives U.S. marketing approval from the Food and Drug Administration. Decisions about which agent from the SGLT2 inhibitor class to prescribe “are often being made based on price right now,” Dr. O’Donoghue said.

Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, the company developing sotagliflozin, has announced plans to resubmit its new drug application for sotagliflozin to the FDA later in 2022, with the agency’s approval decision likely occurring late in 2022 or sometime during 2023. In February, the company withdrew its December 2021 application to correct a “technical issue” it had found.

An additional analysis reported by Dr. Bhatt used combined data from SCORED as well as several additional randomized trials of sotagliflozin involving a total of more than 20,000 patients that showed a significant 21% reduction in the incidence of MACE compared with placebo.

During his talk, Dr. Bhatt said that sotagliflozin was potentially superior to the agents that inhibit only SGLT2. In an interview, he based this tentative assessment on at least four attributes of sotagliflozin that have emerged from trial results:

• The drug’s ability to significantly reduce MACE and to have this effect apparent within a few months of treatment onset;
• The significantly reduced rate of stroke with sotagliflozin (when patients are not subdivided into those with or without a history of CVD) that has not yet been seen with any SGLT2 inhibitor;
• The ability of sotagliflozin to reduce hemoglobin A1c levels in patients with type 2 diabetes even when their estimated glomerular filtration rate is less than 30 mL/min per 1.73 m², an effect not seen with SGLT2 inhibitors and possibly explained by sotagliflozin having an effect on gut absorption of glucose in addition to its SGLT2 inhibitory effect in the kidney;
• And the proven ability of sotagliflozin to be safe and effective when initiated in patients hospitalized for heart failure, a property that so far has only also been shown for the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin in the EMPULSE trial (Nature Med. 2022 Mar;28: 568-74).

SCORED was sponsored by Sanofi and Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, the companies originally developing sotagliflozin, although with the withdrawal of Sanofi’s support, further development is now sponsored entirely by Lexicon. Dr. Bhatt received research funding from Sanofi and Lexicon that was paid to Brigham and Women’s Health, and he has been an advisor to numerous companies. Dr. O’Donoghue has been a consultant to Amgen, Janssen, and Novartis, and has received research funding from Amgen, AZ MedImmune, Intarcia, Janssen, Merck, and Novartis.
 

Pregnant women with even mild hypertension should receive blood pressure–lowering medications to reduce the likelihood of adverse outcomes for the mother and the child, according to a large, open-label, randomized trial.

“Treating to the blood pressure goal in this study reduced the risk of adverse events associated with pregnancy but did not impair fetal growth,” Alan T. Tita, MD, PhD, associate dean for Global and Women’s Health, University of Alabama, Birmingham, reported at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.

The question of whether to treat chronic hypertension during pregnancy has been “an international controversy for decades,” said Dr. Tita, who led the investigator-initiated Chronic Hypertension and Pregnancy (CHAP) trial.

For the composite primary outcome of severe preeclampsia, medically indicated preterm birth at less than 35 weeks of gestation, placental abruption, or fetal/neonatal death, the treatment of hypertension versus no treatment showed a relative risk reduction of 18% (30.2% vs. 37%, (hazard ratio, 0.82; P < .001).
 

Small for gestational age is primary safety endpoint

An increase in preeclampsia risk in women whose fetus was small for gestational age (SGA), a theoretical consequence of reductions in arterial pressure, was not seen. The rate of SGA, defined as below the 10^th percentile, was slightly higher in the treatment group (11.2% vs. 10.4%), but the difference did not approach significance (P = 0.76).

By answering this long-pending question, the CHAP data are “practice changing,” declared an ACC-invited commentator, Athena Poppas, MD, chief of cardiology and director of the Lifespan Cardiovascular Institute, Providence, R.I. She agreed that the need for treatment of mild chronic hypertension has been a dilemma for clinicians that is now acceptably resolved.

In this trial, 2,408 pregnant women with chronic mild hypertension defined as a blood pressure of 160/90 mm Hg were randomized to treatment with a goal blood pressure of less than 140/90 mm Hg or no treatment unless the blood pressure rose to at least 160/105. All women had singleton pregnancies. Enrollment before 23 weeks of gestation was required. Severe hypertension (at least 160/105 mm Hg) was an exclusion criterion, as were several comorbidities, such as kidney disease.
 

Combination therapy accepted for <140/90 mm Hg goal

The beta-blocker labetalol or the calcium channel blocker nifedipine as single agents were the preferred antihypertensive medications in the protocol, but other medications were permitted. To reach the blood pressure goal, the single-agent therapy was titrated to the maximum dose before starting a second agent.

After randomization the systolic and diastolic blood pressures fell in both groups, but they fell more and remained consistently lower in the active treatment group, particularly during the first 20 weeks after randomization, according to graphs displayed by Dr. Tita. Over the course of the study, the mean diastolic blood pressures were 129.5 and 132.6 mm Hg in the active treatment and control groups, respectively, while the systolic pressures were 79.1 vs. 81.5 mm Hg.

When the components of the primary outcome were evaluated separately, the greatest advantage of treatment was the reduction in the rate of severe eclampsia (23.3% vs. 29.1%; HR, 0.80: 95% confidence interval, 0.70-0.92) and preterm birth (12.2% vs. 16.7%; HR, 0.73: 95% CI, 0.60-0.89).

Across a large array of subgroups, including those with or without diabetes and those treated before or after 14 weeks of gestation, there was a consistent advantage for treatment, even if not statistically different. It is notable that 48% of patients were Black and 35% had a body mass index of at least 40. The active treatment was favored across all groups stratified by these characteristics.

Although the incidences of placental abruption (1.7% on treatment vs. 1.9% without) and fetal or neonatal death (3.5% vs. 4.3%) were lower in the active treatment group, they were uncommon events in both arms of the study. The differences did not reach statistical significance.
 

Maternal morbidity rates lower on treatment

Severe SGA, which was defined as below the 5^th percentile, was also numerically but not significantly higher in the control arm than in the group receiving treatment (5.1% vs. 5.5%), but the incidence of composite adverse maternal events was numerically lower (2.1% vs. 2.8%). The incidences of all components of maternal morbidity, such as maternal death (0.1% vs. 0.2%) pulmonary edema (0.4% vs. 0.9%), heart failure (0.1% vs. 0.1%), and acute kidney injury (0.8% vs. 1.2%), were either lower or the same on active treatment versus no treatment.

According to Dr. Tita, who called CHAP one of the largest and most diverse studies to address the value of treating mild hypertension in pregnancy, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) is evaluating these data for changing their current guidelines for managing hypertension during pregnancy.

“The rate of chronic hypertension during pregnancy has been rising in the United States due to the increase in the average age of pregnant women and the rising rates of obesity,” Dr. Tita commented.

“We definitely needed these data,” said Mary Norine Walsh, MD, medical director, Ascension Saint Vincent Cardiovascular Research Institute, Indianapolis. Not only has the value of treating mild hypertension been unresolved, but Dr. Walsh pointed out that the rates of maternal mortality in the United States are rising and now generally exceed those of many other developed countries.

There are several features in the design of this trial that make the results even more salient to clinical practice, according to Dr. Walsh. This includes the fact that about half of patients enrolled were on Medicaid. As a result, the study confirmed benefit in what Dr. Walsh characterized as a “vulnerable” population.

“We will be busy now to make sure that our [pregnant] patients are achieving these target blood pressures,” Dr. Walsh said. She indicated that CHAP validates the treatment target of 140/90 mm Hg as a standard of care.

The results were published in the New England Journal of Medicine simultaneously with its ACC presentation.

The trial was funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Tita reports research grants from Pfizer. Dr. Walsh reports a financial relationship with EBR Systems. Dr. Poppas reports no potential conflicts of interest.

Pregnant women with even mild hypertension should receive blood pressure–lowering medications to reduce the likelihood of adverse outcomes for the mother and the child, according to a large, open-label, randomized trial.

“Treating to the blood pressure goal in this study reduced the risk of adverse events associated with pregnancy but did not impair fetal growth,” Alan T. Tita, MD, PhD, associate dean for Global and Women’s Health, University of Alabama, Birmingham, reported at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.

The question of whether to treat chronic hypertension during pregnancy has been “an international controversy for decades,” said Dr. Tita, who led the investigator-initiated Chronic Hypertension and Pregnancy (CHAP) trial.

For the composite primary outcome of severe preeclampsia, medically indicated preterm birth at less than 35 weeks of gestation, placental abruption, or fetal/neonatal death, the treatment of hypertension versus no treatment showed a relative risk reduction of 18% (30.2% vs. 37%, (hazard ratio, 0.82; P < .001).
 

Small for gestational age is primary safety endpoint

An increase in preeclampsia risk in women whose fetus was small for gestational age (SGA), a theoretical consequence of reductions in arterial pressure, was not seen. The rate of SGA, defined as below the 10^th percentile, was slightly higher in the treatment group (11.2% vs. 10.4%), but the difference did not approach significance (P = 0.76).

By answering this long-pending question, the CHAP data are “practice changing,” declared an ACC-invited commentator, Athena Poppas, MD, chief of cardiology and director of the Lifespan Cardiovascular Institute, Providence, R.I. She agreed that the need for treatment of mild chronic hypertension has been a dilemma for clinicians that is now acceptably resolved.

In this trial, 2,408 pregnant women with chronic mild hypertension defined as a blood pressure of 160/90 mm Hg were randomized to treatment with a goal blood pressure of less than 140/90 mm Hg or no treatment unless the blood pressure rose to at least 160/105. All women had singleton pregnancies. Enrollment before 23 weeks of gestation was required. Severe hypertension (at least 160/105 mm Hg) was an exclusion criterion, as were several comorbidities, such as kidney disease.
 

Combination therapy accepted for <140/90 mm Hg goal

The beta-blocker labetalol or the calcium channel blocker nifedipine as single agents were the preferred antihypertensive medications in the protocol, but other medications were permitted. To reach the blood pressure goal, the single-agent therapy was titrated to the maximum dose before starting a second agent.

After randomization the systolic and diastolic blood pressures fell in both groups, but they fell more and remained consistently lower in the active treatment group, particularly during the first 20 weeks after randomization, according to graphs displayed by Dr. Tita. Over the course of the study, the mean diastolic blood pressures were 129.5 and 132.6 mm Hg in the active treatment and control groups, respectively, while the systolic pressures were 79.1 vs. 81.5 mm Hg.

When the components of the primary outcome were evaluated separately, the greatest advantage of treatment was the reduction in the rate of severe eclampsia (23.3% vs. 29.1%; HR, 0.80: 95% confidence interval, 0.70-0.92) and preterm birth (12.2% vs. 16.7%; HR, 0.73: 95% CI, 0.60-0.89).

Across a large array of subgroups, including those with or without diabetes and those treated before or after 14 weeks of gestation, there was a consistent advantage for treatment, even if not statistically different. It is notable that 48% of patients were Black and 35% had a body mass index of at least 40. The active treatment was favored across all groups stratified by these characteristics.

Although the incidences of placental abruption (1.7% on treatment vs. 1.9% without) and fetal or neonatal death (3.5% vs. 4.3%) were lower in the active treatment group, they were uncommon events in both arms of the study. The differences did not reach statistical significance.
 

Maternal morbidity rates lower on treatment

Severe SGA, which was defined as below the 5^th percentile, was also numerically but not significantly higher in the control arm than in the group receiving treatment (5.1% vs. 5.5%), but the incidence of composite adverse maternal events was numerically lower (2.1% vs. 2.8%). The incidences of all components of maternal morbidity, such as maternal death (0.1% vs. 0.2%) pulmonary edema (0.4% vs. 0.9%), heart failure (0.1% vs. 0.1%), and acute kidney injury (0.8% vs. 1.2%), were either lower or the same on active treatment versus no treatment.

According to Dr. Tita, who called CHAP one of the largest and most diverse studies to address the value of treating mild hypertension in pregnancy, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) is evaluating these data for changing their current guidelines for managing hypertension during pregnancy.

“The rate of chronic hypertension during pregnancy has been rising in the United States due to the increase in the average age of pregnant women and the rising rates of obesity,” Dr. Tita commented.

“We definitely needed these data,” said Mary Norine Walsh, MD, medical director, Ascension Saint Vincent Cardiovascular Research Institute, Indianapolis. Not only has the value of treating mild hypertension been unresolved, but Dr. Walsh pointed out that the rates of maternal mortality in the United States are rising and now generally exceed those of many other developed countries.

There are several features in the design of this trial that make the results even more salient to clinical practice, according to Dr. Walsh. This includes the fact that about half of patients enrolled were on Medicaid. As a result, the study confirmed benefit in what Dr. Walsh characterized as a “vulnerable” population.

“We will be busy now to make sure that our [pregnant] patients are achieving these target blood pressures,” Dr. Walsh said. She indicated that CHAP validates the treatment target of 140/90 mm Hg as a standard of care.

The results were published in the New England Journal of Medicine simultaneously with its ACC presentation.

The trial was funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Tita reports research grants from Pfizer. Dr. Walsh reports a financial relationship with EBR Systems. Dr. Poppas reports no potential conflicts of interest.

Pregnant women with even mild hypertension should receive blood pressure–lowering medications to reduce the likelihood of adverse outcomes for the mother and the child, according to a large, open-label, randomized trial.

“Treating to the blood pressure goal in this study reduced the risk of adverse events associated with pregnancy but did not impair fetal growth,” Alan T. Tita, MD, PhD, associate dean for Global and Women’s Health, University of Alabama, Birmingham, reported at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.

The question of whether to treat chronic hypertension during pregnancy has been “an international controversy for decades,” said Dr. Tita, who led the investigator-initiated Chronic Hypertension and Pregnancy (CHAP) trial.

For the composite primary outcome of severe preeclampsia, medically indicated preterm birth at less than 35 weeks of gestation, placental abruption, or fetal/neonatal death, the treatment of hypertension versus no treatment showed a relative risk reduction of 18% (30.2% vs. 37%, (hazard ratio, 0.82; P < .001).
 

Small for gestational age is primary safety endpoint

An increase in preeclampsia risk in women whose fetus was small for gestational age (SGA), a theoretical consequence of reductions in arterial pressure, was not seen. The rate of SGA, defined as below the 10^th percentile, was slightly higher in the treatment group (11.2% vs. 10.4%), but the difference did not approach significance (P = 0.76).

By answering this long-pending question, the CHAP data are “practice changing,” declared an ACC-invited commentator, Athena Poppas, MD, chief of cardiology and director of the Lifespan Cardiovascular Institute, Providence, R.I. She agreed that the need for treatment of mild chronic hypertension has been a dilemma for clinicians that is now acceptably resolved.

In this trial, 2,408 pregnant women with chronic mild hypertension defined as a blood pressure of 160/90 mm Hg were randomized to treatment with a goal blood pressure of less than 140/90 mm Hg or no treatment unless the blood pressure rose to at least 160/105. All women had singleton pregnancies. Enrollment before 23 weeks of gestation was required. Severe hypertension (at least 160/105 mm Hg) was an exclusion criterion, as were several comorbidities, such as kidney disease.
 

Combination therapy accepted for <140/90 mm Hg goal

The beta-blocker labetalol or the calcium channel blocker nifedipine as single agents were the preferred antihypertensive medications in the protocol, but other medications were permitted. To reach the blood pressure goal, the single-agent therapy was titrated to the maximum dose before starting a second agent.

After randomization the systolic and diastolic blood pressures fell in both groups, but they fell more and remained consistently lower in the active treatment group, particularly during the first 20 weeks after randomization, according to graphs displayed by Dr. Tita. Over the course of the study, the mean diastolic blood pressures were 129.5 and 132.6 mm Hg in the active treatment and control groups, respectively, while the systolic pressures were 79.1 vs. 81.5 mm Hg.

When the components of the primary outcome were evaluated separately, the greatest advantage of treatment was the reduction in the rate of severe eclampsia (23.3% vs. 29.1%; HR, 0.80: 95% confidence interval, 0.70-0.92) and preterm birth (12.2% vs. 16.7%; HR, 0.73: 95% CI, 0.60-0.89).

Across a large array of subgroups, including those with or without diabetes and those treated before or after 14 weeks of gestation, there was a consistent advantage for treatment, even if not statistically different. It is notable that 48% of patients were Black and 35% had a body mass index of at least 40. The active treatment was favored across all groups stratified by these characteristics.

Although the incidences of placental abruption (1.7% on treatment vs. 1.9% without) and fetal or neonatal death (3.5% vs. 4.3%) were lower in the active treatment group, they were uncommon events in both arms of the study. The differences did not reach statistical significance.
 

Maternal morbidity rates lower on treatment

Severe SGA, which was defined as below the 5^th percentile, was also numerically but not significantly higher in the control arm than in the group receiving treatment (5.1% vs. 5.5%), but the incidence of composite adverse maternal events was numerically lower (2.1% vs. 2.8%). The incidences of all components of maternal morbidity, such as maternal death (0.1% vs. 0.2%) pulmonary edema (0.4% vs. 0.9%), heart failure (0.1% vs. 0.1%), and acute kidney injury (0.8% vs. 1.2%), were either lower or the same on active treatment versus no treatment.

According to Dr. Tita, who called CHAP one of the largest and most diverse studies to address the value of treating mild hypertension in pregnancy, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) is evaluating these data for changing their current guidelines for managing hypertension during pregnancy.

“The rate of chronic hypertension during pregnancy has been rising in the United States due to the increase in the average age of pregnant women and the rising rates of obesity,” Dr. Tita commented.

“We definitely needed these data,” said Mary Norine Walsh, MD, medical director, Ascension Saint Vincent Cardiovascular Research Institute, Indianapolis. Not only has the value of treating mild hypertension been unresolved, but Dr. Walsh pointed out that the rates of maternal mortality in the United States are rising and now generally exceed those of many other developed countries.

There are several features in the design of this trial that make the results even more salient to clinical practice, according to Dr. Walsh. This includes the fact that about half of patients enrolled were on Medicaid. As a result, the study confirmed benefit in what Dr. Walsh characterized as a “vulnerable” population.

“We will be busy now to make sure that our [pregnant] patients are achieving these target blood pressures,” Dr. Walsh said. She indicated that CHAP validates the treatment target of 140/90 mm Hg as a standard of care.

The results were published in the New England Journal of Medicine simultaneously with its ACC presentation.

The trial was funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Tita reports research grants from Pfizer. Dr. Walsh reports a financial relationship with EBR Systems. Dr. Poppas reports no potential conflicts of interest.

A low-sodium diet was not associated with a reduction in future clinical events in a new study in ambulatory patients with heart failure. But there was a moderate benefit on quality of life and New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class.

“The guidelines used to strongly recommend a reduction in sodium intake in heart failure patients, but this advice has backed off in recent years because of the lack of data. Most heart failure guidelines now do not make any recommendations on dietary sodium,” he said.

SODIUM-HF was a pragmatic, multinational, open-label, randomized trial conducted in six countries (Australia, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, and New Zealand), which included 809 patients (median age, 67 years) with chronic heart failure (NYHA functional class II–III) who were receiving optimally tolerated guideline-directed medical treatment. They were randomly assigned to usual care according to local guidelines or a low-sodium diet of less than 100 mmol (<1,500 mg/day). Patients with a baseline sodium intake of less than 1,500 mg/day were excluded.

In the intervention group, patients were asked to follow low-sodium menus developed by dietitians localized to each region. They also received behavioral counseling by trained dietitians or physicians or nurses.

Dietary sodium intake was assessed by using a 3-day food record (including 1 weekend day) at baseline, 6 months, and 12 months in both groups and, for the intervention group, also at 3 and 9 months to monitor and support dietary adherence.

Dr. Ezekowitz explained that although the best method for measuring sodium levels would normally be a 24-hour urine sodium, this would be impractical in a large clinical trial. In addition, he pointed out that urinary sodium is not an accurate measure of actual sodium levels in patients taking diuretics, so it is not a good measure to use in a heart failure population.

“The food record method of assessing sodium levels has been well validated; I think we measured it as accurately as we could have done,” he added.

Results showed that between baseline and 12 months, the median sodium intake decreased from 2,286 mg/day to 1,658 mg/day in the low-sodium group and from 2,119 mg/day to 2,073 mg/day in the usual care group. The median difference between groups was 415 mg/day at 12 months.

By 12 months, events comprising the primary outcome (hospitalization or emergency department visits due to cardiovascular causes or all-cause death) had occurred in 15% of patients in the low-sodium diet group and 17% of those in the usual care group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.89 [95% CI, 0.63 - 1.26]; P = .53).

All-cause death occurred in 6% of patients in the low-sodium diet group and 4% of those in the usual care group (HR, 1.38; P = .32). Cardiovascular-related hospitalization occurred in 10% of the low-sodium group and 12% of the usual care group (HR, 0.82; P = .36), and cardiovascular-related emergency department visits occurred in 4% of both groups (HR, 1.21; P = .60).

The absence of treatment effect for the primary outcome was consistent across most prespecified subgroups, including those with higher vs lower baseline sodium intake. But there was a suggestion of a greater reduction in the primary outcome in individuals younger than age 65 years than in those age 65 years and older.

Quality-of-life measures on the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) suggested a benefit in the low-sodium group, with mean between-group differences in the change from baseline to 12 months of 3.38 points in the overall summary score, 3.29 points in the clinical summary score, and 3.77 points in the physical limitation score (all differences were statistically significant).

There was no significant difference in 6-minute-walk distance at 12 months between the low-sodium diet group and the usual care group.

NYHA functional class at 12 months differed significantly between groups; the low-sodium diet group had a greater likelihood of improving by one NYHA class than the usual care group (odds ratio, 0.59; P = .0061).

No safety events related to the study treatment were reported in either group.

Dr. Ezekowitz said that to investigate whether longer follow-up may show a difference in events, further analyses are planned at 2 years and 5 years.

Questions on food recall and blinding

Commenting on the findings at the late-breaking clinical trials session at the ACC meeting, Biykem Bozkurt, MD, professor of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, congratulated Dr. Ezekowitz on conducting this trial.

“We have been chasing the holy grail of sodium reduction in heart failure for a very long time, so I have to commend you and your team for taking on this challenge, especially during the pandemic,” she said.

But Dr. Bozkurt questioned whether the intervention group actually had a meaningful sodium reduction given that this was measured by food recall and this may have been accounted for by under-reporting of certain food intakes.

Dr. Ezekowitz responded that patients acted as their own controls in that calorie intake, fluid intake, and weight were also assessed and did not change. “So I think we did have a meaningful reduction in sodium,” he said.

Dr. Bozkurt also queried whether the improvements in quality of life and functional status were reliable given that this was an unblinded study.

To this point, Dr. Ezekowitz pointed out that the KCCQ quality-of-life measure was a highly validated instrument and that improvements were seen in these measures at 3, 6, and 12 months. “It is not like these were spurious findings, so I think we have to look at this as a real result,” he argued.

Commenting on the study at an ACC press conference, Mary Norine Walsh, MD, director of the heart failure and cardiac transplantation programs at St. Vincent Heart Center in Indianapolis, said the trial had answered two important questions: that sodium reduction in heart failure may not reduce heart failure hospitalization/death but that patients feel better.

“I think we can safely tell patients that if they slip up a bit they may not end up in hospital,” she added.

This study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the University Hospital Foundation (Edmonton, Alberta, Canada) and the Health Research Council of New Zealand. Dr. Ezekowitz reports research grants from American Regent, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer, eko.ai, US2.ai, Merck, Novartis, Otsuka, Sanofi, and Servier and consulting fees from American Regent, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer, Merck, Novartis, Otsuka, Sanofi, and Servier.

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

A low-sodium diet was not associated with a reduction in future clinical events in a new study in ambulatory patients with heart failure. But there was a moderate benefit on quality of life and New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class.

“The guidelines used to strongly recommend a reduction in sodium intake in heart failure patients, but this advice has backed off in recent years because of the lack of data. Most heart failure guidelines now do not make any recommendations on dietary sodium,” he said.

SODIUM-HF was a pragmatic, multinational, open-label, randomized trial conducted in six countries (Australia, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, and New Zealand), which included 809 patients (median age, 67 years) with chronic heart failure (NYHA functional class II–III) who were receiving optimally tolerated guideline-directed medical treatment. They were randomly assigned to usual care according to local guidelines or a low-sodium diet of less than 100 mmol (<1,500 mg/day). Patients with a baseline sodium intake of less than 1,500 mg/day were excluded.

In the intervention group, patients were asked to follow low-sodium menus developed by dietitians localized to each region. They also received behavioral counseling by trained dietitians or physicians or nurses.

Dietary sodium intake was assessed by using a 3-day food record (including 1 weekend day) at baseline, 6 months, and 12 months in both groups and, for the intervention group, also at 3 and 9 months to monitor and support dietary adherence.

Dr. Ezekowitz explained that although the best method for measuring sodium levels would normally be a 24-hour urine sodium, this would be impractical in a large clinical trial. In addition, he pointed out that urinary sodium is not an accurate measure of actual sodium levels in patients taking diuretics, so it is not a good measure to use in a heart failure population.

“The food record method of assessing sodium levels has been well validated; I think we measured it as accurately as we could have done,” he added.

Results showed that between baseline and 12 months, the median sodium intake decreased from 2,286 mg/day to 1,658 mg/day in the low-sodium group and from 2,119 mg/day to 2,073 mg/day in the usual care group. The median difference between groups was 415 mg/day at 12 months.

By 12 months, events comprising the primary outcome (hospitalization or emergency department visits due to cardiovascular causes or all-cause death) had occurred in 15% of patients in the low-sodium diet group and 17% of those in the usual care group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.89 [95% CI, 0.63 - 1.26]; P = .53).

All-cause death occurred in 6% of patients in the low-sodium diet group and 4% of those in the usual care group (HR, 1.38; P = .32). Cardiovascular-related hospitalization occurred in 10% of the low-sodium group and 12% of the usual care group (HR, 0.82; P = .36), and cardiovascular-related emergency department visits occurred in 4% of both groups (HR, 1.21; P = .60).

The absence of treatment effect for the primary outcome was consistent across most prespecified subgroups, including those with higher vs lower baseline sodium intake. But there was a suggestion of a greater reduction in the primary outcome in individuals younger than age 65 years than in those age 65 years and older.

Quality-of-life measures on the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) suggested a benefit in the low-sodium group, with mean between-group differences in the change from baseline to 12 months of 3.38 points in the overall summary score, 3.29 points in the clinical summary score, and 3.77 points in the physical limitation score (all differences were statistically significant).

There was no significant difference in 6-minute-walk distance at 12 months between the low-sodium diet group and the usual care group.

NYHA functional class at 12 months differed significantly between groups; the low-sodium diet group had a greater likelihood of improving by one NYHA class than the usual care group (odds ratio, 0.59; P = .0061).

No safety events related to the study treatment were reported in either group.

Dr. Ezekowitz said that to investigate whether longer follow-up may show a difference in events, further analyses are planned at 2 years and 5 years.

Questions on food recall and blinding

Commenting on the findings at the late-breaking clinical trials session at the ACC meeting, Biykem Bozkurt, MD, professor of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, congratulated Dr. Ezekowitz on conducting this trial.

“We have been chasing the holy grail of sodium reduction in heart failure for a very long time, so I have to commend you and your team for taking on this challenge, especially during the pandemic,” she said.

But Dr. Bozkurt questioned whether the intervention group actually had a meaningful sodium reduction given that this was measured by food recall and this may have been accounted for by under-reporting of certain food intakes.

Dr. Ezekowitz responded that patients acted as their own controls in that calorie intake, fluid intake, and weight were also assessed and did not change. “So I think we did have a meaningful reduction in sodium,” he said.

Dr. Bozkurt also queried whether the improvements in quality of life and functional status were reliable given that this was an unblinded study.

To this point, Dr. Ezekowitz pointed out that the KCCQ quality-of-life measure was a highly validated instrument and that improvements were seen in these measures at 3, 6, and 12 months. “It is not like these were spurious findings, so I think we have to look at this as a real result,” he argued.

Commenting on the study at an ACC press conference, Mary Norine Walsh, MD, director of the heart failure and cardiac transplantation programs at St. Vincent Heart Center in Indianapolis, said the trial had answered two important questions: that sodium reduction in heart failure may not reduce heart failure hospitalization/death but that patients feel better.

“I think we can safely tell patients that if they slip up a bit they may not end up in hospital,” she added.

This study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the University Hospital Foundation (Edmonton, Alberta, Canada) and the Health Research Council of New Zealand. Dr. Ezekowitz reports research grants from American Regent, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer, eko.ai, US2.ai, Merck, Novartis, Otsuka, Sanofi, and Servier and consulting fees from American Regent, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer, Merck, Novartis, Otsuka, Sanofi, and Servier.

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

A low-sodium diet was not associated with a reduction in future clinical events in a new study in ambulatory patients with heart failure. But there was a moderate benefit on quality of life and New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class.

“The guidelines used to strongly recommend a reduction in sodium intake in heart failure patients, but this advice has backed off in recent years because of the lack of data. Most heart failure guidelines now do not make any recommendations on dietary sodium,” he said.

SODIUM-HF was a pragmatic, multinational, open-label, randomized trial conducted in six countries (Australia, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, and New Zealand), which included 809 patients (median age, 67 years) with chronic heart failure (NYHA functional class II–III) who were receiving optimally tolerated guideline-directed medical treatment. They were randomly assigned to usual care according to local guidelines or a low-sodium diet of less than 100 mmol (<1,500 mg/day). Patients with a baseline sodium intake of less than 1,500 mg/day were excluded.

In the intervention group, patients were asked to follow low-sodium menus developed by dietitians localized to each region. They also received behavioral counseling by trained dietitians or physicians or nurses.

Dietary sodium intake was assessed by using a 3-day food record (including 1 weekend day) at baseline, 6 months, and 12 months in both groups and, for the intervention group, also at 3 and 9 months to monitor and support dietary adherence.

Dr. Ezekowitz explained that although the best method for measuring sodium levels would normally be a 24-hour urine sodium, this would be impractical in a large clinical trial. In addition, he pointed out that urinary sodium is not an accurate measure of actual sodium levels in patients taking diuretics, so it is not a good measure to use in a heart failure population.

“The food record method of assessing sodium levels has been well validated; I think we measured it as accurately as we could have done,” he added.

Results showed that between baseline and 12 months, the median sodium intake decreased from 2,286 mg/day to 1,658 mg/day in the low-sodium group and from 2,119 mg/day to 2,073 mg/day in the usual care group. The median difference between groups was 415 mg/day at 12 months.

By 12 months, events comprising the primary outcome (hospitalization or emergency department visits due to cardiovascular causes or all-cause death) had occurred in 15% of patients in the low-sodium diet group and 17% of those in the usual care group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.89 [95% CI, 0.63 - 1.26]; P = .53).

All-cause death occurred in 6% of patients in the low-sodium diet group and 4% of those in the usual care group (HR, 1.38; P = .32). Cardiovascular-related hospitalization occurred in 10% of the low-sodium group and 12% of the usual care group (HR, 0.82; P = .36), and cardiovascular-related emergency department visits occurred in 4% of both groups (HR, 1.21; P = .60).

The absence of treatment effect for the primary outcome was consistent across most prespecified subgroups, including those with higher vs lower baseline sodium intake. But there was a suggestion of a greater reduction in the primary outcome in individuals younger than age 65 years than in those age 65 years and older.

Quality-of-life measures on the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) suggested a benefit in the low-sodium group, with mean between-group differences in the change from baseline to 12 months of 3.38 points in the overall summary score, 3.29 points in the clinical summary score, and 3.77 points in the physical limitation score (all differences were statistically significant).

There was no significant difference in 6-minute-walk distance at 12 months between the low-sodium diet group and the usual care group.

NYHA functional class at 12 months differed significantly between groups; the low-sodium diet group had a greater likelihood of improving by one NYHA class than the usual care group (odds ratio, 0.59; P = .0061).

No safety events related to the study treatment were reported in either group.

Dr. Ezekowitz said that to investigate whether longer follow-up may show a difference in events, further analyses are planned at 2 years and 5 years.

Questions on food recall and blinding

Commenting on the findings at the late-breaking clinical trials session at the ACC meeting, Biykem Bozkurt, MD, professor of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, congratulated Dr. Ezekowitz on conducting this trial.

“We have been chasing the holy grail of sodium reduction in heart failure for a very long time, so I have to commend you and your team for taking on this challenge, especially during the pandemic,” she said.

But Dr. Bozkurt questioned whether the intervention group actually had a meaningful sodium reduction given that this was measured by food recall and this may have been accounted for by under-reporting of certain food intakes.

Dr. Ezekowitz responded that patients acted as their own controls in that calorie intake, fluid intake, and weight were also assessed and did not change. “So I think we did have a meaningful reduction in sodium,” he said.

Dr. Bozkurt also queried whether the improvements in quality of life and functional status were reliable given that this was an unblinded study.

To this point, Dr. Ezekowitz pointed out that the KCCQ quality-of-life measure was a highly validated instrument and that improvements were seen in these measures at 3, 6, and 12 months. “It is not like these were spurious findings, so I think we have to look at this as a real result,” he argued.

Commenting on the study at an ACC press conference, Mary Norine Walsh, MD, director of the heart failure and cardiac transplantation programs at St. Vincent Heart Center in Indianapolis, said the trial had answered two important questions: that sodium reduction in heart failure may not reduce heart failure hospitalization/death but that patients feel better.

“I think we can safely tell patients that if they slip up a bit they may not end up in hospital,” she added.

This study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the University Hospital Foundation (Edmonton, Alberta, Canada) and the Health Research Council of New Zealand. Dr. Ezekowitz reports research grants from American Regent, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer, eko.ai, US2.ai, Merck, Novartis, Otsuka, Sanofi, and Servier and consulting fees from American Regent, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer, Merck, Novartis, Otsuka, Sanofi, and Servier.

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

When an individual develops a terminal illness, those closest to them often start to grieve long before the person dies. Although a common syndrome, it often goes unrecognized and unaddressed.

A new review proposes a way of defining this specific type of grief in the hope that better, more precise descriptive categories will inform therapeutic interventions to help those facing a life-changing loss.

It is “vital” to reduce pre-death grief, inasmuch as numerous studies show that it can result in higher rates of prolonged grief disorder, lead author Jonathan Singer, PhD, visiting assistant professor of clinical psychology, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, told this news organization.

Texas Tech University

‘Typical’ versus ‘impairing’ grief

“Most deaths worldwide are attributed to a chronic or life-limiting Illness,” the authors write. The experience of grief before the loss of a family member “has been studied frequently, but there have been conceptualization issues, which is problematic, as it hinders the potential advancement of the field in differentiating typical grief from more impairing grief before the death,” Dr. Singer said. “Further complicating the picture is the sheer number of terms used to describe grief before death.”

Dr. Singer said that when he started conducting research in this field, he “realized someone had to combine the articles that have been published in order to create definitions that will advance the field, so risk and protective factors could be identified and interventions could be tested.”

For the current study, the investigators searched six databases to find research that “evaluated family members’ or friends’ grief related to an individual currently living with a life-limiting illness.” They excluded studies that evaluated grief after death.

Of 9,568 records reviewed, the researchers selected 134 full-text articles that met inclusion criteria. Most studies (57.46%) were quantitative; 23.88% were qualitative, and 17.91% used mixed methods. Most studies were retrospective, although 14.93% were prospective, and 3% included both prospective and retrospective analyses.

Most participants reported that the family member/friend was diagnosed either with “late-stage dementia” or “advanced cancer.” The majority (58%) were adult children of the individual with the illness, followed by spouses/partners (28.1%) and other relatives/friends (13.9%) in studies that reported the relationship to the participant and the person with the illness.

Various scales were used in the studies to measure grief, particularly the Marwit-Meuser-Caregiver Grief Inventory (n = 28), the Anticipatory Grief Scale (n = 18), and the Prolonged Grief–12 (n = 13).
 

A new name

Owing to the large number of articles included in the review, the researchers limited the analysis to those in which a given term was used in ≥ 1 articles.

The researchers found 18 different terms used by family members/friends of individuals with life-limiting illness to describe grief, including AG (used in the most studies, n = 54); pre-death grief (n = 18), grief (n = 12), pre-loss grief (n = 6), caregiver grief (n = 5), and anticipatory mourning (n = 4). These 18 terms were associated with greater than or equal to 30 different definitions across all of the various studies.

“Definitions of these terms differed drastically,” and many studies used the term AG without defining it.

Nineteen studies used multiple terms within a single article, and the terms were “used interchangeably, with the same definition applied,” the researchers report.

For example, one study defined AG as “the process associated with grieving the eventual loss of a family member in advance of their inevitable death,” while another defined AG as “a series of losses based on a loved one’s progression of cognitive and physical decline.”

On the basis of this analysis, the researchers chose the term “pre-death grief,” which encompasses IRG and AG.

Dr. Singer explained that IRG is “present-oriented” and involves the “longing and yearning for the family member to be as they were before the illness.” AG is “future oriented” and is defined as “family members’ grief experience while the person with the life-limiting illness is alive but that is focused on feared or anticipated losses that will occur after the person’s death.”

The study was intended “to advance the field and provide the knowledge and definitions in order to create and test an evidence-based intervention,” Dr. Singer said.

He pointed to interventions (for example: behavioral activation, meaning-centered grief therapy) that could be tested to reduce pre-death grief or specific interventions that focus on addressing IRG or AG. “For example, cognitive behavior therapy might be used to challenge worry about life without the person, which would be classified as AG.”

Dr. Singer feels it is “vital” to reduce pre-death grief, insofar as numerous studies have shown that high rates of pre-death grief “result in higher rates of prolonged grief disorder.”
 

‘Paradoxical reality’

Francesca Falzarano, PhD, a postdoctoral associate in medicine, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, called the article a “timely piece drawing much-needed attention to an all-too-often overlooked experience lived by those affected by terminal illnesses.”

Dr. Falzarano, who was not involved in the review, said that “from her own experience” as both a caregiver and behavioral scientist conducting research in this area, the concept of pre-death grief is a paradoxical reality – “how do we grieve someone we haven’t lost yet?”

The experience of pre-death grief is “quite distinct from grief after bereavement” because there is no end date. Rather, the person “cycles back and forth between preparing themselves for an impending death while also attending to whatever is happening in the current moment.” It’s also “unique in that both patients and caregivers individually and collectively grieve losses over the course of the illness,” she noted.

“We as researchers absolutely need to focus our attention on achieving consensus on an appropriate definition for pre-death grief that adequately encompasses its complexity and multidimensionality,” she said.

The authors and Dr. Falzarano report no relevant financial relationships.

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

When an individual develops a terminal illness, those closest to them often start to grieve long before the person dies. Although a common syndrome, it often goes unrecognized and unaddressed.

A new review proposes a way of defining this specific type of grief in the hope that better, more precise descriptive categories will inform therapeutic interventions to help those facing a life-changing loss.

It is “vital” to reduce pre-death grief, inasmuch as numerous studies show that it can result in higher rates of prolonged grief disorder, lead author Jonathan Singer, PhD, visiting assistant professor of clinical psychology, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, told this news organization.

Texas Tech University

‘Typical’ versus ‘impairing’ grief

“Most deaths worldwide are attributed to a chronic or life-limiting Illness,” the authors write. The experience of grief before the loss of a family member “has been studied frequently, but there have been conceptualization issues, which is problematic, as it hinders the potential advancement of the field in differentiating typical grief from more impairing grief before the death,” Dr. Singer said. “Further complicating the picture is the sheer number of terms used to describe grief before death.”

Dr. Singer said that when he started conducting research in this field, he “realized someone had to combine the articles that have been published in order to create definitions that will advance the field, so risk and protective factors could be identified and interventions could be tested.”

For the current study, the investigators searched six databases to find research that “evaluated family members’ or friends’ grief related to an individual currently living with a life-limiting illness.” They excluded studies that evaluated grief after death.

Of 9,568 records reviewed, the researchers selected 134 full-text articles that met inclusion criteria. Most studies (57.46%) were quantitative; 23.88% were qualitative, and 17.91% used mixed methods. Most studies were retrospective, although 14.93% were prospective, and 3% included both prospective and retrospective analyses.

Most participants reported that the family member/friend was diagnosed either with “late-stage dementia” or “advanced cancer.” The majority (58%) were adult children of the individual with the illness, followed by spouses/partners (28.1%) and other relatives/friends (13.9%) in studies that reported the relationship to the participant and the person with the illness.

Various scales were used in the studies to measure grief, particularly the Marwit-Meuser-Caregiver Grief Inventory (n = 28), the Anticipatory Grief Scale (n = 18), and the Prolonged Grief–12 (n = 13).
 

A new name

Owing to the large number of articles included in the review, the researchers limited the analysis to those in which a given term was used in ≥ 1 articles.

The researchers found 18 different terms used by family members/friends of individuals with life-limiting illness to describe grief, including AG (used in the most studies, n = 54); pre-death grief (n = 18), grief (n = 12), pre-loss grief (n = 6), caregiver grief (n = 5), and anticipatory mourning (n = 4). These 18 terms were associated with greater than or equal to 30 different definitions across all of the various studies.

“Definitions of these terms differed drastically,” and many studies used the term AG without defining it.

Nineteen studies used multiple terms within a single article, and the terms were “used interchangeably, with the same definition applied,” the researchers report.

For example, one study defined AG as “the process associated with grieving the eventual loss of a family member in advance of their inevitable death,” while another defined AG as “a series of losses based on a loved one’s progression of cognitive and physical decline.”

On the basis of this analysis, the researchers chose the term “pre-death grief,” which encompasses IRG and AG.

Dr. Singer explained that IRG is “present-oriented” and involves the “longing and yearning for the family member to be as they were before the illness.” AG is “future oriented” and is defined as “family members’ grief experience while the person with the life-limiting illness is alive but that is focused on feared or anticipated losses that will occur after the person’s death.”

The study was intended “to advance the field and provide the knowledge and definitions in order to create and test an evidence-based intervention,” Dr. Singer said.

He pointed to interventions (for example: behavioral activation, meaning-centered grief therapy) that could be tested to reduce pre-death grief or specific interventions that focus on addressing IRG or AG. “For example, cognitive behavior therapy might be used to challenge worry about life without the person, which would be classified as AG.”

Dr. Singer feels it is “vital” to reduce pre-death grief, insofar as numerous studies have shown that high rates of pre-death grief “result in higher rates of prolonged grief disorder.”
 

‘Paradoxical reality’

Francesca Falzarano, PhD, a postdoctoral associate in medicine, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, called the article a “timely piece drawing much-needed attention to an all-too-often overlooked experience lived by those affected by terminal illnesses.”

Dr. Falzarano, who was not involved in the review, said that “from her own experience” as both a caregiver and behavioral scientist conducting research in this area, the concept of pre-death grief is a paradoxical reality – “how do we grieve someone we haven’t lost yet?”

The experience of pre-death grief is “quite distinct from grief after bereavement” because there is no end date. Rather, the person “cycles back and forth between preparing themselves for an impending death while also attending to whatever is happening in the current moment.” It’s also “unique in that both patients and caregivers individually and collectively grieve losses over the course of the illness,” she noted.

“We as researchers absolutely need to focus our attention on achieving consensus on an appropriate definition for pre-death grief that adequately encompasses its complexity and multidimensionality,” she said.

The authors and Dr. Falzarano report no relevant financial relationships.

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

When an individual develops a terminal illness, those closest to them often start to grieve long before the person dies. Although a common syndrome, it often goes unrecognized and unaddressed.

A new review proposes a way of defining this specific type of grief in the hope that better, more precise descriptive categories will inform therapeutic interventions to help those facing a life-changing loss.

It is “vital” to reduce pre-death grief, inasmuch as numerous studies show that it can result in higher rates of prolonged grief disorder, lead author Jonathan Singer, PhD, visiting assistant professor of clinical psychology, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, told this news organization.

Texas Tech University

‘Typical’ versus ‘impairing’ grief

“Most deaths worldwide are attributed to a chronic or life-limiting Illness,” the authors write. The experience of grief before the loss of a family member “has been studied frequently, but there have been conceptualization issues, which is problematic, as it hinders the potential advancement of the field in differentiating typical grief from more impairing grief before the death,” Dr. Singer said. “Further complicating the picture is the sheer number of terms used to describe grief before death.”

Dr. Singer said that when he started conducting research in this field, he “realized someone had to combine the articles that have been published in order to create definitions that will advance the field, so risk and protective factors could be identified and interventions could be tested.”

For the current study, the investigators searched six databases to find research that “evaluated family members’ or friends’ grief related to an individual currently living with a life-limiting illness.” They excluded studies that evaluated grief after death.

Of 9,568 records reviewed, the researchers selected 134 full-text articles that met inclusion criteria. Most studies (57.46%) were quantitative; 23.88% were qualitative, and 17.91% used mixed methods. Most studies were retrospective, although 14.93% were prospective, and 3% included both prospective and retrospective analyses.

Most participants reported that the family member/friend was diagnosed either with “late-stage dementia” or “advanced cancer.” The majority (58%) were adult children of the individual with the illness, followed by spouses/partners (28.1%) and other relatives/friends (13.9%) in studies that reported the relationship to the participant and the person with the illness.

Various scales were used in the studies to measure grief, particularly the Marwit-Meuser-Caregiver Grief Inventory (n = 28), the Anticipatory Grief Scale (n = 18), and the Prolonged Grief–12 (n = 13).
 

A new name

Owing to the large number of articles included in the review, the researchers limited the analysis to those in which a given term was used in ≥ 1 articles.

The researchers found 18 different terms used by family members/friends of individuals with life-limiting illness to describe grief, including AG (used in the most studies, n = 54); pre-death grief (n = 18), grief (n = 12), pre-loss grief (n = 6), caregiver grief (n = 5), and anticipatory mourning (n = 4). These 18 terms were associated with greater than or equal to 30 different definitions across all of the various studies.

“Definitions of these terms differed drastically,” and many studies used the term AG without defining it.

Nineteen studies used multiple terms within a single article, and the terms were “used interchangeably, with the same definition applied,” the researchers report.

For example, one study defined AG as “the process associated with grieving the eventual loss of a family member in advance of their inevitable death,” while another defined AG as “a series of losses based on a loved one’s progression of cognitive and physical decline.”

On the basis of this analysis, the researchers chose the term “pre-death grief,” which encompasses IRG and AG.

Dr. Singer explained that IRG is “present-oriented” and involves the “longing and yearning for the family member to be as they were before the illness.” AG is “future oriented” and is defined as “family members’ grief experience while the person with the life-limiting illness is alive but that is focused on feared or anticipated losses that will occur after the person’s death.”

The study was intended “to advance the field and provide the knowledge and definitions in order to create and test an evidence-based intervention,” Dr. Singer said.

He pointed to interventions (for example: behavioral activation, meaning-centered grief therapy) that could be tested to reduce pre-death grief or specific interventions that focus on addressing IRG or AG. “For example, cognitive behavior therapy might be used to challenge worry about life without the person, which would be classified as AG.”

Dr. Singer feels it is “vital” to reduce pre-death grief, insofar as numerous studies have shown that high rates of pre-death grief “result in higher rates of prolonged grief disorder.”
 

‘Paradoxical reality’

Francesca Falzarano, PhD, a postdoctoral associate in medicine, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, called the article a “timely piece drawing much-needed attention to an all-too-often overlooked experience lived by those affected by terminal illnesses.”

Dr. Falzarano, who was not involved in the review, said that “from her own experience” as both a caregiver and behavioral scientist conducting research in this area, the concept of pre-death grief is a paradoxical reality – “how do we grieve someone we haven’t lost yet?”

The experience of pre-death grief is “quite distinct from grief after bereavement” because there is no end date. Rather, the person “cycles back and forth between preparing themselves for an impending death while also attending to whatever is happening in the current moment.” It’s also “unique in that both patients and caregivers individually and collectively grieve losses over the course of the illness,” she noted.

“We as researchers absolutely need to focus our attention on achieving consensus on an appropriate definition for pre-death grief that adequately encompasses its complexity and multidimensionality,” she said.

The authors and Dr. Falzarano report no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Osteopathic Medical Board of California has revoked a psychiatrist’s license because it found that he sexually assaulted two patients after giving them ketamine and that he had an affair with the sister of another patient.

In its decision, the board stated that the psychiatrist, Cuyler Burns Goodwin, DO, committed gross negligence, violated ethical standards, departed from the standard of care, and was guilty of sexual misconduct.

“Even if one were to believe respondent’s denial of sexual assaults on Patient B and Patient C, his overall course of conduct in committing multiple other ethical violations and violations of the Medical Practice Act in connection with Patient A’s Sister, Patient B, and Patient C; his attitude toward and lack of insight into his offenses; and his lack of candor at hearing demonstrate that revocation of respondent’s license is required for protection of the public,” the board wrote in its March 8 order.

The board seeks to recover almost $65,000 in costs for the investigation, including for legal fees and expert testimony. The psychiatrist is not currently facing any criminal charges.
 

Family-run business

Dr. Goodwin received his medical license in 2013 and opened Sequoia Mind Health, a practice in Santa Rosa, Calif., soon after completing his residency at the University of California San Francisco, according to the board.

The allegations leading to the revocation of his license occurred at the Sequoia Mind Health practice, a family-run business that employed Dr. Goodwin’s mother as the office manager, his wife as the sole registered nurse, and his sister who worked reception for a time. Dr. Goodwin closed the practice in October 2019.

Until 2020, he worked as an emergency services psychiatrist for Sonoma County Behavioral Health. Other positions included stints at John George Psychiatric Pavilion in San Leandro, at Mendocino County Jail from 2018 to 2021, and at Lake County Jail from 2020 to 2021.

Since closing his practice, he also worked as a psychiatrist for Redwood Quality Management Company in Ukiah, Calif.

The board notified Dr. Goodwin in November 2020 that it was opening an investigation into his conduct.
 

Affair with patient’s sister

Patient A came to Dr. Goodwin in 2017 as an uninsured, homebound, 24-year-old with schizophrenia. He had not received previous mental health treatment and was entirely dependent on his family because of the severity of his symptoms.

Dr. Goodwin agreed to make home visits to provide medication management and psychotherapy and was paid in cash by the patient’s sister, who was a point of contact for the family.

The sister and Dr. Goodwin developed a friendship and, after commiserating about their troubled marriages, began a sexual relationship in 2018 and decided they would divorce their spouses and marry each other.

However, in November 2018, the sister became pregnant and, at her request, Dr. Goodwin prescribed misoprostol to induce an abortion. The affair and the abortion were later discovered by the sister’s family, who agreed to not file a complaint with the medical board in exchange for Dr. Goodwin’s agreeing to cease communications with the sister.

Nevertheless, the two continued the affair and in February 2019 the patient’s father and mother each separately complained to the medical board. The sister also sent a letter to the board urging against disciplinary action – but later acknowledged that the letter was prepared by Dr. Goodwin.

The family removed Patient A from Dr. Goodwin’s care in 2019. The sister’s relationship with Patient A and her family was damaged; she subsequently divorced her husband and moved out of state. She later told the board she regretted the relationship and knew it was wrong.

When Dr. Goodwin was initially interviewed in 2019 by the medical board, he refused to discuss the relationship or the misoprostol prescription. Then, at a later hearing, he said he did not see anything wrong with the relationship and did not believe it affected the care of Patient A.

The medical board’s expert witness said Dr. Goodwin’s behavior “showed he either had no knowledge of ethical boundaries or chose to ignore them, showing poor judgment and ‘cluelessness’ about the potential adverse effects of having a sexual relationship with Sister, which had the significant potential to compromise Patient A’s treatment.”
 

Sexual assault

Patient B came to Dr. Goodwin in 2017 to help taper her anxiety and depression medications. She informed him she had experienced multiple sexual assaults. He helped her taper off the drugs within a month and then hired her to work part-time at the practice’s reception desk.

After her symptoms worsened again after a traumatic event, Dr. Goodwin recommended the use of ketamine. Patient B received five ketamine treatments in a month with only Dr. Goodwin present in the room.

During one of those treatments he asked her questions about her sex life.  Another night in the office he asked her to have a glass of wine with him and then allegedly sexually assaulted her.

Patient B soon quit the job via text, telling him his behavior was inappropriate. She told Dr. Goodwin she would not say anything about the assault but asked for a letter of recommendation for another job. Dr. Goodwin texted back that she was “100% right,” and he would give her a great recommendation, which he later did.

A year later, in 2019, Pamela Albro, PhD, a psychologist who provided therapy at Sequoia Mind Health, contacted Patient B to ask why she quit.

When Patient B told her about the assault, the therapist asked to share her name with Patient C, who had a similar experience. Patient B agreed and then submitted a police report and a complaint to the medical board in March 2019.

Dr. Goodwin denied Patient B’s allegations and “offered evasive and non-credible testimony” about Patient B’s text messages, the board said.
 

Another patient-employee

Patient C attended Dr. Goodwin’s clinic in May 2017 after a suicide attempt that required hospitalization. She told Dr. Goodwin she had experienced sexual trauma and assault in the past. Dr. Goodwin referred Patient C to Dr. Albro for therapy, managed her medications himself, and hired her to work at the clinic’s reception desk, even though she was still a patient.

Patient C worked 32 hours a week and took on other duties that included assisting in the administration of transcranial magnetic stimulation to clinic patients.

In late 2017, Dr. Goodwin recommended ketamine for Patient C and she received seven treatments from December 2017 through April 2019. There were no records of vital signs monitoring during the treatments, and Dr. Goodwin’s wife was present for only two sessions.

During the first treatment, where Patient C said she was feeling “out of it,” Dr. Goodwin allegedly sexually assaulted her.

Because of the ketamine, she told the medical board she was unable to speak or yell but said, “I screamed in my head.” After Dr. Goodwin left the room, she said she felt afraid, ashamed, and wanted to go home. Dr. Goodwin walked her to the lobby where her husband was waiting.

The patient did not tell her husband about the assault because she said she felt ashamed, and said she did not report Dr. Goodwin because it was not safe.
 

Disciplinary hearing

Patient C continued to work for Dr. Goodwin, calling it a confusing time in her life. She later learned about the affair with Patient A’s sister and about Patient B’s experience and resigned from the clinic in July 2019.

She still did not discuss the assault until early 2021 when the board contacted her again. She confided to her primary care physician, who noted that her PTSD symptoms had worsened.

Dr. Goodwin said in the disciplinary hearing that hiring Patient B and Patient C was “boundary crossing,” but he denied allegations of asking inappropriate questions or of sexual assault. The board, however, characterized the testimony of Patient B and Patient C as credible.

All of Dr. Goodwin’s other employers said at his disciplinary hearing that they believed he was a good psychiatrist and that they had never seen any unprofessional behavior.

The revocation of Dr. Goodwin’s license will be effective as of April 7. Dr. Goodwin’s attorney, Marvin H. Firestone, MD, JD, told this news organization he had “no comment” on the medical board’s decision or about his client.

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

The Osteopathic Medical Board of California has revoked a psychiatrist’s license because it found that he sexually assaulted two patients after giving them ketamine and that he had an affair with the sister of another patient.

In its decision, the board stated that the psychiatrist, Cuyler Burns Goodwin, DO, committed gross negligence, violated ethical standards, departed from the standard of care, and was guilty of sexual misconduct.

“Even if one were to believe respondent’s denial of sexual assaults on Patient B and Patient C, his overall course of conduct in committing multiple other ethical violations and violations of the Medical Practice Act in connection with Patient A’s Sister, Patient B, and Patient C; his attitude toward and lack of insight into his offenses; and his lack of candor at hearing demonstrate that revocation of respondent’s license is required for protection of the public,” the board wrote in its March 8 order.

The board seeks to recover almost $65,000 in costs for the investigation, including for legal fees and expert testimony. The psychiatrist is not currently facing any criminal charges.
 

Family-run business

Dr. Goodwin received his medical license in 2013 and opened Sequoia Mind Health, a practice in Santa Rosa, Calif., soon after completing his residency at the University of California San Francisco, according to the board.

The allegations leading to the revocation of his license occurred at the Sequoia Mind Health practice, a family-run business that employed Dr. Goodwin’s mother as the office manager, his wife as the sole registered nurse, and his sister who worked reception for a time. Dr. Goodwin closed the practice in October 2019.

Until 2020, he worked as an emergency services psychiatrist for Sonoma County Behavioral Health. Other positions included stints at John George Psychiatric Pavilion in San Leandro, at Mendocino County Jail from 2018 to 2021, and at Lake County Jail from 2020 to 2021.

Since closing his practice, he also worked as a psychiatrist for Redwood Quality Management Company in Ukiah, Calif.

The board notified Dr. Goodwin in November 2020 that it was opening an investigation into his conduct.
 

Affair with patient’s sister

Patient A came to Dr. Goodwin in 2017 as an uninsured, homebound, 24-year-old with schizophrenia. He had not received previous mental health treatment and was entirely dependent on his family because of the severity of his symptoms.

Dr. Goodwin agreed to make home visits to provide medication management and psychotherapy and was paid in cash by the patient’s sister, who was a point of contact for the family.

The sister and Dr. Goodwin developed a friendship and, after commiserating about their troubled marriages, began a sexual relationship in 2018 and decided they would divorce their spouses and marry each other.

However, in November 2018, the sister became pregnant and, at her request, Dr. Goodwin prescribed misoprostol to induce an abortion. The affair and the abortion were later discovered by the sister’s family, who agreed to not file a complaint with the medical board in exchange for Dr. Goodwin’s agreeing to cease communications with the sister.

Nevertheless, the two continued the affair and in February 2019 the patient’s father and mother each separately complained to the medical board. The sister also sent a letter to the board urging against disciplinary action – but later acknowledged that the letter was prepared by Dr. Goodwin.

The family removed Patient A from Dr. Goodwin’s care in 2019. The sister’s relationship with Patient A and her family was damaged; she subsequently divorced her husband and moved out of state. She later told the board she regretted the relationship and knew it was wrong.

When Dr. Goodwin was initially interviewed in 2019 by the medical board, he refused to discuss the relationship or the misoprostol prescription. Then, at a later hearing, he said he did not see anything wrong with the relationship and did not believe it affected the care of Patient A.

The medical board’s expert witness said Dr. Goodwin’s behavior “showed he either had no knowledge of ethical boundaries or chose to ignore them, showing poor judgment and ‘cluelessness’ about the potential adverse effects of having a sexual relationship with Sister, which had the significant potential to compromise Patient A’s treatment.”
 

Sexual assault

Patient B came to Dr. Goodwin in 2017 to help taper her anxiety and depression medications. She informed him she had experienced multiple sexual assaults. He helped her taper off the drugs within a month and then hired her to work part-time at the practice’s reception desk.

After her symptoms worsened again after a traumatic event, Dr. Goodwin recommended the use of ketamine. Patient B received five ketamine treatments in a month with only Dr. Goodwin present in the room.

During one of those treatments he asked her questions about her sex life.  Another night in the office he asked her to have a glass of wine with him and then allegedly sexually assaulted her.

Patient B soon quit the job via text, telling him his behavior was inappropriate. She told Dr. Goodwin she would not say anything about the assault but asked for a letter of recommendation for another job. Dr. Goodwin texted back that she was “100% right,” and he would give her a great recommendation, which he later did.

A year later, in 2019, Pamela Albro, PhD, a psychologist who provided therapy at Sequoia Mind Health, contacted Patient B to ask why she quit.

When Patient B told her about the assault, the therapist asked to share her name with Patient C, who had a similar experience. Patient B agreed and then submitted a police report and a complaint to the medical board in March 2019.

Dr. Goodwin denied Patient B’s allegations and “offered evasive and non-credible testimony” about Patient B’s text messages, the board said.
 

Another patient-employee

Patient C attended Dr. Goodwin’s clinic in May 2017 after a suicide attempt that required hospitalization. She told Dr. Goodwin she had experienced sexual trauma and assault in the past. Dr. Goodwin referred Patient C to Dr. Albro for therapy, managed her medications himself, and hired her to work at the clinic’s reception desk, even though she was still a patient.

Patient C worked 32 hours a week and took on other duties that included assisting in the administration of transcranial magnetic stimulation to clinic patients.

In late 2017, Dr. Goodwin recommended ketamine for Patient C and she received seven treatments from December 2017 through April 2019. There were no records of vital signs monitoring during the treatments, and Dr. Goodwin’s wife was present for only two sessions.

During the first treatment, where Patient C said she was feeling “out of it,” Dr. Goodwin allegedly sexually assaulted her.

Because of the ketamine, she told the medical board she was unable to speak or yell but said, “I screamed in my head.” After Dr. Goodwin left the room, she said she felt afraid, ashamed, and wanted to go home. Dr. Goodwin walked her to the lobby where her husband was waiting.

The patient did not tell her husband about the assault because she said she felt ashamed, and said she did not report Dr. Goodwin because it was not safe.
 

Disciplinary hearing

Patient C continued to work for Dr. Goodwin, calling it a confusing time in her life. She later learned about the affair with Patient A’s sister and about Patient B’s experience and resigned from the clinic in July 2019.

She still did not discuss the assault until early 2021 when the board contacted her again. She confided to her primary care physician, who noted that her PTSD symptoms had worsened.

Dr. Goodwin said in the disciplinary hearing that hiring Patient B and Patient C was “boundary crossing,” but he denied allegations of asking inappropriate questions or of sexual assault. The board, however, characterized the testimony of Patient B and Patient C as credible.

All of Dr. Goodwin’s other employers said at his disciplinary hearing that they believed he was a good psychiatrist and that they had never seen any unprofessional behavior.

The revocation of Dr. Goodwin’s license will be effective as of April 7. Dr. Goodwin’s attorney, Marvin H. Firestone, MD, JD, told this news organization he had “no comment” on the medical board’s decision or about his client.

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

The Osteopathic Medical Board of California has revoked a psychiatrist’s license because it found that he sexually assaulted two patients after giving them ketamine and that he had an affair with the sister of another patient.

In its decision, the board stated that the psychiatrist, Cuyler Burns Goodwin, DO, committed gross negligence, violated ethical standards, departed from the standard of care, and was guilty of sexual misconduct.

“Even if one were to believe respondent’s denial of sexual assaults on Patient B and Patient C, his overall course of conduct in committing multiple other ethical violations and violations of the Medical Practice Act in connection with Patient A’s Sister, Patient B, and Patient C; his attitude toward and lack of insight into his offenses; and his lack of candor at hearing demonstrate that revocation of respondent’s license is required for protection of the public,” the board wrote in its March 8 order.

The board seeks to recover almost $65,000 in costs for the investigation, including for legal fees and expert testimony. The psychiatrist is not currently facing any criminal charges.
 

Family-run business

Dr. Goodwin received his medical license in 2013 and opened Sequoia Mind Health, a practice in Santa Rosa, Calif., soon after completing his residency at the University of California San Francisco, according to the board.

The allegations leading to the revocation of his license occurred at the Sequoia Mind Health practice, a family-run business that employed Dr. Goodwin’s mother as the office manager, his wife as the sole registered nurse, and his sister who worked reception for a time. Dr. Goodwin closed the practice in October 2019.

Until 2020, he worked as an emergency services psychiatrist for Sonoma County Behavioral Health. Other positions included stints at John George Psychiatric Pavilion in San Leandro, at Mendocino County Jail from 2018 to 2021, and at Lake County Jail from 2020 to 2021.

Since closing his practice, he also worked as a psychiatrist for Redwood Quality Management Company in Ukiah, Calif.

The board notified Dr. Goodwin in November 2020 that it was opening an investigation into his conduct.
 

Affair with patient’s sister

Patient A came to Dr. Goodwin in 2017 as an uninsured, homebound, 24-year-old with schizophrenia. He had not received previous mental health treatment and was entirely dependent on his family because of the severity of his symptoms.

Dr. Goodwin agreed to make home visits to provide medication management and psychotherapy and was paid in cash by the patient’s sister, who was a point of contact for the family.

The sister and Dr. Goodwin developed a friendship and, after commiserating about their troubled marriages, began a sexual relationship in 2018 and decided they would divorce their spouses and marry each other.

However, in November 2018, the sister became pregnant and, at her request, Dr. Goodwin prescribed misoprostol to induce an abortion. The affair and the abortion were later discovered by the sister’s family, who agreed to not file a complaint with the medical board in exchange for Dr. Goodwin’s agreeing to cease communications with the sister.

Nevertheless, the two continued the affair and in February 2019 the patient’s father and mother each separately complained to the medical board. The sister also sent a letter to the board urging against disciplinary action – but later acknowledged that the letter was prepared by Dr. Goodwin.

The family removed Patient A from Dr. Goodwin’s care in 2019. The sister’s relationship with Patient A and her family was damaged; she subsequently divorced her husband and moved out of state. She later told the board she regretted the relationship and knew it was wrong.

When Dr. Goodwin was initially interviewed in 2019 by the medical board, he refused to discuss the relationship or the misoprostol prescription. Then, at a later hearing, he said he did not see anything wrong with the relationship and did not believe it affected the care of Patient A.

The medical board’s expert witness said Dr. Goodwin’s behavior “showed he either had no knowledge of ethical boundaries or chose to ignore them, showing poor judgment and ‘cluelessness’ about the potential adverse effects of having a sexual relationship with Sister, which had the significant potential to compromise Patient A’s treatment.”
 

Sexual assault

Patient B came to Dr. Goodwin in 2017 to help taper her anxiety and depression medications. She informed him she had experienced multiple sexual assaults. He helped her taper off the drugs within a month and then hired her to work part-time at the practice’s reception desk.

After her symptoms worsened again after a traumatic event, Dr. Goodwin recommended the use of ketamine. Patient B received five ketamine treatments in a month with only Dr. Goodwin present in the room.

During one of those treatments he asked her questions about her sex life.  Another night in the office he asked her to have a glass of wine with him and then allegedly sexually assaulted her.

Patient B soon quit the job via text, telling him his behavior was inappropriate. She told Dr. Goodwin she would not say anything about the assault but asked for a letter of recommendation for another job. Dr. Goodwin texted back that she was “100% right,” and he would give her a great recommendation, which he later did.

A year later, in 2019, Pamela Albro, PhD, a psychologist who provided therapy at Sequoia Mind Health, contacted Patient B to ask why she quit.

When Patient B told her about the assault, the therapist asked to share her name with Patient C, who had a similar experience. Patient B agreed and then submitted a police report and a complaint to the medical board in March 2019.

Dr. Goodwin denied Patient B’s allegations and “offered evasive and non-credible testimony” about Patient B’s text messages, the board said.
 

Another patient-employee

Patient C attended Dr. Goodwin’s clinic in May 2017 after a suicide attempt that required hospitalization. She told Dr. Goodwin she had experienced sexual trauma and assault in the past. Dr. Goodwin referred Patient C to Dr. Albro for therapy, managed her medications himself, and hired her to work at the clinic’s reception desk, even though she was still a patient.

Patient C worked 32 hours a week and took on other duties that included assisting in the administration of transcranial magnetic stimulation to clinic patients.

In late 2017, Dr. Goodwin recommended ketamine for Patient C and she received seven treatments from December 2017 through April 2019. There were no records of vital signs monitoring during the treatments, and Dr. Goodwin’s wife was present for only two sessions.

During the first treatment, where Patient C said she was feeling “out of it,” Dr. Goodwin allegedly sexually assaulted her.

Because of the ketamine, she told the medical board she was unable to speak or yell but said, “I screamed in my head.” After Dr. Goodwin left the room, she said she felt afraid, ashamed, and wanted to go home. Dr. Goodwin walked her to the lobby where her husband was waiting.

The patient did not tell her husband about the assault because she said she felt ashamed, and said she did not report Dr. Goodwin because it was not safe.
 

Disciplinary hearing

Patient C continued to work for Dr. Goodwin, calling it a confusing time in her life. She later learned about the affair with Patient A’s sister and about Patient B’s experience and resigned from the clinic in July 2019.

She still did not discuss the assault until early 2021 when the board contacted her again. She confided to her primary care physician, who noted that her PTSD symptoms had worsened.

Dr. Goodwin said in the disciplinary hearing that hiring Patient B and Patient C was “boundary crossing,” but he denied allegations of asking inappropriate questions or of sexual assault. The board, however, characterized the testimony of Patient B and Patient C as credible.

All of Dr. Goodwin’s other employers said at his disciplinary hearing that they believed he was a good psychiatrist and that they had never seen any unprofessional behavior.

The revocation of Dr. Goodwin’s license will be effective as of April 7. Dr. Goodwin’s attorney, Marvin H. Firestone, MD, JD, told this news organization he had “no comment” on the medical board’s decision or about his client.

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

Outcomes for patients with bacteremic Streptococcus pneumoniae were significantly worse than those for patients with Legionnaires disease (LD), based on data from 106 individuals.

Reported cases of LD in the United States have increased in recent decades, but they are likely under-reported, wrote Sima Salahie, MD, of Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, and Central Michigan University College of Medicine, Grosse Pointe Woods, and colleagues.

Clinical presentations may be similar for both conditions, but different antimicrobial therapies are needed; therefore, identifying distinguishing factors can promote better management of hospitalized patients, they reported.

In a retrospective case companion study published in the American Journal of the Medical Sciences, the researchers reviewed data from 51 adults with LD and 55 with bacteremic S. pneumoniae pneumonia (SP) who were hospitalized at a single center between 2013 and 2018. Diagnoses were confirmed by laboratory and radiology results. In addition, data were collected on clinical features including body mass index, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, pulse, respiratory rate, and temperature.

Overall, patients with SP were significantly more likely than those with LD to require mechanical ventilation (P = .04), intensive care unit stay (P = .004), and to die (P = .002). Patients with SP also had higher rates of septic shock compared to LD patients, although this difference fell short of statistical significance (49.1% vs. 30.4%; P = .06).

In a multivariate analysis, male sex, diarrhea, higher body mass index, hyponatremia, and lower Charleston Weighted Index of Comorbidity (CWIC) score were significant independent predictors of LD, with odds ratios of 21.6, 4.5, 1.13, 5.6, and 0.61, respectively.

The incidence of LD peaked in summer, while the incidence of SP peaked in the winter, the researchers noted. “Seasonality is a variable that has not always been included in previous scoring systems but should be considered in future modeling,” they said.

“Noteworthy is that LD represented almost as many cases as documented bacteremic pneumococcal pneumonia,” the researchers wrote in their discussion. “This occurred at a time when there was no outbreak of L. pneumophila in our community, and as these were all community acquired, there was no evidence of a nosocomial outbreak in our institution,” they said.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the possible underestimation of SP because of the requirement for positive blood cultures and the lack of other methods of diagnosing SP, the researchers noted.

“However, the data suggest variables to distinguish LD from SP,” they said. “Establishing reliable clinical and laboratory parameters embedded in a simple diagnostic score that can accurately identify patients with LD may be helpful in aiding physicians’ early diagnosis in distinguishing LD from SP but will need to be defined.”

The study received no outside funding. The researchers disclosed no financial conflicts.

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

Outcomes for patients with bacteremic Streptococcus pneumoniae were significantly worse than those for patients with Legionnaires disease (LD), based on data from 106 individuals.

Reported cases of LD in the United States have increased in recent decades, but they are likely under-reported, wrote Sima Salahie, MD, of Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, and Central Michigan University College of Medicine, Grosse Pointe Woods, and colleagues.

Clinical presentations may be similar for both conditions, but different antimicrobial therapies are needed; therefore, identifying distinguishing factors can promote better management of hospitalized patients, they reported.

In a retrospective case companion study published in the American Journal of the Medical Sciences, the researchers reviewed data from 51 adults with LD and 55 with bacteremic S. pneumoniae pneumonia (SP) who were hospitalized at a single center between 2013 and 2018. Diagnoses were confirmed by laboratory and radiology results. In addition, data were collected on clinical features including body mass index, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, pulse, respiratory rate, and temperature.

Overall, patients with SP were significantly more likely than those with LD to require mechanical ventilation (P = .04), intensive care unit stay (P = .004), and to die (P = .002). Patients with SP also had higher rates of septic shock compared to LD patients, although this difference fell short of statistical significance (49.1% vs. 30.4%; P = .06).

In a multivariate analysis, male sex, diarrhea, higher body mass index, hyponatremia, and lower Charleston Weighted Index of Comorbidity (CWIC) score were significant independent predictors of LD, with odds ratios of 21.6, 4.5, 1.13, 5.6, and 0.61, respectively.

The incidence of LD peaked in summer, while the incidence of SP peaked in the winter, the researchers noted. “Seasonality is a variable that has not always been included in previous scoring systems but should be considered in future modeling,” they said.

“Noteworthy is that LD represented almost as many cases as documented bacteremic pneumococcal pneumonia,” the researchers wrote in their discussion. “This occurred at a time when there was no outbreak of L. pneumophila in our community, and as these were all community acquired, there was no evidence of a nosocomial outbreak in our institution,” they said.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the possible underestimation of SP because of the requirement for positive blood cultures and the lack of other methods of diagnosing SP, the researchers noted.

“However, the data suggest variables to distinguish LD from SP,” they said. “Establishing reliable clinical and laboratory parameters embedded in a simple diagnostic score that can accurately identify patients with LD may be helpful in aiding physicians’ early diagnosis in distinguishing LD from SP but will need to be defined.”

The study received no outside funding. The researchers disclosed no financial conflicts.

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

Outcomes for patients with bacteremic Streptococcus pneumoniae were significantly worse than those for patients with Legionnaires disease (LD), based on data from 106 individuals.

Reported cases of LD in the United States have increased in recent decades, but they are likely under-reported, wrote Sima Salahie, MD, of Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, and Central Michigan University College of Medicine, Grosse Pointe Woods, and colleagues.

Clinical presentations may be similar for both conditions, but different antimicrobial therapies are needed; therefore, identifying distinguishing factors can promote better management of hospitalized patients, they reported.

In a retrospective case companion study published in the American Journal of the Medical Sciences, the researchers reviewed data from 51 adults with LD and 55 with bacteremic S. pneumoniae pneumonia (SP) who were hospitalized at a single center between 2013 and 2018. Diagnoses were confirmed by laboratory and radiology results. In addition, data were collected on clinical features including body mass index, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, pulse, respiratory rate, and temperature.

Overall, patients with SP were significantly more likely than those with LD to require mechanical ventilation (P = .04), intensive care unit stay (P = .004), and to die (P = .002). Patients with SP also had higher rates of septic shock compared to LD patients, although this difference fell short of statistical significance (49.1% vs. 30.4%; P = .06).

In a multivariate analysis, male sex, diarrhea, higher body mass index, hyponatremia, and lower Charleston Weighted Index of Comorbidity (CWIC) score were significant independent predictors of LD, with odds ratios of 21.6, 4.5, 1.13, 5.6, and 0.61, respectively.

The incidence of LD peaked in summer, while the incidence of SP peaked in the winter, the researchers noted. “Seasonality is a variable that has not always been included in previous scoring systems but should be considered in future modeling,” they said.

“Noteworthy is that LD represented almost as many cases as documented bacteremic pneumococcal pneumonia,” the researchers wrote in their discussion. “This occurred at a time when there was no outbreak of L. pneumophila in our community, and as these were all community acquired, there was no evidence of a nosocomial outbreak in our institution,” they said.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the possible underestimation of SP because of the requirement for positive blood cultures and the lack of other methods of diagnosing SP, the researchers noted.

“However, the data suggest variables to distinguish LD from SP,” they said. “Establishing reliable clinical and laboratory parameters embedded in a simple diagnostic score that can accurately identify patients with LD may be helpful in aiding physicians’ early diagnosis in distinguishing LD from SP but will need to be defined.”

The study received no outside funding. The researchers disclosed no financial conflicts.

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

Seroprevalence surveys suggest that, from the beginning of the pandemic to 2022, more than a third of the global population had been infected with SARS-CoV-2. As large numbers of people continue to be infected, the efficacy and duration of natural immunity, in terms of protection against SARS-CoV-2 reinfections and severe disease, are of crucial significance. The virus’s epidemiologic trajectory will be influenced by the trends in vaccine-induced and hybrid immunity.

Omicron’s immune evasion

Cases of SARS-CoV-2 reinfection are increasing around the world. According to data from the U.K. Health Security Agency, 650,000 people in England have been infected twice, and most of them were reinfected in the past 2 months. Before mid-November 2021, reinfections accounted for about 1% of reported cases, but the rate has now increased to around 10%. The reinfection risk was 16 times higher between mid-December 2021 and early January 2022. Experts believe that this spike in reinfections is related to the spread of Omicron, which overtook Delta as the dominant variant. Nonetheless, other aspects should also be considered.

Omicron’s greater propensity to spread is not unrelated to its ability to evade the body’s immune defenses. This aspect was raised in a letter recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine. The authors reported that the effectiveness of previous infection in preventing reinfection against the Alpha, Beta, and Delta variants was around 90%, but it was only 56% against Omicron.
 

Natural immunity

Natural immunity showed roughly similar effectiveness regarding protection against reinfection across different SARS-CoV-2 variants, with the exception of the Omicron variant. The risk of hospitalization and death was also reduced in SARS-CoV-2 reinfections versus primary infections. Observational studies indicate that natural immunity may offer equal or greater protection against SARS-CoV-2 infections, compared with immunization with two doses of an mRNA vaccine, but the data are not fully consistent.

Natural immunity seems to be relatively long-lasting. Data from Denmark and Austria show no evidence that protection against reinfections wanes after 6 months. Some investigations indicate that protection against reinfection is lowest 4-5 months after initial infection and increases thereafter, a finding that might hypothetically be explained by persistent viral shedding; that is, misclassification of prolonged SARS-CoV-2 infections as reinfections. While no comparison was made against information pertaining to unvaccinated, not previously-infected individuals, preliminary data from Israel suggest that protection from reinfection can decrease from 6 to more than 12 months after the first SARS-CoV-2 infection. Taken together, epidemiologic studies indicate that protection against reinfections by natural immunity lasts over 1 year with only moderate, if any, decline over this period. Among older individuals, immunocompromised patients, and those with certain comorbidities or exposure risk (for example, health care workers), rates of reinfection may be higher. It is plausible that reinfection risk may be a function of exposure risk.

There is accumulating evidence that reinfections may be significantly less severe than primary infections with SARS-CoV-2. Reduced clinical severity of SARS-CoV-2 reinfections naturally also makes sense from a biologic point of view, inasmuch as a previously primed immune system should be better prepared for a rechallenge with this virus.
 

Vaccine-induced immunity

The short-term (<4 months) efficacy of mRNA vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 is high and varies from 94.1% (Moderna) to 95% (BioNTech/Pfizer). This has been confirmed by randomized controlled trials and was subsequently confirmed in effectiveness studies in real-world settings. Waning efficacy was observed with respect to protection against SARS-CoV-2 infections (for example, only approximately 20% after about half a year in Qatar), whereas protection against severe disease was either sustained or showed only a moderate decline.

In individuals who received two doses of the BioNTech/Pfizer vaccine at least 5 months earlier, an additional vaccine dose, a so-called booster, significantly lowered mortality and severe illness. These findings suggest that the booster restored and probably exceeded the initial short-term efficacy of the initial vaccination.

Data are still emerging regarding the efficacy of boosters against the Omicron variants. Preliminary data suggest a far lower ability to restore protection from infection and vaccination. However, fatalities and hospitalizations remain low.
 

Natural immunity vs. vaccine-induced immunity

Comparisons of natural immunity with vaccine-induced immunity are complicated by a series of biases and by combinations of biases – for example, the biases of comparisons between infected and uninfected, plus the biases of comparisons between vaccinated and nonvaccinated, with strong potential selection biases and confounding. Of particular note, the proportion of people previously infected and/or vaccinated may influence estimates of effectiveness. Regarding this point, one study compared unvaccinated patients with a prior SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccinated individuals followed up from a week after the second vaccine dose onward versus a group of unvaccinated, not previously infected individuals. The findings showed that, compared with unvaccinated, not previously infected individuals, the natural immunity group and the vaccinated group had similar protection of 94.8% and 92.8% against infection, of 94.1% and 94.2% against hospitalization, and of 96.4% and 94.4% against severe illness, respectively.

Hybrid immunity

The combination of a previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and a respective vaccination is called hybrid immunity. This combination seems to confer the greatest protection against SARS-CoV-2 infections, but several knowledge gaps remain regarding this issue.

Data from Israel showed that, when the time since the last immunity-conferring event (either primary infection or vaccination) was the same, the rates of SARS-CoV-2 infections were similar in the following groups: individuals who had a previous infection and no vaccination, individuals who had an infection and were then vaccinated with a single dose after at least 3 months, and individuals who were vaccinated (two doses) and then infected. Severe disease was relatively rare overall.

Data on the efficacy of hybrid immunity point in the direction of hybrid immunity being superior, as compared with either vaccine-induced (without a booster) immunity or natural immunity alone. Timing and mode of vaccination of previously infected individuals to achieve optimal hybrid immunity are central questions that remain to be addressed in future studies.

Given that vaccination rates are continuously increasing and that, by the beginning of 2022, perhaps half or more of the global population had already been infected with SARS-CoV-2, with the vast majority of this group not being officially detected, it would appear logical that future infection waves, even with highly transmissible variants of SARS-CoV-2, may be limited with respect to their maximum potential health burden. The advent of Omicron suggests that massive surges can occur even in populations with extremely high rates of previous vaccination and variable rates of prior infections. However, even then, the accompanying burden of hospitalizations and deaths is far less than what was seen in 2020 and 2021. One may argue that the pandemic has already transitioned to the endemic phase and that Omicron is an endemic wave occurring in the setting of already widespread population immunity.

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

Seroprevalence surveys suggest that, from the beginning of the pandemic to 2022, more than a third of the global population had been infected with SARS-CoV-2. As large numbers of people continue to be infected, the efficacy and duration of natural immunity, in terms of protection against SARS-CoV-2 reinfections and severe disease, are of crucial significance. The virus’s epidemiologic trajectory will be influenced by the trends in vaccine-induced and hybrid immunity.

Omicron’s immune evasion

Cases of SARS-CoV-2 reinfection are increasing around the world. According to data from the U.K. Health Security Agency, 650,000 people in England have been infected twice, and most of them were reinfected in the past 2 months. Before mid-November 2021, reinfections accounted for about 1% of reported cases, but the rate has now increased to around 10%. The reinfection risk was 16 times higher between mid-December 2021 and early January 2022. Experts believe that this spike in reinfections is related to the spread of Omicron, which overtook Delta as the dominant variant. Nonetheless, other aspects should also be considered.

Omicron’s greater propensity to spread is not unrelated to its ability to evade the body’s immune defenses. This aspect was raised in a letter recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine. The authors reported that the effectiveness of previous infection in preventing reinfection against the Alpha, Beta, and Delta variants was around 90%, but it was only 56% against Omicron.
 

Natural immunity

Natural immunity showed roughly similar effectiveness regarding protection against reinfection across different SARS-CoV-2 variants, with the exception of the Omicron variant. The risk of hospitalization and death was also reduced in SARS-CoV-2 reinfections versus primary infections. Observational studies indicate that natural immunity may offer equal or greater protection against SARS-CoV-2 infections, compared with immunization with two doses of an mRNA vaccine, but the data are not fully consistent.

Natural immunity seems to be relatively long-lasting. Data from Denmark and Austria show no evidence that protection against reinfections wanes after 6 months. Some investigations indicate that protection against reinfection is lowest 4-5 months after initial infection and increases thereafter, a finding that might hypothetically be explained by persistent viral shedding; that is, misclassification of prolonged SARS-CoV-2 infections as reinfections. While no comparison was made against information pertaining to unvaccinated, not previously-infected individuals, preliminary data from Israel suggest that protection from reinfection can decrease from 6 to more than 12 months after the first SARS-CoV-2 infection. Taken together, epidemiologic studies indicate that protection against reinfections by natural immunity lasts over 1 year with only moderate, if any, decline over this period. Among older individuals, immunocompromised patients, and those with certain comorbidities or exposure risk (for example, health care workers), rates of reinfection may be higher. It is plausible that reinfection risk may be a function of exposure risk.

There is accumulating evidence that reinfections may be significantly less severe than primary infections with SARS-CoV-2. Reduced clinical severity of SARS-CoV-2 reinfections naturally also makes sense from a biologic point of view, inasmuch as a previously primed immune system should be better prepared for a rechallenge with this virus.
 

Vaccine-induced immunity

The short-term (<4 months) efficacy of mRNA vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 is high and varies from 94.1% (Moderna) to 95% (BioNTech/Pfizer). This has been confirmed by randomized controlled trials and was subsequently confirmed in effectiveness studies in real-world settings. Waning efficacy was observed with respect to protection against SARS-CoV-2 infections (for example, only approximately 20% after about half a year in Qatar), whereas protection against severe disease was either sustained or showed only a moderate decline.

In individuals who received two doses of the BioNTech/Pfizer vaccine at least 5 months earlier, an additional vaccine dose, a so-called booster, significantly lowered mortality and severe illness. These findings suggest that the booster restored and probably exceeded the initial short-term efficacy of the initial vaccination.

Data are still emerging regarding the efficacy of boosters against the Omicron variants. Preliminary data suggest a far lower ability to restore protection from infection and vaccination. However, fatalities and hospitalizations remain low.
 

Natural immunity vs. vaccine-induced immunity

Comparisons of natural immunity with vaccine-induced immunity are complicated by a series of biases and by combinations of biases – for example, the biases of comparisons between infected and uninfected, plus the biases of comparisons between vaccinated and nonvaccinated, with strong potential selection biases and confounding. Of particular note, the proportion of people previously infected and/or vaccinated may influence estimates of effectiveness. Regarding this point, one study compared unvaccinated patients with a prior SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccinated individuals followed up from a week after the second vaccine dose onward versus a group of unvaccinated, not previously infected individuals. The findings showed that, compared with unvaccinated, not previously infected individuals, the natural immunity group and the vaccinated group had similar protection of 94.8% and 92.8% against infection, of 94.1% and 94.2% against hospitalization, and of 96.4% and 94.4% against severe illness, respectively.

Hybrid immunity

The combination of a previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and a respective vaccination is called hybrid immunity. This combination seems to confer the greatest protection against SARS-CoV-2 infections, but several knowledge gaps remain regarding this issue.

Data from Israel showed that, when the time since the last immunity-conferring event (either primary infection or vaccination) was the same, the rates of SARS-CoV-2 infections were similar in the following groups: individuals who had a previous infection and no vaccination, individuals who had an infection and were then vaccinated with a single dose after at least 3 months, and individuals who were vaccinated (two doses) and then infected. Severe disease was relatively rare overall.

Data on the efficacy of hybrid immunity point in the direction of hybrid immunity being superior, as compared with either vaccine-induced (without a booster) immunity or natural immunity alone. Timing and mode of vaccination of previously infected individuals to achieve optimal hybrid immunity are central questions that remain to be addressed in future studies.

Given that vaccination rates are continuously increasing and that, by the beginning of 2022, perhaps half or more of the global population had already been infected with SARS-CoV-2, with the vast majority of this group not being officially detected, it would appear logical that future infection waves, even with highly transmissible variants of SARS-CoV-2, may be limited with respect to their maximum potential health burden. The advent of Omicron suggests that massive surges can occur even in populations with extremely high rates of previous vaccination and variable rates of prior infections. However, even then, the accompanying burden of hospitalizations and deaths is far less than what was seen in 2020 and 2021. One may argue that the pandemic has already transitioned to the endemic phase and that Omicron is an endemic wave occurring in the setting of already widespread population immunity.

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

Seroprevalence surveys suggest that, from the beginning of the pandemic to 2022, more than a third of the global population had been infected with SARS-CoV-2. As large numbers of people continue to be infected, the efficacy and duration of natural immunity, in terms of protection against SARS-CoV-2 reinfections and severe disease, are of crucial significance. The virus’s epidemiologic trajectory will be influenced by the trends in vaccine-induced and hybrid immunity.

Omicron’s immune evasion

Cases of SARS-CoV-2 reinfection are increasing around the world. According to data from the U.K. Health Security Agency, 650,000 people in England have been infected twice, and most of them were reinfected in the past 2 months. Before mid-November 2021, reinfections accounted for about 1% of reported cases, but the rate has now increased to around 10%. The reinfection risk was 16 times higher between mid-December 2021 and early January 2022. Experts believe that this spike in reinfections is related to the spread of Omicron, which overtook Delta as the dominant variant. Nonetheless, other aspects should also be considered.

Omicron’s greater propensity to spread is not unrelated to its ability to evade the body’s immune defenses. This aspect was raised in a letter recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine. The authors reported that the effectiveness of previous infection in preventing reinfection against the Alpha, Beta, and Delta variants was around 90%, but it was only 56% against Omicron.
 

Natural immunity

Natural immunity showed roughly similar effectiveness regarding protection against reinfection across different SARS-CoV-2 variants, with the exception of the Omicron variant. The risk of hospitalization and death was also reduced in SARS-CoV-2 reinfections versus primary infections. Observational studies indicate that natural immunity may offer equal or greater protection against SARS-CoV-2 infections, compared with immunization with two doses of an mRNA vaccine, but the data are not fully consistent.

Natural immunity seems to be relatively long-lasting. Data from Denmark and Austria show no evidence that protection against reinfections wanes after 6 months. Some investigations indicate that protection against reinfection is lowest 4-5 months after initial infection and increases thereafter, a finding that might hypothetically be explained by persistent viral shedding; that is, misclassification of prolonged SARS-CoV-2 infections as reinfections. While no comparison was made against information pertaining to unvaccinated, not previously-infected individuals, preliminary data from Israel suggest that protection from reinfection can decrease from 6 to more than 12 months after the first SARS-CoV-2 infection. Taken together, epidemiologic studies indicate that protection against reinfections by natural immunity lasts over 1 year with only moderate, if any, decline over this period. Among older individuals, immunocompromised patients, and those with certain comorbidities or exposure risk (for example, health care workers), rates of reinfection may be higher. It is plausible that reinfection risk may be a function of exposure risk.

There is accumulating evidence that reinfections may be significantly less severe than primary infections with SARS-CoV-2. Reduced clinical severity of SARS-CoV-2 reinfections naturally also makes sense from a biologic point of view, inasmuch as a previously primed immune system should be better prepared for a rechallenge with this virus.
 

Vaccine-induced immunity

The short-term (<4 months) efficacy of mRNA vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 is high and varies from 94.1% (Moderna) to 95% (BioNTech/Pfizer). This has been confirmed by randomized controlled trials and was subsequently confirmed in effectiveness studies in real-world settings. Waning efficacy was observed with respect to protection against SARS-CoV-2 infections (for example, only approximately 20% after about half a year in Qatar), whereas protection against severe disease was either sustained or showed only a moderate decline.

In individuals who received two doses of the BioNTech/Pfizer vaccine at least 5 months earlier, an additional vaccine dose, a so-called booster, significantly lowered mortality and severe illness. These findings suggest that the booster restored and probably exceeded the initial short-term efficacy of the initial vaccination.

Data are still emerging regarding the efficacy of boosters against the Omicron variants. Preliminary data suggest a far lower ability to restore protection from infection and vaccination. However, fatalities and hospitalizations remain low.
 

Natural immunity vs. vaccine-induced immunity

Comparisons of natural immunity with vaccine-induced immunity are complicated by a series of biases and by combinations of biases – for example, the biases of comparisons between infected and uninfected, plus the biases of comparisons between vaccinated and nonvaccinated, with strong potential selection biases and confounding. Of particular note, the proportion of people previously infected and/or vaccinated may influence estimates of effectiveness. Regarding this point, one study compared unvaccinated patients with a prior SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccinated individuals followed up from a week after the second vaccine dose onward versus a group of unvaccinated, not previously infected individuals. The findings showed that, compared with unvaccinated, not previously infected individuals, the natural immunity group and the vaccinated group had similar protection of 94.8% and 92.8% against infection, of 94.1% and 94.2% against hospitalization, and of 96.4% and 94.4% against severe illness, respectively.

Hybrid immunity

The combination of a previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and a respective vaccination is called hybrid immunity. This combination seems to confer the greatest protection against SARS-CoV-2 infections, but several knowledge gaps remain regarding this issue.

Data from Israel showed that, when the time since the last immunity-conferring event (either primary infection or vaccination) was the same, the rates of SARS-CoV-2 infections were similar in the following groups: individuals who had a previous infection and no vaccination, individuals who had an infection and were then vaccinated with a single dose after at least 3 months, and individuals who were vaccinated (two doses) and then infected. Severe disease was relatively rare overall.

Data on the efficacy of hybrid immunity point in the direction of hybrid immunity being superior, as compared with either vaccine-induced (without a booster) immunity or natural immunity alone. Timing and mode of vaccination of previously infected individuals to achieve optimal hybrid immunity are central questions that remain to be addressed in future studies.

Given that vaccination rates are continuously increasing and that, by the beginning of 2022, perhaps half or more of the global population had already been infected with SARS-CoV-2, with the vast majority of this group not being officially detected, it would appear logical that future infection waves, even with highly transmissible variants of SARS-CoV-2, may be limited with respect to their maximum potential health burden. The advent of Omicron suggests that massive surges can occur even in populations with extremely high rates of previous vaccination and variable rates of prior infections. However, even then, the accompanying burden of hospitalizations and deaths is far less than what was seen in 2020 and 2021. One may argue that the pandemic has already transitioned to the endemic phase and that Omicron is an endemic wave occurring in the setting of already widespread population immunity.

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

COVID-19 infection appears to significantly raise the risk for diabetes by about 40% at 1 year, indicate new data from a very large Veterans Administration population.

“If patients have a prior history of COVID-19, that’s a risk factor for diabetes and they should certainly be screened for diabetes,” study coauthor Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, a nephrologist and chief of research and development at VA St. Louis Health Care, told this news organization.

“It’s still premature to make guidelines. I think we have to process the data landscape to understand what this all really means, but it’s really, really clear that all these roads are pointing in one direction, that COVID-19 increases the risk of diabetes up to a year later. The risk is small but not negligible,” he said.

The database includes over 8 million people and 180,000 with a prior COVID-19 diagnosis. Significantly increased diabetes risks compared to those not infected ranging from 31% to more than double were found in an analysis of subgroups based on diabetes risk score, body mass index, age, race, prediabetes status, and deprivation level, even after adjustment for confounding factors.

There was a gradient of diabetes risk by COVID-19 severity – i.e., whether patients had not been hospitalized, had been hospitalized, or stayed in intensive care – but a significant excess diabetes burden was seen even among those with “mild” COVID-19. The diabetes risk was also elevated compared to both contemporary and historical controls.

The study was published March 21 in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology, by Yan Xie, MPH, also of VA St Louis Health Care, along with Dr. Al-Aly.

The data align with those from another study just published from a nationwide German primary care database. That study was smaller and of shorter duration than the new VA study but consistent, said Dr. Al-Aly, a clinical epidemiologist at Washington University, St. Louis.

Millions more with new diabetes as late manifestation of COVID-19

“Millions of people in the U.S. have had COVID-19, so this is going to translate to literally millions more people with new-onset diabetes. Better to identify them early so they can be adequately treated,” Dr. Al-Aly said in an interview.

“The long-term implications of SARS-CoV-2 infection increasing diabetes risk are profound,” Venkat Narayan, MD, and Lisa R. Staimez, PhD, both of the Rollins School of Public Health and Emory Global Diabetes Research Center at Emory University, Atlanta, said in an accompanying editorial.

“With large and growing numbers of people worldwide infected with SARS-CoV-2 (434,154,739 cumulative cases by Feb. 28, 2022), any COVID-19-related increases in diabetes incidence could lead to unprecedented cases of diabetes worldwide – wreaking havoc on already over-stretched and under-resourced clinical and public health systems globally, with devastating tolls in terms of deaths and suffering,” they added.

Medscape Medical News contributor Eric Topol MD, of Scripps Research Institute, La Jolla, Calif., agrees. He said these new data “are most profound. The researchers found a 40% increase in diabetes that wasn’t present at 1 month after COVID-19 but at 1 year, it was. Some kind of late manifestation is happening here.”  

Dr. Al-Aly told this news organization that the mechanisms for the association are unknown and likely to be heterogeneous. Among the people who already had risk factors for type 2 diabetes, such as obesity or metabolic syndrome, SARS-CoV-2 could simply accelerate that process and “put them over the edge” to overt diabetes.

However, for those without diabetes risk factors, “COVID-19 with all the inflammation it provokes in the body could be leading to de novo disease.” (Diabetes status was ascertained by ICD-10 codes and only about 0.70% of the total were recorded as type 1 diabetes. But, since autoantibody testing wasn’t routinely conducted, it’s unknown how many of the cases may have been type 1 misclassified as type 2, Dr. Al-Aly acknowledged.)
 

Diabetes risk significantly increased after COVID-19 in all analyses

The analysis included 181,280 patients in the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs health care database with a COVID-19 diagnosis who survived for at least 30 days afterward during March 2020 through Sept. 30, 2021, with 4,118,441 contemporary controls without COVID-19 seen during 2019, and a historical control group of 4,286,911 people seen at the VA in 2017. Average follow-up was about a year.

Compared with the contemporary controls, the COVID-19 group had an excess diabetes burden of 13.46 per 1,000 person-years with a hazard ratio of 1.40. They had an increased 12.35 per 1,000 person-year risk for incident use of glucose-lowering medications, with a hazard ratio of 1.85. Similar results were seen with the historical controls.

Subgroup analyses showed an increased risk for diabetes following COVID-19 infection by age (≤ 65 years and > 65 years), race (White and Black), sex (male and female), BMI categories (> 18.5 to ≤ 25 kg/m², > 25 to ≤ 30 kg/m², and > 30 kg/m²), and area deprivation index quartiles. The increased risk was also seen across diabetes risk score quartiles.

Notably, COVID-19 significantly elevated the diabetes risk by 59% even for the subgroup with BMI between 18 and 25 kg/m², and by 38% among those with the lowest diabetes risk score quartile.

The COVID-19 population included 162,096 who were not hospitalized, 15,078 hospitalized, and 4,106 admitted to intensive care. Here, the hazard ratios for diabetes compared to the contemporary controls were 1.25, 2.73, and 3.76, respectively, all significant.  

Dr. Al-Aly said that his group is now further analyzing the VA data for other outcomes including cardiovascular disease and kidney disease, as well as the now well-documented long COVID symptoms including fatigue, pain, and neurocognitive dysfunction.

They’re also investigating the impact of the COVID-19 vaccine to see whether the risks are mitigated in the case of breakthrough infections: “We’re doing a broad systematic assessment. The next paper will be more comprehensive.”

Dr. Narayan and Dr. Staimez wrote: “The potential connection between COVID-19 and diabetes highlights that infectious diseases (eg, SARS-CoV-2) and chronic diseases (eg, diabetes) cannot be viewed in siloes. When we emerge out of the pandemic, the much-neglected non-communicable diseases, such as type 2 diabetes, will continue their relentless trajectory, possibly in an accelerated manner, as the leading burdens of global health.” 

Dr. Al-Aly declared support from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs for the submitted work. He has received consultation fees from Gilead Sciences and funding (unrelated to this work) from Tonix Pharmaceuticals. He is a member of the board of directors for Veterans Research and Education Foundation of Saint Louis, associate editor for the Journal of the American Society of Nephrology, and a member of multiple editorial boards. Dr. Narayan and Dr. Staimez have received support from the National Institutes of Health.

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

COVID-19 infection appears to significantly raise the risk for diabetes by about 40% at 1 year, indicate new data from a very large Veterans Administration population.

“If patients have a prior history of COVID-19, that’s a risk factor for diabetes and they should certainly be screened for diabetes,” study coauthor Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, a nephrologist and chief of research and development at VA St. Louis Health Care, told this news organization.

“It’s still premature to make guidelines. I think we have to process the data landscape to understand what this all really means, but it’s really, really clear that all these roads are pointing in one direction, that COVID-19 increases the risk of diabetes up to a year later. The risk is small but not negligible,” he said.

The database includes over 8 million people and 180,000 with a prior COVID-19 diagnosis. Significantly increased diabetes risks compared to those not infected ranging from 31% to more than double were found in an analysis of subgroups based on diabetes risk score, body mass index, age, race, prediabetes status, and deprivation level, even after adjustment for confounding factors.

There was a gradient of diabetes risk by COVID-19 severity – i.e., whether patients had not been hospitalized, had been hospitalized, or stayed in intensive care – but a significant excess diabetes burden was seen even among those with “mild” COVID-19. The diabetes risk was also elevated compared to both contemporary and historical controls.

The study was published March 21 in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology, by Yan Xie, MPH, also of VA St Louis Health Care, along with Dr. Al-Aly.

The data align with those from another study just published from a nationwide German primary care database. That study was smaller and of shorter duration than the new VA study but consistent, said Dr. Al-Aly, a clinical epidemiologist at Washington University, St. Louis.

Millions more with new diabetes as late manifestation of COVID-19

“Millions of people in the U.S. have had COVID-19, so this is going to translate to literally millions more people with new-onset diabetes. Better to identify them early so they can be adequately treated,” Dr. Al-Aly said in an interview.

“The long-term implications of SARS-CoV-2 infection increasing diabetes risk are profound,” Venkat Narayan, MD, and Lisa R. Staimez, PhD, both of the Rollins School of Public Health and Emory Global Diabetes Research Center at Emory University, Atlanta, said in an accompanying editorial.

“With large and growing numbers of people worldwide infected with SARS-CoV-2 (434,154,739 cumulative cases by Feb. 28, 2022), any COVID-19-related increases in diabetes incidence could lead to unprecedented cases of diabetes worldwide – wreaking havoc on already over-stretched and under-resourced clinical and public health systems globally, with devastating tolls in terms of deaths and suffering,” they added.

Medscape Medical News contributor Eric Topol MD, of Scripps Research Institute, La Jolla, Calif., agrees. He said these new data “are most profound. The researchers found a 40% increase in diabetes that wasn’t present at 1 month after COVID-19 but at 1 year, it was. Some kind of late manifestation is happening here.”  

Dr. Al-Aly told this news organization that the mechanisms for the association are unknown and likely to be heterogeneous. Among the people who already had risk factors for type 2 diabetes, such as obesity or metabolic syndrome, SARS-CoV-2 could simply accelerate that process and “put them over the edge” to overt diabetes.

However, for those without diabetes risk factors, “COVID-19 with all the inflammation it provokes in the body could be leading to de novo disease.” (Diabetes status was ascertained by ICD-10 codes and only about 0.70% of the total were recorded as type 1 diabetes. But, since autoantibody testing wasn’t routinely conducted, it’s unknown how many of the cases may have been type 1 misclassified as type 2, Dr. Al-Aly acknowledged.)
 

Diabetes risk significantly increased after COVID-19 in all analyses

The analysis included 181,280 patients in the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs health care database with a COVID-19 diagnosis who survived for at least 30 days afterward during March 2020 through Sept. 30, 2021, with 4,118,441 contemporary controls without COVID-19 seen during 2019, and a historical control group of 4,286,911 people seen at the VA in 2017. Average follow-up was about a year.

Compared with the contemporary controls, the COVID-19 group had an excess diabetes burden of 13.46 per 1,000 person-years with a hazard ratio of 1.40. They had an increased 12.35 per 1,000 person-year risk for incident use of glucose-lowering medications, with a hazard ratio of 1.85. Similar results were seen with the historical controls.

Subgroup analyses showed an increased risk for diabetes following COVID-19 infection by age (≤ 65 years and > 65 years), race (White and Black), sex (male and female), BMI categories (> 18.5 to ≤ 25 kg/m², > 25 to ≤ 30 kg/m², and > 30 kg/m²), and area deprivation index quartiles. The increased risk was also seen across diabetes risk score quartiles.

Notably, COVID-19 significantly elevated the diabetes risk by 59% even for the subgroup with BMI between 18 and 25 kg/m², and by 38% among those with the lowest diabetes risk score quartile.

The COVID-19 population included 162,096 who were not hospitalized, 15,078 hospitalized, and 4,106 admitted to intensive care. Here, the hazard ratios for diabetes compared to the contemporary controls were 1.25, 2.73, and 3.76, respectively, all significant.  

Dr. Al-Aly said that his group is now further analyzing the VA data for other outcomes including cardiovascular disease and kidney disease, as well as the now well-documented long COVID symptoms including fatigue, pain, and neurocognitive dysfunction.

They’re also investigating the impact of the COVID-19 vaccine to see whether the risks are mitigated in the case of breakthrough infections: “We’re doing a broad systematic assessment. The next paper will be more comprehensive.”

Dr. Narayan and Dr. Staimez wrote: “The potential connection between COVID-19 and diabetes highlights that infectious diseases (eg, SARS-CoV-2) and chronic diseases (eg, diabetes) cannot be viewed in siloes. When we emerge out of the pandemic, the much-neglected non-communicable diseases, such as type 2 diabetes, will continue their relentless trajectory, possibly in an accelerated manner, as the leading burdens of global health.” 

Dr. Al-Aly declared support from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs for the submitted work. He has received consultation fees from Gilead Sciences and funding (unrelated to this work) from Tonix Pharmaceuticals. He is a member of the board of directors for Veterans Research and Education Foundation of Saint Louis, associate editor for the Journal of the American Society of Nephrology, and a member of multiple editorial boards. Dr. Narayan and Dr. Staimez have received support from the National Institutes of Health.

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

COVID-19 infection appears to significantly raise the risk for diabetes by about 40% at 1 year, indicate new data from a very large Veterans Administration population.

“If patients have a prior history of COVID-19, that’s a risk factor for diabetes and they should certainly be screened for diabetes,” study coauthor Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, a nephrologist and chief of research and development at VA St. Louis Health Care, told this news organization.

“It’s still premature to make guidelines. I think we have to process the data landscape to understand what this all really means, but it’s really, really clear that all these roads are pointing in one direction, that COVID-19 increases the risk of diabetes up to a year later. The risk is small but not negligible,” he said.

The database includes over 8 million people and 180,000 with a prior COVID-19 diagnosis. Significantly increased diabetes risks compared to those not infected ranging from 31% to more than double were found in an analysis of subgroups based on diabetes risk score, body mass index, age, race, prediabetes status, and deprivation level, even after adjustment for confounding factors.

There was a gradient of diabetes risk by COVID-19 severity – i.e., whether patients had not been hospitalized, had been hospitalized, or stayed in intensive care – but a significant excess diabetes burden was seen even among those with “mild” COVID-19. The diabetes risk was also elevated compared to both contemporary and historical controls.

The study was published March 21 in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology, by Yan Xie, MPH, also of VA St Louis Health Care, along with Dr. Al-Aly.

The data align with those from another study just published from a nationwide German primary care database. That study was smaller and of shorter duration than the new VA study but consistent, said Dr. Al-Aly, a clinical epidemiologist at Washington University, St. Louis.

Millions more with new diabetes as late manifestation of COVID-19

“Millions of people in the U.S. have had COVID-19, so this is going to translate to literally millions more people with new-onset diabetes. Better to identify them early so they can be adequately treated,” Dr. Al-Aly said in an interview.

“The long-term implications of SARS-CoV-2 infection increasing diabetes risk are profound,” Venkat Narayan, MD, and Lisa R. Staimez, PhD, both of the Rollins School of Public Health and Emory Global Diabetes Research Center at Emory University, Atlanta, said in an accompanying editorial.

“With large and growing numbers of people worldwide infected with SARS-CoV-2 (434,154,739 cumulative cases by Feb. 28, 2022), any COVID-19-related increases in diabetes incidence could lead to unprecedented cases of diabetes worldwide – wreaking havoc on already over-stretched and under-resourced clinical and public health systems globally, with devastating tolls in terms of deaths and suffering,” they added.

Medscape Medical News contributor Eric Topol MD, of Scripps Research Institute, La Jolla, Calif., agrees. He said these new data “are most profound. The researchers found a 40% increase in diabetes that wasn’t present at 1 month after COVID-19 but at 1 year, it was. Some kind of late manifestation is happening here.”  

Dr. Al-Aly told this news organization that the mechanisms for the association are unknown and likely to be heterogeneous. Among the people who already had risk factors for type 2 diabetes, such as obesity or metabolic syndrome, SARS-CoV-2 could simply accelerate that process and “put them over the edge” to overt diabetes.

However, for those without diabetes risk factors, “COVID-19 with all the inflammation it provokes in the body could be leading to de novo disease.” (Diabetes status was ascertained by ICD-10 codes and only about 0.70% of the total were recorded as type 1 diabetes. But, since autoantibody testing wasn’t routinely conducted, it’s unknown how many of the cases may have been type 1 misclassified as type 2, Dr. Al-Aly acknowledged.)
 

Diabetes risk significantly increased after COVID-19 in all analyses

The analysis included 181,280 patients in the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs health care database with a COVID-19 diagnosis who survived for at least 30 days afterward during March 2020 through Sept. 30, 2021, with 4,118,441 contemporary controls without COVID-19 seen during 2019, and a historical control group of 4,286,911 people seen at the VA in 2017. Average follow-up was about a year.

Compared with the contemporary controls, the COVID-19 group had an excess diabetes burden of 13.46 per 1,000 person-years with a hazard ratio of 1.40. They had an increased 12.35 per 1,000 person-year risk for incident use of glucose-lowering medications, with a hazard ratio of 1.85. Similar results were seen with the historical controls.

Subgroup analyses showed an increased risk for diabetes following COVID-19 infection by age (≤ 65 years and > 65 years), race (White and Black), sex (male and female), BMI categories (> 18.5 to ≤ 25 kg/m², > 25 to ≤ 30 kg/m², and > 30 kg/m²), and area deprivation index quartiles. The increased risk was also seen across diabetes risk score quartiles.

Notably, COVID-19 significantly elevated the diabetes risk by 59% even for the subgroup with BMI between 18 and 25 kg/m², and by 38% among those with the lowest diabetes risk score quartile.

The COVID-19 population included 162,096 who were not hospitalized, 15,078 hospitalized, and 4,106 admitted to intensive care. Here, the hazard ratios for diabetes compared to the contemporary controls were 1.25, 2.73, and 3.76, respectively, all significant.  

Dr. Al-Aly said that his group is now further analyzing the VA data for other outcomes including cardiovascular disease and kidney disease, as well as the now well-documented long COVID symptoms including fatigue, pain, and neurocognitive dysfunction.

They’re also investigating the impact of the COVID-19 vaccine to see whether the risks are mitigated in the case of breakthrough infections: “We’re doing a broad systematic assessment. The next paper will be more comprehensive.”

Dr. Narayan and Dr. Staimez wrote: “The potential connection between COVID-19 and diabetes highlights that infectious diseases (eg, SARS-CoV-2) and chronic diseases (eg, diabetes) cannot be viewed in siloes. When we emerge out of the pandemic, the much-neglected non-communicable diseases, such as type 2 diabetes, will continue their relentless trajectory, possibly in an accelerated manner, as the leading burdens of global health.” 

Dr. Al-Aly declared support from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs for the submitted work. He has received consultation fees from Gilead Sciences and funding (unrelated to this work) from Tonix Pharmaceuticals. He is a member of the board of directors for Veterans Research and Education Foundation of Saint Louis, associate editor for the Journal of the American Society of Nephrology, and a member of multiple editorial boards. Dr. Narayan and Dr. Staimez have received support from the National Institutes of Health.

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