News

Researchers have developed a quick and easy scoring system to predict which hospitalized COVID-19 patients are more at risk for stroke.

“The system is simple. You can calculate the points in 5 seconds and then predict the chances the patient will have a stroke,” Alexander E. Merkler, MD, assistant professor of neurology at Weill Cornell Medical College/NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital, and lead author of a study of the system, told this news organization.

The new system will allow clinicians to stratify patients and lead to closer monitoring of those at highest risk for stroke, said Dr. Merkler.

The study was presented during the International Stroke Conference, presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.

Some, but not all, studies suggest COVID-19 increases the risk of stroke and worsens stroke outcomes, and the association isn’t clear, investigators note.

Researchers used the American Heart Association Get With the Guidelines COVID-19 cardiovascular disease registry for this analysis. They evaluated 21,420 adult patients (mean age 61 years, 54% men), who were hospitalized with COVID-19 at 122 centers from March 2020 to March 2021.

Investigators tapped into the vast amounts of data in this registry on different variables, including demographics, comorbidities, and lab values.

The outcome was a cerebrovascular event, defined as any ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke, transient ischemic attack (TIA), or cerebral vein thrombosis. Of the total hospitalized COVID-19 population, 312 (1.5%) had a cerebrovascular event.

Researchers first used standard statistical models to determine which risk factors are most associated with the development of stroke. They identified six such factors:

• history of stroke
• no fever at the time of hospital admission
• no history of pulmonary disease
• high white blood cell count
• history of hypertension
• high systolic blood pressure at the time of hospital admission

That the list of risk factors included absence of fever and no history of pulmonary disease was somewhat surprising, said Dr. Merkler, but there may be possible explanations, he added.

A high fever is an inflammatory response, and perhaps patients who aren’t responding appropriately “could be sicker in general and have a poor immune system, and thereby be at increased risk for stroke,” said Dr. Merkler.

In the case of pulmonary disease, patients without a history who are admitted for COVID “may have an extremely high burden of COVID, or are extremely sick, and that’s why they’re at higher risk for stroke.”

The scoring system assigns points for each variable, with more points conferring a higher risk of stroke. For example, someone who has 0-1 points has 0.2% risk of having a stroke, and someone with 4-6 points has 2% to 3% risk, said Dr. Merkler.

“So, we’re talking about a 10- to 15-fold increased risk of having a stroke with 4 to 6 versus 0 to 1 variables.”

The accuracy of the risk stratification score (C-statistic of 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.60-0.72) is “fairly good or modestly good,” said Dr. Merkler.

A patient with a score of 5 or 6 may need more vigilant monitoring to make sure symptoms are caught early and therapies such as thrombolytics and thrombectomy are readily available, he added.

Researchers also used a sophisticated machine-learning approach where a computer takes all the variables and identifies the best algorithm to predict stroke.

“The machine-learning algorithm was basically just as good as our standard model; it was almost identical,” said Dr. Merkler.

Outside of COVID, other scoring systems are used to predict stroke. For example, the ABCD2 score uses various factors to predict risk of recurrent stroke.

Philip B. Gorelick, MD, adjunct professor, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, said the results are promising, as they may lead to identifying modifiable factors to prevent stroke.

Dr. Gorelick noted that the authors identified risk factors to predict risk of stroke “after an extensive analysis of baseline factors that included an internal validation process.”

The finding that no fever and no history of pulmonary disease were included in those risk factors was “unexpected,” said Dr. Gorelick, who is also medical director of the Hauenstein Neuroscience Center in Grand Rapids, Michigan. “This may reflect the baseline timing of data collection.”

He added further validation of the results in other data sets “will be useful to determine the consistency of the predictive model and its potential value in general practice.”

Louise D. McCullough, MD, PhD, professor and chair of neurology, McGovern Medical School, The University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, said the association between stroke risk and COVID exposure “has been very unclear.”

“Some people find a very strong association between stroke and COVID, some do not,” said Dr. McCullough, who served as the chair of the ISC 2022 meeting.

This new study looking at a risk stratification model for COVID patients was “very nicely done,” she added.

“They used the American Heart Association Get With The Guidelines COVID registry, which was an amazing feat that was done very quickly by the AHA to establish COVID reporting in the Get With The Guidelines data, allowing us to really look at other factors related to stroke that are in this unique database.”

The study received funding support from the American Stroke Association. Dr. Merkler has received funding from the American Heart Association and the Leon Levy Foundation. Dr. Gorelick was not involved in the study and has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Researchers have developed a quick and easy scoring system to predict which hospitalized COVID-19 patients are more at risk for stroke.

“The system is simple. You can calculate the points in 5 seconds and then predict the chances the patient will have a stroke,” Alexander E. Merkler, MD, assistant professor of neurology at Weill Cornell Medical College/NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital, and lead author of a study of the system, told this news organization.

The new system will allow clinicians to stratify patients and lead to closer monitoring of those at highest risk for stroke, said Dr. Merkler.

The study was presented during the International Stroke Conference, presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.

Some, but not all, studies suggest COVID-19 increases the risk of stroke and worsens stroke outcomes, and the association isn’t clear, investigators note.

Researchers used the American Heart Association Get With the Guidelines COVID-19 cardiovascular disease registry for this analysis. They evaluated 21,420 adult patients (mean age 61 years, 54% men), who were hospitalized with COVID-19 at 122 centers from March 2020 to March 2021.

Investigators tapped into the vast amounts of data in this registry on different variables, including demographics, comorbidities, and lab values.

The outcome was a cerebrovascular event, defined as any ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke, transient ischemic attack (TIA), or cerebral vein thrombosis. Of the total hospitalized COVID-19 population, 312 (1.5%) had a cerebrovascular event.

Researchers first used standard statistical models to determine which risk factors are most associated with the development of stroke. They identified six such factors:

• history of stroke
• no fever at the time of hospital admission
• no history of pulmonary disease
• high white blood cell count
• history of hypertension
• high systolic blood pressure at the time of hospital admission

That the list of risk factors included absence of fever and no history of pulmonary disease was somewhat surprising, said Dr. Merkler, but there may be possible explanations, he added.

A high fever is an inflammatory response, and perhaps patients who aren’t responding appropriately “could be sicker in general and have a poor immune system, and thereby be at increased risk for stroke,” said Dr. Merkler.

In the case of pulmonary disease, patients without a history who are admitted for COVID “may have an extremely high burden of COVID, or are extremely sick, and that’s why they’re at higher risk for stroke.”

The scoring system assigns points for each variable, with more points conferring a higher risk of stroke. For example, someone who has 0-1 points has 0.2% risk of having a stroke, and someone with 4-6 points has 2% to 3% risk, said Dr. Merkler.

“So, we’re talking about a 10- to 15-fold increased risk of having a stroke with 4 to 6 versus 0 to 1 variables.”

The accuracy of the risk stratification score (C-statistic of 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.60-0.72) is “fairly good or modestly good,” said Dr. Merkler.

A patient with a score of 5 or 6 may need more vigilant monitoring to make sure symptoms are caught early and therapies such as thrombolytics and thrombectomy are readily available, he added.

Researchers also used a sophisticated machine-learning approach where a computer takes all the variables and identifies the best algorithm to predict stroke.

“The machine-learning algorithm was basically just as good as our standard model; it was almost identical,” said Dr. Merkler.

Outside of COVID, other scoring systems are used to predict stroke. For example, the ABCD2 score uses various factors to predict risk of recurrent stroke.

Philip B. Gorelick, MD, adjunct professor, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, said the results are promising, as they may lead to identifying modifiable factors to prevent stroke.

Dr. Gorelick noted that the authors identified risk factors to predict risk of stroke “after an extensive analysis of baseline factors that included an internal validation process.”

The finding that no fever and no history of pulmonary disease were included in those risk factors was “unexpected,” said Dr. Gorelick, who is also medical director of the Hauenstein Neuroscience Center in Grand Rapids, Michigan. “This may reflect the baseline timing of data collection.”

He added further validation of the results in other data sets “will be useful to determine the consistency of the predictive model and its potential value in general practice.”

Louise D. McCullough, MD, PhD, professor and chair of neurology, McGovern Medical School, The University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, said the association between stroke risk and COVID exposure “has been very unclear.”

“Some people find a very strong association between stroke and COVID, some do not,” said Dr. McCullough, who served as the chair of the ISC 2022 meeting.

This new study looking at a risk stratification model for COVID patients was “very nicely done,” she added.

“They used the American Heart Association Get With The Guidelines COVID registry, which was an amazing feat that was done very quickly by the AHA to establish COVID reporting in the Get With The Guidelines data, allowing us to really look at other factors related to stroke that are in this unique database.”

The study received funding support from the American Stroke Association. Dr. Merkler has received funding from the American Heart Association and the Leon Levy Foundation. Dr. Gorelick was not involved in the study and has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Researchers have developed a quick and easy scoring system to predict which hospitalized COVID-19 patients are more at risk for stroke.

“The system is simple. You can calculate the points in 5 seconds and then predict the chances the patient will have a stroke,” Alexander E. Merkler, MD, assistant professor of neurology at Weill Cornell Medical College/NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital, and lead author of a study of the system, told this news organization.

The new system will allow clinicians to stratify patients and lead to closer monitoring of those at highest risk for stroke, said Dr. Merkler.

The study was presented during the International Stroke Conference, presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.

Some, but not all, studies suggest COVID-19 increases the risk of stroke and worsens stroke outcomes, and the association isn’t clear, investigators note.

Researchers used the American Heart Association Get With the Guidelines COVID-19 cardiovascular disease registry for this analysis. They evaluated 21,420 adult patients (mean age 61 years, 54% men), who were hospitalized with COVID-19 at 122 centers from March 2020 to March 2021.

Investigators tapped into the vast amounts of data in this registry on different variables, including demographics, comorbidities, and lab values.

The outcome was a cerebrovascular event, defined as any ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke, transient ischemic attack (TIA), or cerebral vein thrombosis. Of the total hospitalized COVID-19 population, 312 (1.5%) had a cerebrovascular event.

Researchers first used standard statistical models to determine which risk factors are most associated with the development of stroke. They identified six such factors:

• history of stroke
• no fever at the time of hospital admission
• no history of pulmonary disease
• high white blood cell count
• history of hypertension
• high systolic blood pressure at the time of hospital admission

That the list of risk factors included absence of fever and no history of pulmonary disease was somewhat surprising, said Dr. Merkler, but there may be possible explanations, he added.

A high fever is an inflammatory response, and perhaps patients who aren’t responding appropriately “could be sicker in general and have a poor immune system, and thereby be at increased risk for stroke,” said Dr. Merkler.

In the case of pulmonary disease, patients without a history who are admitted for COVID “may have an extremely high burden of COVID, or are extremely sick, and that’s why they’re at higher risk for stroke.”

The scoring system assigns points for each variable, with more points conferring a higher risk of stroke. For example, someone who has 0-1 points has 0.2% risk of having a stroke, and someone with 4-6 points has 2% to 3% risk, said Dr. Merkler.

“So, we’re talking about a 10- to 15-fold increased risk of having a stroke with 4 to 6 versus 0 to 1 variables.”

The accuracy of the risk stratification score (C-statistic of 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.60-0.72) is “fairly good or modestly good,” said Dr. Merkler.

A patient with a score of 5 or 6 may need more vigilant monitoring to make sure symptoms are caught early and therapies such as thrombolytics and thrombectomy are readily available, he added.

Researchers also used a sophisticated machine-learning approach where a computer takes all the variables and identifies the best algorithm to predict stroke.

“The machine-learning algorithm was basically just as good as our standard model; it was almost identical,” said Dr. Merkler.

Outside of COVID, other scoring systems are used to predict stroke. For example, the ABCD2 score uses various factors to predict risk of recurrent stroke.

Philip B. Gorelick, MD, adjunct professor, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, said the results are promising, as they may lead to identifying modifiable factors to prevent stroke.

Dr. Gorelick noted that the authors identified risk factors to predict risk of stroke “after an extensive analysis of baseline factors that included an internal validation process.”

The finding that no fever and no history of pulmonary disease were included in those risk factors was “unexpected,” said Dr. Gorelick, who is also medical director of the Hauenstein Neuroscience Center in Grand Rapids, Michigan. “This may reflect the baseline timing of data collection.”

He added further validation of the results in other data sets “will be useful to determine the consistency of the predictive model and its potential value in general practice.”

Louise D. McCullough, MD, PhD, professor and chair of neurology, McGovern Medical School, The University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, said the association between stroke risk and COVID exposure “has been very unclear.”

“Some people find a very strong association between stroke and COVID, some do not,” said Dr. McCullough, who served as the chair of the ISC 2022 meeting.

This new study looking at a risk stratification model for COVID patients was “very nicely done,” she added.

“They used the American Heart Association Get With The Guidelines COVID registry, which was an amazing feat that was done very quickly by the AHA to establish COVID reporting in the Get With The Guidelines data, allowing us to really look at other factors related to stroke that are in this unique database.”

The study received funding support from the American Stroke Association. Dr. Merkler has received funding from the American Heart Association and the Leon Levy Foundation. Dr. Gorelick was not involved in the study and has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

People who have had COVID-19 have an increased risk for, and 12-month burden of, cardiovascular disease (CVD) that is substantial and spans an array of cardiovascular disorders, a deep dive into federal data suggests.

“I went into this thinking that this is most likely happening in people to start with who have a higher risk of cardiovascular disorders, smokers, people with high BMI, diabetes, but what we found is something different,” Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, said in an interview. “It’s evident in people at high risk, but it was also as clear as the sun even in people who have no cardiovascular risk whatsoever.”

Rates were increased in younger adults, never smokers, White and Black people, and males and females, he said. “So the risk confirmed by the SARS-CoV-2 virus seems to spare almost no one.”

Although cardiovascular outcomes increased with the severity of the acute infection, the excess risks and burdens were also evident in those who never required hospitalization, a group that represents the majority of people with COVID-19, observed Dr. Al-Aly, who directs the Clinical Epidemiology Center at the Veterans Affairs St. Louis Health Care System.

“This study is very important because it underscores not just the acute cardiovascular risk associated with COVID but the increased risk of chronic cardiovascular outcomes as well,” cardiologist C. Michael Gibson, MD, professor of medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview. “Given the number of patients in the U.S. who have been infected with COVID, this could represent a significant chronic burden on the health care system, particularly as health care professionals leave the profession.”

For the study, the investigators used national VA databases to build a cohort of 153,760 veterans who were alive 30 days after testing positive for COVID-19 between March 1, 2020, and January 2021. They were compared with a contemporary cohort of 5.6 million veterans with no evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection and a historical cohort of 5.8 million veterans using the system in 2017 prior to the pandemic. Median follow-up was 347, 348, and 347 days, respectively.

As reported in Nature Medicine, the risk for a major adverse cardiovascular event, a composite of myocardial infarction, stroke, and all-cause mortality, was 4% higher in people who had been infected with COVID-19 than in those who had not.

“People say 4% is small, but actually it’s really, really big if you think about it in the context of the huge number of people who have had COVID-19 in the United States, and also globally,” Dr. Al-Aly said.

Compared with the contemporary control group, people who had COVID-19 had an increased risk (hazard ratio [HR]) and burden per 1,000 people at 1 year for the following cardiovascular outcomes:

• Stroke: HR, 1.52; burden, 4.03
• Transient ischemic attack: HR, 1.49; burden, 1.84
• Dysrhythmias: HR, 1.69; burden, 19.86
• Ischemic heart disease: HR, 1.66; burden, 7.28
• Heart failure: HR, 1.72; burden, 11.61
• Nonischemic cardiomyopathy: HR, 1.62; burden 3.56
• Pulmonary embolism: HR, 2.93; burden, 5.47
• Deep vein thrombosis: HR, 2.09; burden, 4.18
• Pericarditis: HR, 1.85, burden, 0.98
• Myocarditis: HR, 5.38; burden, 0.31

Recent reports have raised concerns about an association between COVID-19 vaccines and myocarditis and pericarditis, particularly in young males. Although very few of the participants were vaccinated prior to becoming infected, as vaccines were not yet widely available, the researchers performed two analyses censoring participants at the time of the first dose of any COVID-19 vaccine and adjusting for vaccination as a time-varying covariate.

The absolute numbers of myocarditis and pericarditis were still higher than the contemporary and historical cohorts. These numbers are much larger than those reported for myocarditis after vaccines, which are generally around 40 cases per 1 million people, observed Dr. Al-Aly.

The overall results were also consistent when compared with the historical control subjects.

“What we’re seeing in our report and others is that SARS-CoV-2 can leave a sort of scar or imprint on people, and some of these conditions are likely chronic conditions,” Dr. Al-Aly said. “So you’re going to have a generation of people who will bear the scar of COVID for their lifetime and I think that requires recognition and attention, so we’re aware of the magnitude of the problem and prepared to deal with it.”

With more than 76 million COVID-19 cases in the United States, that effort will likely have to be at the federal level, similar to President Joe Biden’s recent relaunch of the “Cancer Moonshot,” he added. “We need a greater and broader recognition at the federal level to try and recognize that when you have an earthquake, you don’t just deal with the earthquake when the earth is shaking, but you also need to deal with the aftermath.”

Dr. Gibson pointed out that this was a study of predominantly males and, thus, it’s unclear if the results can be extended to females. Nevertheless, he added, “long COVID may include outcomes beyond the central nervous system and we should educate patients about the risk of late cardiovascular outcomes.”

The authors noted the largely White, male cohort may limit generalizability of the findings. Other limitations include the possibility that some people may have had COVID-19 but were not tested, the datasets lacked information on cause of death, and possible residual confounding not accounted for in the adjusted analyses.

The research was funded by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and two American Society of Nephrology and Kidney Cure fellowship awards. The authors declared no competing interests. Dr. Gibson reports having no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

People who have had COVID-19 have an increased risk for, and 12-month burden of, cardiovascular disease (CVD) that is substantial and spans an array of cardiovascular disorders, a deep dive into federal data suggests.

“I went into this thinking that this is most likely happening in people to start with who have a higher risk of cardiovascular disorders, smokers, people with high BMI, diabetes, but what we found is something different,” Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, said in an interview. “It’s evident in people at high risk, but it was also as clear as the sun even in people who have no cardiovascular risk whatsoever.”

Rates were increased in younger adults, never smokers, White and Black people, and males and females, he said. “So the risk confirmed by the SARS-CoV-2 virus seems to spare almost no one.”

Although cardiovascular outcomes increased with the severity of the acute infection, the excess risks and burdens were also evident in those who never required hospitalization, a group that represents the majority of people with COVID-19, observed Dr. Al-Aly, who directs the Clinical Epidemiology Center at the Veterans Affairs St. Louis Health Care System.

“This study is very important because it underscores not just the acute cardiovascular risk associated with COVID but the increased risk of chronic cardiovascular outcomes as well,” cardiologist C. Michael Gibson, MD, professor of medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview. “Given the number of patients in the U.S. who have been infected with COVID, this could represent a significant chronic burden on the health care system, particularly as health care professionals leave the profession.”

For the study, the investigators used national VA databases to build a cohort of 153,760 veterans who were alive 30 days after testing positive for COVID-19 between March 1, 2020, and January 2021. They were compared with a contemporary cohort of 5.6 million veterans with no evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection and a historical cohort of 5.8 million veterans using the system in 2017 prior to the pandemic. Median follow-up was 347, 348, and 347 days, respectively.

As reported in Nature Medicine, the risk for a major adverse cardiovascular event, a composite of myocardial infarction, stroke, and all-cause mortality, was 4% higher in people who had been infected with COVID-19 than in those who had not.

“People say 4% is small, but actually it’s really, really big if you think about it in the context of the huge number of people who have had COVID-19 in the United States, and also globally,” Dr. Al-Aly said.

Compared with the contemporary control group, people who had COVID-19 had an increased risk (hazard ratio [HR]) and burden per 1,000 people at 1 year for the following cardiovascular outcomes:

• Stroke: HR, 1.52; burden, 4.03
• Transient ischemic attack: HR, 1.49; burden, 1.84
• Dysrhythmias: HR, 1.69; burden, 19.86
• Ischemic heart disease: HR, 1.66; burden, 7.28
• Heart failure: HR, 1.72; burden, 11.61
• Nonischemic cardiomyopathy: HR, 1.62; burden 3.56
• Pulmonary embolism: HR, 2.93; burden, 5.47
• Deep vein thrombosis: HR, 2.09; burden, 4.18
• Pericarditis: HR, 1.85, burden, 0.98
• Myocarditis: HR, 5.38; burden, 0.31

Recent reports have raised concerns about an association between COVID-19 vaccines and myocarditis and pericarditis, particularly in young males. Although very few of the participants were vaccinated prior to becoming infected, as vaccines were not yet widely available, the researchers performed two analyses censoring participants at the time of the first dose of any COVID-19 vaccine and adjusting for vaccination as a time-varying covariate.

The absolute numbers of myocarditis and pericarditis were still higher than the contemporary and historical cohorts. These numbers are much larger than those reported for myocarditis after vaccines, which are generally around 40 cases per 1 million people, observed Dr. Al-Aly.

The overall results were also consistent when compared with the historical control subjects.

“What we’re seeing in our report and others is that SARS-CoV-2 can leave a sort of scar or imprint on people, and some of these conditions are likely chronic conditions,” Dr. Al-Aly said. “So you’re going to have a generation of people who will bear the scar of COVID for their lifetime and I think that requires recognition and attention, so we’re aware of the magnitude of the problem and prepared to deal with it.”

With more than 76 million COVID-19 cases in the United States, that effort will likely have to be at the federal level, similar to President Joe Biden’s recent relaunch of the “Cancer Moonshot,” he added. “We need a greater and broader recognition at the federal level to try and recognize that when you have an earthquake, you don’t just deal with the earthquake when the earth is shaking, but you also need to deal with the aftermath.”

Dr. Gibson pointed out that this was a study of predominantly males and, thus, it’s unclear if the results can be extended to females. Nevertheless, he added, “long COVID may include outcomes beyond the central nervous system and we should educate patients about the risk of late cardiovascular outcomes.”

The authors noted the largely White, male cohort may limit generalizability of the findings. Other limitations include the possibility that some people may have had COVID-19 but were not tested, the datasets lacked information on cause of death, and possible residual confounding not accounted for in the adjusted analyses.

The research was funded by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and two American Society of Nephrology and Kidney Cure fellowship awards. The authors declared no competing interests. Dr. Gibson reports having no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

People who have had COVID-19 have an increased risk for, and 12-month burden of, cardiovascular disease (CVD) that is substantial and spans an array of cardiovascular disorders, a deep dive into federal data suggests.

“I went into this thinking that this is most likely happening in people to start with who have a higher risk of cardiovascular disorders, smokers, people with high BMI, diabetes, but what we found is something different,” Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, said in an interview. “It’s evident in people at high risk, but it was also as clear as the sun even in people who have no cardiovascular risk whatsoever.”

Rates were increased in younger adults, never smokers, White and Black people, and males and females, he said. “So the risk confirmed by the SARS-CoV-2 virus seems to spare almost no one.”

Although cardiovascular outcomes increased with the severity of the acute infection, the excess risks and burdens were also evident in those who never required hospitalization, a group that represents the majority of people with COVID-19, observed Dr. Al-Aly, who directs the Clinical Epidemiology Center at the Veterans Affairs St. Louis Health Care System.

“This study is very important because it underscores not just the acute cardiovascular risk associated with COVID but the increased risk of chronic cardiovascular outcomes as well,” cardiologist C. Michael Gibson, MD, professor of medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview. “Given the number of patients in the U.S. who have been infected with COVID, this could represent a significant chronic burden on the health care system, particularly as health care professionals leave the profession.”

For the study, the investigators used national VA databases to build a cohort of 153,760 veterans who were alive 30 days after testing positive for COVID-19 between March 1, 2020, and January 2021. They were compared with a contemporary cohort of 5.6 million veterans with no evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection and a historical cohort of 5.8 million veterans using the system in 2017 prior to the pandemic. Median follow-up was 347, 348, and 347 days, respectively.

As reported in Nature Medicine, the risk for a major adverse cardiovascular event, a composite of myocardial infarction, stroke, and all-cause mortality, was 4% higher in people who had been infected with COVID-19 than in those who had not.

“People say 4% is small, but actually it’s really, really big if you think about it in the context of the huge number of people who have had COVID-19 in the United States, and also globally,” Dr. Al-Aly said.

Compared with the contemporary control group, people who had COVID-19 had an increased risk (hazard ratio [HR]) and burden per 1,000 people at 1 year for the following cardiovascular outcomes:

• Stroke: HR, 1.52; burden, 4.03
• Transient ischemic attack: HR, 1.49; burden, 1.84
• Dysrhythmias: HR, 1.69; burden, 19.86
• Ischemic heart disease: HR, 1.66; burden, 7.28
• Heart failure: HR, 1.72; burden, 11.61
• Nonischemic cardiomyopathy: HR, 1.62; burden 3.56
• Pulmonary embolism: HR, 2.93; burden, 5.47
• Deep vein thrombosis: HR, 2.09; burden, 4.18
• Pericarditis: HR, 1.85, burden, 0.98
• Myocarditis: HR, 5.38; burden, 0.31

Recent reports have raised concerns about an association between COVID-19 vaccines and myocarditis and pericarditis, particularly in young males. Although very few of the participants were vaccinated prior to becoming infected, as vaccines were not yet widely available, the researchers performed two analyses censoring participants at the time of the first dose of any COVID-19 vaccine and adjusting for vaccination as a time-varying covariate.

The absolute numbers of myocarditis and pericarditis were still higher than the contemporary and historical cohorts. These numbers are much larger than those reported for myocarditis after vaccines, which are generally around 40 cases per 1 million people, observed Dr. Al-Aly.

The overall results were also consistent when compared with the historical control subjects.

“What we’re seeing in our report and others is that SARS-CoV-2 can leave a sort of scar or imprint on people, and some of these conditions are likely chronic conditions,” Dr. Al-Aly said. “So you’re going to have a generation of people who will bear the scar of COVID for their lifetime and I think that requires recognition and attention, so we’re aware of the magnitude of the problem and prepared to deal with it.”

With more than 76 million COVID-19 cases in the United States, that effort will likely have to be at the federal level, similar to President Joe Biden’s recent relaunch of the “Cancer Moonshot,” he added. “We need a greater and broader recognition at the federal level to try and recognize that when you have an earthquake, you don’t just deal with the earthquake when the earth is shaking, but you also need to deal with the aftermath.”

Dr. Gibson pointed out that this was a study of predominantly males and, thus, it’s unclear if the results can be extended to females. Nevertheless, he added, “long COVID may include outcomes beyond the central nervous system and we should educate patients about the risk of late cardiovascular outcomes.”

The authors noted the largely White, male cohort may limit generalizability of the findings. Other limitations include the possibility that some people may have had COVID-19 but were not tested, the datasets lacked information on cause of death, and possible residual confounding not accounted for in the adjusted analyses.

The research was funded by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and two American Society of Nephrology and Kidney Cure fellowship awards. The authors declared no competing interests. Dr. Gibson reports having no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Hundreds of Native American tribes have tentatively settled in what one of the lead attorneys describes as “an epic deal”: The top 3 pharmaceutical distributors in the US and Johnson & Johnson have agreed to pay $665 million for deceptive marketing practices and overdistribution of opioids. Native Americans were among those hardest hit by the opioid epidemic. Between 2006 and 2014, Native Americans were nearly 50% more likely than non-Natives to die of an opioid overdose. In 2014, they ranked number 1 for death by opioid overdose.

Overprescribing was rampant. In some areas, such as southwestern Virginia, eastern Kentucky, and Alabama, prescriptions were 5 to 6 times higher than the national average. The overprescribing was largely due to massive and aggressive billion-dollar marketing campaigns, which misrepresented the safety of opioid medications. Purdue Pharma, for instance, trained sales representatives to claim that the risk of addiction was “less than 1 percent.” In an interview with Smithsonian Magazine, Caleb Alexander, MD, codirector of Johns Hopkins’ Center for Drug Safety and Effectiveness, said, “When I was in residency training, we were taught that one needn’t worry about the addictive potential of opioids if a patient had true pain.” He said it was no accident that physicians were cultivated to overestimate the effectiveness for chronic, noncancer pain while underestimating the risks.

Native Americans were not only in the target group for prescriptions, but also apparently singularly targeted. “We were preyed upon,” said Chickasaw Nation Governor Bill Anoatubby in the Washington Post. “It was unconscionable.” A Washington Post analysis found that, between 2006 and 2014, opioid distributors shipped an average of 36 pills per person in the US. States in the so-called opioid belt (mostly Southern states), received an average of 60 to 66 pills per person. The distributors shipped 57 pills per person to Oklahoma, home to nearly 322,000 Native Americans. (The opioid death rate for Native Americans in Oklahoma from 2006 to 2014 was more than triple the nationwide rate for non-Natives.) In South Dakota as recently as 2015, enough opioids were prescribed to medicate every adult around-the-clock for 19 consecutive days. Native Americans comprise 9% of South Dakota’s population; however, almost 30% of the patients are being treated for opioid use disorder.

In the settlement, which is a first for tribes, McKesson, Cardinal Health, and AmerisourceBergen would pay $515 million over 7 years. Johnson & Johnson would contribute $150 million in 2 years to the federally recognized tribes. “This settlement is a real turning point in history,” said Lloyd Miller, one of the attorneys representing one-third of the litigating tribes.

But the money is still small compensation for ravaging millions of lives. “Flooding the Native community with Western medicine—sedating a population rather than seeking to understand its needs and challenges—is not an acceptable means of handling its trauma,” the Lakota People’s Law Project says in an article on its website. Thus, the money dispersal will be overseen by a panel of tribal health experts, to go toward programs that aid drug users and their communities.

The funds will be managed in a way that will consider the long-term damage, Native American leaders vow. Children, for instance, have not been exempt from the sequelae of the overprescribing. Foster care systems are “overrun” with children of addicted parents, the Law Project says, and the children are placed in homes outside the tribe. “In the long run, this has the potential to curtail tribal membership, break down familial lines, and degrade cultural values.”

Dealing with the problem has drained tribal resources—doubly strained by the COVID-19 epidemic. Chairman Douglas Yankton, of the Spirit Lake Nation in North Dakota, said in a statement, “The dollars that will flow to Tribes under this initial settlement will help fund crucial, on-reservation, culturally appropriate opioid treatment services.”

However, Chairman Kristopher Peters, of the Squaxin Island Tribe in Washington State, told the Washington Post, “There is no amount of money that’s going to solve the generational issues that have been created from this. Our hope is that we can use these funds to help revitalize our culture and help heal our people.”

Johnson & Johnson says it no longer sells prescription opioids in the US

Hundreds of Native American tribes have tentatively settled in what one of the lead attorneys describes as “an epic deal”: The top 3 pharmaceutical distributors in the US and Johnson & Johnson have agreed to pay $665 million for deceptive marketing practices and overdistribution of opioids. Native Americans were among those hardest hit by the opioid epidemic. Between 2006 and 2014, Native Americans were nearly 50% more likely than non-Natives to die of an opioid overdose. In 2014, they ranked number 1 for death by opioid overdose.

Overprescribing was rampant. In some areas, such as southwestern Virginia, eastern Kentucky, and Alabama, prescriptions were 5 to 6 times higher than the national average. The overprescribing was largely due to massive and aggressive billion-dollar marketing campaigns, which misrepresented the safety of opioid medications. Purdue Pharma, for instance, trained sales representatives to claim that the risk of addiction was “less than 1 percent.” In an interview with Smithsonian Magazine, Caleb Alexander, MD, codirector of Johns Hopkins’ Center for Drug Safety and Effectiveness, said, “When I was in residency training, we were taught that one needn’t worry about the addictive potential of opioids if a patient had true pain.” He said it was no accident that physicians were cultivated to overestimate the effectiveness for chronic, noncancer pain while underestimating the risks.

Native Americans were not only in the target group for prescriptions, but also apparently singularly targeted. “We were preyed upon,” said Chickasaw Nation Governor Bill Anoatubby in the Washington Post. “It was unconscionable.” A Washington Post analysis found that, between 2006 and 2014, opioid distributors shipped an average of 36 pills per person in the US. States in the so-called opioid belt (mostly Southern states), received an average of 60 to 66 pills per person. The distributors shipped 57 pills per person to Oklahoma, home to nearly 322,000 Native Americans. (The opioid death rate for Native Americans in Oklahoma from 2006 to 2014 was more than triple the nationwide rate for non-Natives.) In South Dakota as recently as 2015, enough opioids were prescribed to medicate every adult around-the-clock for 19 consecutive days. Native Americans comprise 9% of South Dakota’s population; however, almost 30% of the patients are being treated for opioid use disorder.

In the settlement, which is a first for tribes, McKesson, Cardinal Health, and AmerisourceBergen would pay $515 million over 7 years. Johnson & Johnson would contribute $150 million in 2 years to the federally recognized tribes. “This settlement is a real turning point in history,” said Lloyd Miller, one of the attorneys representing one-third of the litigating tribes.

But the money is still small compensation for ravaging millions of lives. “Flooding the Native community with Western medicine—sedating a population rather than seeking to understand its needs and challenges—is not an acceptable means of handling its trauma,” the Lakota People’s Law Project says in an article on its website. Thus, the money dispersal will be overseen by a panel of tribal health experts, to go toward programs that aid drug users and their communities.

The funds will be managed in a way that will consider the long-term damage, Native American leaders vow. Children, for instance, have not been exempt from the sequelae of the overprescribing. Foster care systems are “overrun” with children of addicted parents, the Law Project says, and the children are placed in homes outside the tribe. “In the long run, this has the potential to curtail tribal membership, break down familial lines, and degrade cultural values.”

Dealing with the problem has drained tribal resources—doubly strained by the COVID-19 epidemic. Chairman Douglas Yankton, of the Spirit Lake Nation in North Dakota, said in a statement, “The dollars that will flow to Tribes under this initial settlement will help fund crucial, on-reservation, culturally appropriate opioid treatment services.”

However, Chairman Kristopher Peters, of the Squaxin Island Tribe in Washington State, told the Washington Post, “There is no amount of money that’s going to solve the generational issues that have been created from this. Our hope is that we can use these funds to help revitalize our culture and help heal our people.”

Johnson & Johnson says it no longer sells prescription opioids in the US

Hundreds of Native American tribes have tentatively settled in what one of the lead attorneys describes as “an epic deal”: The top 3 pharmaceutical distributors in the US and Johnson & Johnson have agreed to pay $665 million for deceptive marketing practices and overdistribution of opioids. Native Americans were among those hardest hit by the opioid epidemic. Between 2006 and 2014, Native Americans were nearly 50% more likely than non-Natives to die of an opioid overdose. In 2014, they ranked number 1 for death by opioid overdose.

Overprescribing was rampant. In some areas, such as southwestern Virginia, eastern Kentucky, and Alabama, prescriptions were 5 to 6 times higher than the national average. The overprescribing was largely due to massive and aggressive billion-dollar marketing campaigns, which misrepresented the safety of opioid medications. Purdue Pharma, for instance, trained sales representatives to claim that the risk of addiction was “less than 1 percent.” In an interview with Smithsonian Magazine, Caleb Alexander, MD, codirector of Johns Hopkins’ Center for Drug Safety and Effectiveness, said, “When I was in residency training, we were taught that one needn’t worry about the addictive potential of opioids if a patient had true pain.” He said it was no accident that physicians were cultivated to overestimate the effectiveness for chronic, noncancer pain while underestimating the risks.

Native Americans were not only in the target group for prescriptions, but also apparently singularly targeted. “We were preyed upon,” said Chickasaw Nation Governor Bill Anoatubby in the Washington Post. “It was unconscionable.” A Washington Post analysis found that, between 2006 and 2014, opioid distributors shipped an average of 36 pills per person in the US. States in the so-called opioid belt (mostly Southern states), received an average of 60 to 66 pills per person. The distributors shipped 57 pills per person to Oklahoma, home to nearly 322,000 Native Americans. (The opioid death rate for Native Americans in Oklahoma from 2006 to 2014 was more than triple the nationwide rate for non-Natives.) In South Dakota as recently as 2015, enough opioids were prescribed to medicate every adult around-the-clock for 19 consecutive days. Native Americans comprise 9% of South Dakota’s population; however, almost 30% of the patients are being treated for opioid use disorder.

In the settlement, which is a first for tribes, McKesson, Cardinal Health, and AmerisourceBergen would pay $515 million over 7 years. Johnson & Johnson would contribute $150 million in 2 years to the federally recognized tribes. “This settlement is a real turning point in history,” said Lloyd Miller, one of the attorneys representing one-third of the litigating tribes.

But the money is still small compensation for ravaging millions of lives. “Flooding the Native community with Western medicine—sedating a population rather than seeking to understand its needs and challenges—is not an acceptable means of handling its trauma,” the Lakota People’s Law Project says in an article on its website. Thus, the money dispersal will be overseen by a panel of tribal health experts, to go toward programs that aid drug users and their communities.

The funds will be managed in a way that will consider the long-term damage, Native American leaders vow. Children, for instance, have not been exempt from the sequelae of the overprescribing. Foster care systems are “overrun” with children of addicted parents, the Law Project says, and the children are placed in homes outside the tribe. “In the long run, this has the potential to curtail tribal membership, break down familial lines, and degrade cultural values.”

Dealing with the problem has drained tribal resources—doubly strained by the COVID-19 epidemic. Chairman Douglas Yankton, of the Spirit Lake Nation in North Dakota, said in a statement, “The dollars that will flow to Tribes under this initial settlement will help fund crucial, on-reservation, culturally appropriate opioid treatment services.”

However, Chairman Kristopher Peters, of the Squaxin Island Tribe in Washington State, told the Washington Post, “There is no amount of money that’s going to solve the generational issues that have been created from this. Our hope is that we can use these funds to help revitalize our culture and help heal our people.”

Johnson & Johnson says it no longer sells prescription opioids in the US

A new drug has become the first and only treatment for people with cold agglutinin disease (CAD) that is approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

CAD is a rare autoimmune hemolytic anemia, affecting about 5,000 people in the United States. It is caused by antibodies binding to the surface of red blood cells, which starts a process that causes the body’s immune system to mistakenly attack healthy red blood cells and cause their rupture (hemolysis). This can lead to severe anemia, which is often treated by blood transfusions.

The new product is sutimlimab-jome (Enjaymo), and it works by inhibiting the destruction of red blood cells and so decreases the need for blood transfusions.

“For people living with cold agglutinin disease, it is as if their body’s immune system is waging a war on itself. The relentless destruction of healthy red blood cells is a daily, silent reality for people with CAD. For the first time, we have a treatment that targets complement-mediated hemolysis, which is the underlying cause of the red blood cell destruction in many CAD patients,” commented Catherine Broome, MD, associate professor of medicine at Georgetown University Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, in a company press release.

Dr. Broome was the principal investigator in the CARDINAL study, which was the basis for the new approval. In this pivotal study, patients treated with sutimlimab had an improvement in anemia as measured by hemoglobin (Hgb) and bilirubin levels, she commented in the company statement.

The CARDINAL study was a 26-week open-label, single-arm phase 3 study conducted in 24 patients with CAD who had recent history of blood transfusion.

The primary efficacy endpoint was a composite defined as the proportion of patients who achieved normalization of Hgb level greater than or equal to 12 g/dL or demonstrated an increase from baseline in Hgb level greater than or equal to 2 g/dL at the treatment assessment time point (mean value from weeks 23, 25, and 26) and no blood transfusion from weeks 5 through 26.

More than half of the patients (13 of 24, 54%) met the composite primary endpoint criteria, with 17 of 24 (71%) patients remaining transfusion-free after week 5. Most patients (22 of 24, 92%) did not use other CAD-related treatments.

For the secondary measures on disease process, patients enrolled in the trial experienced a mean increase in Hgb level of 2.29 g/dL at week 3 and 3.18 g/dL at the 26-week treatment assessment time points (increasing from the mean baseline level of 8.6 g/dL). In addition, there was a mean reduction in bilirubin levels (n = 14) of -2.23 mg/dL from a mean baseline level of 3.23 mg/dL.

The most common adverse reactions occurring in 10% or more of patients were respiratory tract infection, viral infection, diarrhea, dyspepsia, cough, arthralgia, arthritis, and peripheral edema. Serious adverse reactions were reported in 3 of 24 (13%) patients, and these included streptococcal sepsis and staphylococcal wound infection (n = 1), arthralgia (n = 1), and respiratory tract infection (n = 1).

None of the adverse reactions led to discontinuation of the drug, the company noted. Dosage interruptions due to an adverse reaction occurred in 4 of 24 (17%) patients who received the drug.

The recommended dose is based on body weight (6,500 mg for people 39-75 kg and 7,500 mg for people greater than 75 kg). The drug is administered intravenously weekly for the first 2 weeks with administration every 2 weeks thereafter.

Full prescribing information is available here.

The product is a humanized monoclonal antibody that is designed to selectively target and inhibit C1s in the classical complement pathway, which is part of the innate immune system. By blocking C1s, Enjaymo inhibits the activation of the complement cascade in the immune system and inhibits C1-activated hemolysis in CAD to prevent the abnormal destruction of healthy red blood cells. Enjaymo does not inhibit the lectin and alternative pathways, the company noted.

In the U.S., Enjaymo received FDA breakthrough therapy and orphan drug designation, as well as priority review. The product is awaiting approval in Europe and Japan.

Sanofi says the product is expected to be available in the United States in the coming weeks, with a list price, or wholesale acquisition cost, of $1,800 per vial. Actual costs to patients are generally anticipated to be lower, as the list price does not reflect insurance coverage, copay support, or financial assistance from patient support programs. The company offers support for eligible patients on 1-833-223-2428.

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

A new drug has become the first and only treatment for people with cold agglutinin disease (CAD) that is approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

CAD is a rare autoimmune hemolytic anemia, affecting about 5,000 people in the United States. It is caused by antibodies binding to the surface of red blood cells, which starts a process that causes the body’s immune system to mistakenly attack healthy red blood cells and cause their rupture (hemolysis). This can lead to severe anemia, which is often treated by blood transfusions.

The new product is sutimlimab-jome (Enjaymo), and it works by inhibiting the destruction of red blood cells and so decreases the need for blood transfusions.

“For people living with cold agglutinin disease, it is as if their body’s immune system is waging a war on itself. The relentless destruction of healthy red blood cells is a daily, silent reality for people with CAD. For the first time, we have a treatment that targets complement-mediated hemolysis, which is the underlying cause of the red blood cell destruction in many CAD patients,” commented Catherine Broome, MD, associate professor of medicine at Georgetown University Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, in a company press release.

Dr. Broome was the principal investigator in the CARDINAL study, which was the basis for the new approval. In this pivotal study, patients treated with sutimlimab had an improvement in anemia as measured by hemoglobin (Hgb) and bilirubin levels, she commented in the company statement.

The CARDINAL study was a 26-week open-label, single-arm phase 3 study conducted in 24 patients with CAD who had recent history of blood transfusion.

The primary efficacy endpoint was a composite defined as the proportion of patients who achieved normalization of Hgb level greater than or equal to 12 g/dL or demonstrated an increase from baseline in Hgb level greater than or equal to 2 g/dL at the treatment assessment time point (mean value from weeks 23, 25, and 26) and no blood transfusion from weeks 5 through 26.

More than half of the patients (13 of 24, 54%) met the composite primary endpoint criteria, with 17 of 24 (71%) patients remaining transfusion-free after week 5. Most patients (22 of 24, 92%) did not use other CAD-related treatments.

For the secondary measures on disease process, patients enrolled in the trial experienced a mean increase in Hgb level of 2.29 g/dL at week 3 and 3.18 g/dL at the 26-week treatment assessment time points (increasing from the mean baseline level of 8.6 g/dL). In addition, there was a mean reduction in bilirubin levels (n = 14) of -2.23 mg/dL from a mean baseline level of 3.23 mg/dL.

The most common adverse reactions occurring in 10% or more of patients were respiratory tract infection, viral infection, diarrhea, dyspepsia, cough, arthralgia, arthritis, and peripheral edema. Serious adverse reactions were reported in 3 of 24 (13%) patients, and these included streptococcal sepsis and staphylococcal wound infection (n = 1), arthralgia (n = 1), and respiratory tract infection (n = 1).

None of the adverse reactions led to discontinuation of the drug, the company noted. Dosage interruptions due to an adverse reaction occurred in 4 of 24 (17%) patients who received the drug.

The recommended dose is based on body weight (6,500 mg for people 39-75 kg and 7,500 mg for people greater than 75 kg). The drug is administered intravenously weekly for the first 2 weeks with administration every 2 weeks thereafter.

Full prescribing information is available here.

The product is a humanized monoclonal antibody that is designed to selectively target and inhibit C1s in the classical complement pathway, which is part of the innate immune system. By blocking C1s, Enjaymo inhibits the activation of the complement cascade in the immune system and inhibits C1-activated hemolysis in CAD to prevent the abnormal destruction of healthy red blood cells. Enjaymo does not inhibit the lectin and alternative pathways, the company noted.

In the U.S., Enjaymo received FDA breakthrough therapy and orphan drug designation, as well as priority review. The product is awaiting approval in Europe and Japan.

Sanofi says the product is expected to be available in the United States in the coming weeks, with a list price, or wholesale acquisition cost, of $1,800 per vial. Actual costs to patients are generally anticipated to be lower, as the list price does not reflect insurance coverage, copay support, or financial assistance from patient support programs. The company offers support for eligible patients on 1-833-223-2428.

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

A new drug has become the first and only treatment for people with cold agglutinin disease (CAD) that is approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

CAD is a rare autoimmune hemolytic anemia, affecting about 5,000 people in the United States. It is caused by antibodies binding to the surface of red blood cells, which starts a process that causes the body’s immune system to mistakenly attack healthy red blood cells and cause their rupture (hemolysis). This can lead to severe anemia, which is often treated by blood transfusions.

The new product is sutimlimab-jome (Enjaymo), and it works by inhibiting the destruction of red blood cells and so decreases the need for blood transfusions.

“For people living with cold agglutinin disease, it is as if their body’s immune system is waging a war on itself. The relentless destruction of healthy red blood cells is a daily, silent reality for people with CAD. For the first time, we have a treatment that targets complement-mediated hemolysis, which is the underlying cause of the red blood cell destruction in many CAD patients,” commented Catherine Broome, MD, associate professor of medicine at Georgetown University Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, in a company press release.

Dr. Broome was the principal investigator in the CARDINAL study, which was the basis for the new approval. In this pivotal study, patients treated with sutimlimab had an improvement in anemia as measured by hemoglobin (Hgb) and bilirubin levels, she commented in the company statement.

The CARDINAL study was a 26-week open-label, single-arm phase 3 study conducted in 24 patients with CAD who had recent history of blood transfusion.

The primary efficacy endpoint was a composite defined as the proportion of patients who achieved normalization of Hgb level greater than or equal to 12 g/dL or demonstrated an increase from baseline in Hgb level greater than or equal to 2 g/dL at the treatment assessment time point (mean value from weeks 23, 25, and 26) and no blood transfusion from weeks 5 through 26.

More than half of the patients (13 of 24, 54%) met the composite primary endpoint criteria, with 17 of 24 (71%) patients remaining transfusion-free after week 5. Most patients (22 of 24, 92%) did not use other CAD-related treatments.

For the secondary measures on disease process, patients enrolled in the trial experienced a mean increase in Hgb level of 2.29 g/dL at week 3 and 3.18 g/dL at the 26-week treatment assessment time points (increasing from the mean baseline level of 8.6 g/dL). In addition, there was a mean reduction in bilirubin levels (n = 14) of -2.23 mg/dL from a mean baseline level of 3.23 mg/dL.

The most common adverse reactions occurring in 10% or more of patients were respiratory tract infection, viral infection, diarrhea, dyspepsia, cough, arthralgia, arthritis, and peripheral edema. Serious adverse reactions were reported in 3 of 24 (13%) patients, and these included streptococcal sepsis and staphylococcal wound infection (n = 1), arthralgia (n = 1), and respiratory tract infection (n = 1).

None of the adverse reactions led to discontinuation of the drug, the company noted. Dosage interruptions due to an adverse reaction occurred in 4 of 24 (17%) patients who received the drug.

The recommended dose is based on body weight (6,500 mg for people 39-75 kg and 7,500 mg for people greater than 75 kg). The drug is administered intravenously weekly for the first 2 weeks with administration every 2 weeks thereafter.

Full prescribing information is available here.

The product is a humanized monoclonal antibody that is designed to selectively target and inhibit C1s in the classical complement pathway, which is part of the innate immune system. By blocking C1s, Enjaymo inhibits the activation of the complement cascade in the immune system and inhibits C1-activated hemolysis in CAD to prevent the abnormal destruction of healthy red blood cells. Enjaymo does not inhibit the lectin and alternative pathways, the company noted.

In the U.S., Enjaymo received FDA breakthrough therapy and orphan drug designation, as well as priority review. The product is awaiting approval in Europe and Japan.

Sanofi says the product is expected to be available in the United States in the coming weeks, with a list price, or wholesale acquisition cost, of $1,800 per vial. Actual costs to patients are generally anticipated to be lower, as the list price does not reflect insurance coverage, copay support, or financial assistance from patient support programs. The company offers support for eligible patients on 1-833-223-2428.

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

In 2014, amidst stories of delays at Veterans Health Administration facilities, Congress established the Veterans Choice Program, which expanded access to private sector health care practitioners. When the program expired in 2018, lawmakers replaced it with the Veterans Community Care Program (VCCP) as part of the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Maintaining Internal Systems and Strengthening Integrated Outside Networks Act (38 USC § 1703 MISSION Act). Since then, the VCCP has grown exponentially; 34% of current veteran health care visits are with private clinicians.

Along with broader private sector access, the MISSION Act also mandated the creation of quality-of-care standards for both VA and VCCP, and stipulated that data be compiled and made available to “provide covered veterans relevant comparative information to make informed decisions regarding their health care.” Two-and-a-half years later, data about the quality of VCCP care remains largely unknown.

Access to Care Website 

In the lead up to the MISSION Act, the VA launched its Access to Care website, an online tool thatpublishes institutional performance data on key metrics so that veterans can make “more informed choices about where, when, and how they receive their health care.” Following the bill’s passage, the VA added a MISSION Act Quality Standards section, which includes results of 27 conventional quality measures for every VA facility. These scores are posted alongside data of regional facilities.

This trailblazing tool is exceedingly comprehensive. Yet, multiple website gaps compromise its utility for veterans deliberating whether to obtain VCCP care, including:

1. Data isn’t about VCCP care. The hospitals are selected because they are local, not whether they participate in VCCP.  Further, it appears that aggregate scores include non-VCCP facilities.
2. Missing conditions/treatments. While the website contains quality scores for an ample range of procedures, it lacks information for many conditions that disproportionately affect veterans. A veteran with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) or traumatic brain injury (TBI), for example, has no data to check.
3. Skewed comparison population. Private sector practitioners primarily treat nonveteran patients, a population that is, on average, healthier and of higher socioeconomic status when compared with VA patients. Outcomes differ, for example, when patients have coexisting mental illness or homelessness. For VCCP scores to be beneficial for comparisons, they should derive from treated veterans or be accurately risk-adjusted.
4. Tangential measures. The Institute of Medicine defined health care quality as “improvement of outcomes.” Patients considering health care options benefit from information about treatment effectiveness and symptom reduction. But because obtaining that quality data is labor intensive, proxy measures are substituted. For example, the measure advising smokers to quit is the closest the website comes to reporting on the quality of mental health care.

High-Performers

The VA initiated a second means to inform veterans about the quality of furnished care. Specifically, they guided third-party administrators (TPAs)—TriWest Healthcare Alliance and Optum—in creating algorithms designating that VCCP individual clinicians, practice groups, and hospitals can be deemed high performing providers (HPPs). The algorithms are calculated using a mix of Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS), Physician Quality Reporting System (PQRS), and Blue Health Intelligence (BHI) primary and specialty care measures. The designations are intended to be accessible to local VA community care schedulers to connect veterans with HPPs.

Many aspects of the HPP system are not yet public, including the measures that comprise the algorithms and when the designations will become operational. From what is publicly discoverable about HPP designations, there are crucial gaps like those on the Access to Care website. Behavioral and mental health conditions, for instance, are intentionally excluded in HPP monitoring. HPP algorithms draw from care provided to the general population; an HPP’s patient panel may contain no veterans (with their common comorbidities) at all. Most limiting, there’s no expectation that VCCP clinicians be high performing. Of the 1.2 million program clinicians treating veterans as of November 2020, only a nominal 13.4% were HPP.

After studying the HPP system, VA Partnered Evidence-based Policy Resource Center acknowledged that “it remains unclear whether the quality metrics and referral system result in higher quality of care for VA patients or whether the program improves veteran health.”

Quality of VCCP Mental Health Treatment

The MISSION Act mandated the VA to “establish standards and requirements for the provision of care by non-VA health care practitioners in clinical areas for which the Department of Veterans Affairs has special expertise, including PTSD, military sexual trauma-related conditions (MST), and TBI.” This requirement arose from a recognition that mental health care provided in the private sector pales in comparisonto the VA’s rigorous evidence-based training, consultation, case review and care delivery. For example, over 8500 VA clinicians have received training in evidence-based cognitive processing therapy and/or prolonged exposure therapy for PTSD.

The MISSION Act also mandated that VCCP providers must “fulfill training requirements established by the Secretary on how to deliver evidence-based treatments in the clinical areas for which the Department of Veterans Affairs has special expertise” before furnishing care pursuant to a contract with the VA. However, the VA elected to disregard the directive, and left it up to VCCP clinician’s discretion whether to obtain training or proficiency.

Two bills introduced in Congress in 2021 aim to uphold these vital mandates for the VCCP program. The Veterans’ Culturally Competent Care Act requires VCCP mental health practitioners to take courses on the evaluation and management of suicide, PTSD, TBI, and MST. The Lethal Means Safety Training Act aligns VCCP clinicians suicide prevention training with existing VA standards.

Recommendations to Assure the Quality of VCCP Care

With review and revision of VCCP quality standards now underway, the following remedial actions are recommended:

1. VCCP metrics must be compiled using data on veterans’ care, not the general population, and be published on the Access to Care website. This indispensable information is published on the website for VA care but not for VCCP. Unless VCCP is required to track their veterans, apples-to-apples comparisons of quality of care will remain difficult to attain. Supplemental research that directly contrasts quality of VA to VCCP care should be posted. For example, a 2021 study of enrolled veterans brought by ambulance to VA or community emergency rooms found that all 170 VA medical centers had lower comparative death rates.
2. VCCP providers should be held to the same quality standards as those applied to VA clinicians. In a 2020 critical issue update on implementation of the MISSION Act, major veterans service organizations (VSOs) recommended that competency, training, and quality standards for non-VA community clinicians must be equivalent to benchmarks expected of VA clinicians. That includes credentials, initial and follow-up training, diagnostic screening, care-delivery, and documentation standards. Enacting the Veterans’ Culturally Competent Care Act and the Lethal Means Safety Training Act would begin to meet the MISSION Act’s clear statutory language.
3. The VA and VCCP should add quality information about major diagnostic categories. This will allow veterans to make informed decisions about their personal condition. For most health diagnoses, there is no searchable listing by disorder. 
4. Quality assessments should be realigned to focus on outcome measures. For prospective patients, outcome results provide the most meaningful basis for comparing and selecting clinicians. Proxy measures may have little bearing on whether veterans receive effective care. (As Albert Einstein’s famously observed, “Not everything that can be counted counts.”). Also, the specific measures used for a clinician’s HPP designation should be delineated.
5. The VA must enforce the MISSION Act’s instruction to renew or cancel contracts based on demonstrated quality of care. As VSOs emphasized, “if the private sector is unwilling or unable to match the VA’s access and quality standards, the VA must consider whether it needs to find new community partners.”  

Seventeen billion dollars is spent yearly on purchased health care whose quality remains indeterminate. Ironclad commitments are needed from Congress and the VA to ensure that the effectiveness of, and standards for, veterans care options in the private sector match that in the VA.

In 2014, amidst stories of delays at Veterans Health Administration facilities, Congress established the Veterans Choice Program, which expanded access to private sector health care practitioners. When the program expired in 2018, lawmakers replaced it with the Veterans Community Care Program (VCCP) as part of the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Maintaining Internal Systems and Strengthening Integrated Outside Networks Act (38 USC § 1703 MISSION Act). Since then, the VCCP has grown exponentially; 34% of current veteran health care visits are with private clinicians.

Along with broader private sector access, the MISSION Act also mandated the creation of quality-of-care standards for both VA and VCCP, and stipulated that data be compiled and made available to “provide covered veterans relevant comparative information to make informed decisions regarding their health care.” Two-and-a-half years later, data about the quality of VCCP care remains largely unknown.

Access to Care Website 

In the lead up to the MISSION Act, the VA launched its Access to Care website, an online tool thatpublishes institutional performance data on key metrics so that veterans can make “more informed choices about where, when, and how they receive their health care.” Following the bill’s passage, the VA added a MISSION Act Quality Standards section, which includes results of 27 conventional quality measures for every VA facility. These scores are posted alongside data of regional facilities.

This trailblazing tool is exceedingly comprehensive. Yet, multiple website gaps compromise its utility for veterans deliberating whether to obtain VCCP care, including:

1. Data isn’t about VCCP care. The hospitals are selected because they are local, not whether they participate in VCCP.  Further, it appears that aggregate scores include non-VCCP facilities.
2. Missing conditions/treatments. While the website contains quality scores for an ample range of procedures, it lacks information for many conditions that disproportionately affect veterans. A veteran with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) or traumatic brain injury (TBI), for example, has no data to check.
3. Skewed comparison population. Private sector practitioners primarily treat nonveteran patients, a population that is, on average, healthier and of higher socioeconomic status when compared with VA patients. Outcomes differ, for example, when patients have coexisting mental illness or homelessness. For VCCP scores to be beneficial for comparisons, they should derive from treated veterans or be accurately risk-adjusted.
4. Tangential measures. The Institute of Medicine defined health care quality as “improvement of outcomes.” Patients considering health care options benefit from information about treatment effectiveness and symptom reduction. But because obtaining that quality data is labor intensive, proxy measures are substituted. For example, the measure advising smokers to quit is the closest the website comes to reporting on the quality of mental health care.

High-Performers

The VA initiated a second means to inform veterans about the quality of furnished care. Specifically, they guided third-party administrators (TPAs)—TriWest Healthcare Alliance and Optum—in creating algorithms designating that VCCP individual clinicians, practice groups, and hospitals can be deemed high performing providers (HPPs). The algorithms are calculated using a mix of Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS), Physician Quality Reporting System (PQRS), and Blue Health Intelligence (BHI) primary and specialty care measures. The designations are intended to be accessible to local VA community care schedulers to connect veterans with HPPs.

Many aspects of the HPP system are not yet public, including the measures that comprise the algorithms and when the designations will become operational. From what is publicly discoverable about HPP designations, there are crucial gaps like those on the Access to Care website. Behavioral and mental health conditions, for instance, are intentionally excluded in HPP monitoring. HPP algorithms draw from care provided to the general population; an HPP’s patient panel may contain no veterans (with their common comorbidities) at all. Most limiting, there’s no expectation that VCCP clinicians be high performing. Of the 1.2 million program clinicians treating veterans as of November 2020, only a nominal 13.4% were HPP.

After studying the HPP system, VA Partnered Evidence-based Policy Resource Center acknowledged that “it remains unclear whether the quality metrics and referral system result in higher quality of care for VA patients or whether the program improves veteran health.”

Quality of VCCP Mental Health Treatment

The MISSION Act mandated the VA to “establish standards and requirements for the provision of care by non-VA health care practitioners in clinical areas for which the Department of Veterans Affairs has special expertise, including PTSD, military sexual trauma-related conditions (MST), and TBI.” This requirement arose from a recognition that mental health care provided in the private sector pales in comparisonto the VA’s rigorous evidence-based training, consultation, case review and care delivery. For example, over 8500 VA clinicians have received training in evidence-based cognitive processing therapy and/or prolonged exposure therapy for PTSD.

The MISSION Act also mandated that VCCP providers must “fulfill training requirements established by the Secretary on how to deliver evidence-based treatments in the clinical areas for which the Department of Veterans Affairs has special expertise” before furnishing care pursuant to a contract with the VA. However, the VA elected to disregard the directive, and left it up to VCCP clinician’s discretion whether to obtain training or proficiency.

Two bills introduced in Congress in 2021 aim to uphold these vital mandates for the VCCP program. The Veterans’ Culturally Competent Care Act requires VCCP mental health practitioners to take courses on the evaluation and management of suicide, PTSD, TBI, and MST. The Lethal Means Safety Training Act aligns VCCP clinicians suicide prevention training with existing VA standards.

Recommendations to Assure the Quality of VCCP Care

With review and revision of VCCP quality standards now underway, the following remedial actions are recommended:

1. VCCP metrics must be compiled using data on veterans’ care, not the general population, and be published on the Access to Care website. This indispensable information is published on the website for VA care but not for VCCP. Unless VCCP is required to track their veterans, apples-to-apples comparisons of quality of care will remain difficult to attain. Supplemental research that directly contrasts quality of VA to VCCP care should be posted. For example, a 2021 study of enrolled veterans brought by ambulance to VA or community emergency rooms found that all 170 VA medical centers had lower comparative death rates.
2. VCCP providers should be held to the same quality standards as those applied to VA clinicians. In a 2020 critical issue update on implementation of the MISSION Act, major veterans service organizations (VSOs) recommended that competency, training, and quality standards for non-VA community clinicians must be equivalent to benchmarks expected of VA clinicians. That includes credentials, initial and follow-up training, diagnostic screening, care-delivery, and documentation standards. Enacting the Veterans’ Culturally Competent Care Act and the Lethal Means Safety Training Act would begin to meet the MISSION Act’s clear statutory language.
3. The VA and VCCP should add quality information about major diagnostic categories. This will allow veterans to make informed decisions about their personal condition. For most health diagnoses, there is no searchable listing by disorder. 
4. Quality assessments should be realigned to focus on outcome measures. For prospective patients, outcome results provide the most meaningful basis for comparing and selecting clinicians. Proxy measures may have little bearing on whether veterans receive effective care. (As Albert Einstein’s famously observed, “Not everything that can be counted counts.”). Also, the specific measures used for a clinician’s HPP designation should be delineated.
5. The VA must enforce the MISSION Act’s instruction to renew or cancel contracts based on demonstrated quality of care. As VSOs emphasized, “if the private sector is unwilling or unable to match the VA’s access and quality standards, the VA must consider whether it needs to find new community partners.”  

Seventeen billion dollars is spent yearly on purchased health care whose quality remains indeterminate. Ironclad commitments are needed from Congress and the VA to ensure that the effectiveness of, and standards for, veterans care options in the private sector match that in the VA.

In 2014, amidst stories of delays at Veterans Health Administration facilities, Congress established the Veterans Choice Program, which expanded access to private sector health care practitioners. When the program expired in 2018, lawmakers replaced it with the Veterans Community Care Program (VCCP) as part of the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Maintaining Internal Systems and Strengthening Integrated Outside Networks Act (38 USC § 1703 MISSION Act). Since then, the VCCP has grown exponentially; 34% of current veteran health care visits are with private clinicians.

Along with broader private sector access, the MISSION Act also mandated the creation of quality-of-care standards for both VA and VCCP, and stipulated that data be compiled and made available to “provide covered veterans relevant comparative information to make informed decisions regarding their health care.” Two-and-a-half years later, data about the quality of VCCP care remains largely unknown.

Access to Care Website 

In the lead up to the MISSION Act, the VA launched its Access to Care website, an online tool thatpublishes institutional performance data on key metrics so that veterans can make “more informed choices about where, when, and how they receive their health care.” Following the bill’s passage, the VA added a MISSION Act Quality Standards section, which includes results of 27 conventional quality measures for every VA facility. These scores are posted alongside data of regional facilities.

This trailblazing tool is exceedingly comprehensive. Yet, multiple website gaps compromise its utility for veterans deliberating whether to obtain VCCP care, including:

1. Data isn’t about VCCP care. The hospitals are selected because they are local, not whether they participate in VCCP.  Further, it appears that aggregate scores include non-VCCP facilities.
2. Missing conditions/treatments. While the website contains quality scores for an ample range of procedures, it lacks information for many conditions that disproportionately affect veterans. A veteran with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) or traumatic brain injury (TBI), for example, has no data to check.
3. Skewed comparison population. Private sector practitioners primarily treat nonveteran patients, a population that is, on average, healthier and of higher socioeconomic status when compared with VA patients. Outcomes differ, for example, when patients have coexisting mental illness or homelessness. For VCCP scores to be beneficial for comparisons, they should derive from treated veterans or be accurately risk-adjusted.
4. Tangential measures. The Institute of Medicine defined health care quality as “improvement of outcomes.” Patients considering health care options benefit from information about treatment effectiveness and symptom reduction. But because obtaining that quality data is labor intensive, proxy measures are substituted. For example, the measure advising smokers to quit is the closest the website comes to reporting on the quality of mental health care.

High-Performers

The VA initiated a second means to inform veterans about the quality of furnished care. Specifically, they guided third-party administrators (TPAs)—TriWest Healthcare Alliance and Optum—in creating algorithms designating that VCCP individual clinicians, practice groups, and hospitals can be deemed high performing providers (HPPs). The algorithms are calculated using a mix of Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS), Physician Quality Reporting System (PQRS), and Blue Health Intelligence (BHI) primary and specialty care measures. The designations are intended to be accessible to local VA community care schedulers to connect veterans with HPPs.

Many aspects of the HPP system are not yet public, including the measures that comprise the algorithms and when the designations will become operational. From what is publicly discoverable about HPP designations, there are crucial gaps like those on the Access to Care website. Behavioral and mental health conditions, for instance, are intentionally excluded in HPP monitoring. HPP algorithms draw from care provided to the general population; an HPP’s patient panel may contain no veterans (with their common comorbidities) at all. Most limiting, there’s no expectation that VCCP clinicians be high performing. Of the 1.2 million program clinicians treating veterans as of November 2020, only a nominal 13.4% were HPP.

After studying the HPP system, VA Partnered Evidence-based Policy Resource Center acknowledged that “it remains unclear whether the quality metrics and referral system result in higher quality of care for VA patients or whether the program improves veteran health.”

Quality of VCCP Mental Health Treatment

The MISSION Act mandated the VA to “establish standards and requirements for the provision of care by non-VA health care practitioners in clinical areas for which the Department of Veterans Affairs has special expertise, including PTSD, military sexual trauma-related conditions (MST), and TBI.” This requirement arose from a recognition that mental health care provided in the private sector pales in comparisonto the VA’s rigorous evidence-based training, consultation, case review and care delivery. For example, over 8500 VA clinicians have received training in evidence-based cognitive processing therapy and/or prolonged exposure therapy for PTSD.

The MISSION Act also mandated that VCCP providers must “fulfill training requirements established by the Secretary on how to deliver evidence-based treatments in the clinical areas for which the Department of Veterans Affairs has special expertise” before furnishing care pursuant to a contract with the VA. However, the VA elected to disregard the directive, and left it up to VCCP clinician’s discretion whether to obtain training or proficiency.

Two bills introduced in Congress in 2021 aim to uphold these vital mandates for the VCCP program. The Veterans’ Culturally Competent Care Act requires VCCP mental health practitioners to take courses on the evaluation and management of suicide, PTSD, TBI, and MST. The Lethal Means Safety Training Act aligns VCCP clinicians suicide prevention training with existing VA standards.

Recommendations to Assure the Quality of VCCP Care

With review and revision of VCCP quality standards now underway, the following remedial actions are recommended:

1. VCCP metrics must be compiled using data on veterans’ care, not the general population, and be published on the Access to Care website. This indispensable information is published on the website for VA care but not for VCCP. Unless VCCP is required to track their veterans, apples-to-apples comparisons of quality of care will remain difficult to attain. Supplemental research that directly contrasts quality of VA to VCCP care should be posted. For example, a 2021 study of enrolled veterans brought by ambulance to VA or community emergency rooms found that all 170 VA medical centers had lower comparative death rates.
2. VCCP providers should be held to the same quality standards as those applied to VA clinicians. In a 2020 critical issue update on implementation of the MISSION Act, major veterans service organizations (VSOs) recommended that competency, training, and quality standards for non-VA community clinicians must be equivalent to benchmarks expected of VA clinicians. That includes credentials, initial and follow-up training, diagnostic screening, care-delivery, and documentation standards. Enacting the Veterans’ Culturally Competent Care Act and the Lethal Means Safety Training Act would begin to meet the MISSION Act’s clear statutory language.
3. The VA and VCCP should add quality information about major diagnostic categories. This will allow veterans to make informed decisions about their personal condition. For most health diagnoses, there is no searchable listing by disorder. 
4. Quality assessments should be realigned to focus on outcome measures. For prospective patients, outcome results provide the most meaningful basis for comparing and selecting clinicians. Proxy measures may have little bearing on whether veterans receive effective care. (As Albert Einstein’s famously observed, “Not everything that can be counted counts.”). Also, the specific measures used for a clinician’s HPP designation should be delineated.
5. The VA must enforce the MISSION Act’s instruction to renew or cancel contracts based on demonstrated quality of care. As VSOs emphasized, “if the private sector is unwilling or unable to match the VA’s access and quality standards, the VA must consider whether it needs to find new community partners.”  

Seventeen billion dollars is spent yearly on purchased health care whose quality remains indeterminate. Ironclad commitments are needed from Congress and the VA to ensure that the effectiveness of, and standards for, veterans care options in the private sector match that in the VA.

Dietary intake of polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA), particularly omega 6, is associated with improved cognitive function in older adults, new research suggests.

The study provides important “pieces of the puzzle” of the diet and cognition connection, but the results aren’t “ready for prime time,” study investigator Roger S. McIntyre, MD, professor of psychiatry and pharmacology, University of Toronto, said in an interview.

“I don’t think we’re there yet when it comes to recommending supplementation to the general public,” said Dr. McIntyre, adding a larger “more compelling study” is needed.

The study was published online Jan. 14 in The American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry.
 

Clinically meaningful?

Research shows that 25%-50% of community-dwelling adults aged 65-85 years have some cognitive impairment. Other evidence indicates cognition is affected by dietary fat intake.

Many lines of research show that alterations in lipid homeostasis can cause brain dysfunction, said Dr. McIntyre. “This shouldn’t surprise us because our brain is made up of protein, water, and fat.”

This new analysis used combined data from the 2011-2012 and 2013-2014 cycles of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), a series of ongoing cross-sectional surveys conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The data are collected in two phases, an in-home face-to-face interview and a physical examination.

Researchers obtained dietary intake information through two 24-hour dietary recall interviews. Dietary information included total energy (kcal/d), intakes in grams per day (g/d) of total fat, saturated fatty acid (SFAT), monounsaturated fatty acid (MUFA), PUFA, total omega-3 and total omega-6 fatty acids, and milligrams per day (mg/d) of cholesterol.

For cognitive function, the researchers used total and delayed recall scores of the Consortium to Establish a Registry for Alzheimer’s Disease (CERAD), the animal fluency test, and the digit symbol substitution test (DSST).

The study included 2,253 adults aged 60 years and older (mean age, 69.4 years) and 51% were non-Hispanic White individuals.

After adjustment for age, sex, race/ethnicity, educational attainment, smoking status, alcohol consumption, income, and total energy, dietary intake of PUFA and omega-6 fatty acid was positively associated with DSST.

The DSST score increased about 0.06 standard deviation (SD) (about 1 score) with each SD increase in these fatty acids (8.8 g/d for PUFA and 7.9 g/d for omega-6) (P values were .02 for PUFA and .01 for omega-6).

However, it’s unclear what an improvement of 1 DSST score means clinically, said Dr. McIntyre. “The P value is significant, but how does that translate? Does this mean a person can now think more clearly or function better?”
 

‘Million dollar question’ remains unanswered

The fact that omega-6, considered neuroinflammatory, was associated with improved DSST score illustrates the complexity of this field, said Dr. McIntyre.

“We’re learning that when it comes to inflammation, many of the molecules in our brain that are implicated as anti-inflammatory can also be pro-inflammatory, so bad guys can be good guys and good guys can be bad guys.”

It speaks to the notion of homeostasis, he added. “Just like a seesaw; when you push this part down, that part goes up.”

The analysis showed the animal fluency score increased about 0.05 SD (around 0.3 score) with each SD (1.1 g/d) increase in dietary intake of omega-3.

There were no significant associations between other dietary fat intake and cognitive performance.

The researchers investigated the role of oxidative stress and antioxidant biomarkers (gamma glutamyl transpeptidase [GGT], bilirubin, uric acid, and vitamin D).

Cells produce oxidative radicals that are normally “mopped up” by our “innate antioxidant capability,” said Dr. McIntyre. “But in states of cognitive impairment, these oxidative stress markers accumulate and they exceed what the normal innate response is able to manage.”

The study showed GGT levels decreased with increased PUFA and omega-6 fatty acid intakes; levels of bilirubin decreased with increase in most dietary fat intakes; uric acid levels decreased with MUFA intake and omega-6/omega-3 ratio; and vitamin D levels increased with omega-3 fatty acid intake but decreased with SFAT intake.

Causal mediation analysis showed the association between dietary intake of fatty acids and DSST performance was partially mediated by GGT levels. However, Dr. McIntyre emphasized that this does not prove causality.

“The million dollar question is, is this the sole explanation for the association? In other words, is it the oxidative stress that caused the cognitive impairment and therefore correcting it improved it, or is it the case that oxidative stress is a proxy of other activities that are also taking place?”
 

A ‘plausible’ link

In an editorial, Candida Rebello, PhD, of the department of integrated physiology and molecular medicine at Pennington Biomedical Research Center, Baton Rouge, La., said the finding that omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids are positively associated with cognition in older adults makes some sense.

She noted that aging is associated with an overt inflammatory phenotype, and evidence shows these fatty acids are precursors for bioactive molecules that play a role in self-limiting the acute inflammatory response.

Dr. Rebello said the positive association of omega-6 fatty acid with cognition shown in this study contrasts with the “common belief” that increasing dietary intake of these fatty acids enhances inflammation, but agreed the association is “plausible.”

She said it’s “essential” to determine “the underlying mechanisms that regulate the diverse features of inflammation and sort out the processes that protect from neuronal damage and those that contribute towards it.”

She noted the ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 is about 15:1 in the present day Western diet, as opposed to a 1:1 ratio in diets of the past. Omega-3 fatty acids are found in fish oil supplements and fatty fish like mackerel and salmon, while cereal, grains, and vegetable oil are sources of omega-6.

Attaining a measure of balance of fatty acids in the diet may be a “prudent approach,” said Dr. Rebello. “Substituting some meat entrées with fatty fish and polyunsaturated vegetable oils with monounsaturated fats such as olive oil are small changes that are likely to garner adherence.”

Dr. Rebello noted that the study used NHANES food intake data, which rely on participant self-report and so may not be accurate.

The study received funding from the MOE (Ministry of Education in China) Project of Humanities and Social Sciences and the Research Startup Fund of Southwest University. Dr. McIntyre has received research grant support from CIHR/GACD/Chinese National Natural Research Foundation and speaker/consultation fees from Lundbeck, Janssen, Purdue, Pfizer, Otsuka, Takeda, Neurocrine, Sunovion, Bausch Health, Novo Nordisk, Kris, Sanofi, Eisai, Intra-Cellular, NewBridge Pharmaceuticals, and AbbVie. He is a CEO of Braxia Scientific Corp.

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

Dietary intake of polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA), particularly omega 6, is associated with improved cognitive function in older adults, new research suggests.

The study provides important “pieces of the puzzle” of the diet and cognition connection, but the results aren’t “ready for prime time,” study investigator Roger S. McIntyre, MD, professor of psychiatry and pharmacology, University of Toronto, said in an interview.

“I don’t think we’re there yet when it comes to recommending supplementation to the general public,” said Dr. McIntyre, adding a larger “more compelling study” is needed.

The study was published online Jan. 14 in The American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry.
 

Clinically meaningful?

Research shows that 25%-50% of community-dwelling adults aged 65-85 years have some cognitive impairment. Other evidence indicates cognition is affected by dietary fat intake.

Many lines of research show that alterations in lipid homeostasis can cause brain dysfunction, said Dr. McIntyre. “This shouldn’t surprise us because our brain is made up of protein, water, and fat.”

This new analysis used combined data from the 2011-2012 and 2013-2014 cycles of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), a series of ongoing cross-sectional surveys conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The data are collected in two phases, an in-home face-to-face interview and a physical examination.

Researchers obtained dietary intake information through two 24-hour dietary recall interviews. Dietary information included total energy (kcal/d), intakes in grams per day (g/d) of total fat, saturated fatty acid (SFAT), monounsaturated fatty acid (MUFA), PUFA, total omega-3 and total omega-6 fatty acids, and milligrams per day (mg/d) of cholesterol.

For cognitive function, the researchers used total and delayed recall scores of the Consortium to Establish a Registry for Alzheimer’s Disease (CERAD), the animal fluency test, and the digit symbol substitution test (DSST).

The study included 2,253 adults aged 60 years and older (mean age, 69.4 years) and 51% were non-Hispanic White individuals.

After adjustment for age, sex, race/ethnicity, educational attainment, smoking status, alcohol consumption, income, and total energy, dietary intake of PUFA and omega-6 fatty acid was positively associated with DSST.

The DSST score increased about 0.06 standard deviation (SD) (about 1 score) with each SD increase in these fatty acids (8.8 g/d for PUFA and 7.9 g/d for omega-6) (P values were .02 for PUFA and .01 for omega-6).

However, it’s unclear what an improvement of 1 DSST score means clinically, said Dr. McIntyre. “The P value is significant, but how does that translate? Does this mean a person can now think more clearly or function better?”
 

‘Million dollar question’ remains unanswered

The fact that omega-6, considered neuroinflammatory, was associated with improved DSST score illustrates the complexity of this field, said Dr. McIntyre.

“We’re learning that when it comes to inflammation, many of the molecules in our brain that are implicated as anti-inflammatory can also be pro-inflammatory, so bad guys can be good guys and good guys can be bad guys.”

It speaks to the notion of homeostasis, he added. “Just like a seesaw; when you push this part down, that part goes up.”

The analysis showed the animal fluency score increased about 0.05 SD (around 0.3 score) with each SD (1.1 g/d) increase in dietary intake of omega-3.

There were no significant associations between other dietary fat intake and cognitive performance.

The researchers investigated the role of oxidative stress and antioxidant biomarkers (gamma glutamyl transpeptidase [GGT], bilirubin, uric acid, and vitamin D).

Cells produce oxidative radicals that are normally “mopped up” by our “innate antioxidant capability,” said Dr. McIntyre. “But in states of cognitive impairment, these oxidative stress markers accumulate and they exceed what the normal innate response is able to manage.”

The study showed GGT levels decreased with increased PUFA and omega-6 fatty acid intakes; levels of bilirubin decreased with increase in most dietary fat intakes; uric acid levels decreased with MUFA intake and omega-6/omega-3 ratio; and vitamin D levels increased with omega-3 fatty acid intake but decreased with SFAT intake.

Causal mediation analysis showed the association between dietary intake of fatty acids and DSST performance was partially mediated by GGT levels. However, Dr. McIntyre emphasized that this does not prove causality.

“The million dollar question is, is this the sole explanation for the association? In other words, is it the oxidative stress that caused the cognitive impairment and therefore correcting it improved it, or is it the case that oxidative stress is a proxy of other activities that are also taking place?”
 

A ‘plausible’ link

In an editorial, Candida Rebello, PhD, of the department of integrated physiology and molecular medicine at Pennington Biomedical Research Center, Baton Rouge, La., said the finding that omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids are positively associated with cognition in older adults makes some sense.

She noted that aging is associated with an overt inflammatory phenotype, and evidence shows these fatty acids are precursors for bioactive molecules that play a role in self-limiting the acute inflammatory response.

Dr. Rebello said the positive association of omega-6 fatty acid with cognition shown in this study contrasts with the “common belief” that increasing dietary intake of these fatty acids enhances inflammation, but agreed the association is “plausible.”

She said it’s “essential” to determine “the underlying mechanisms that regulate the diverse features of inflammation and sort out the processes that protect from neuronal damage and those that contribute towards it.”

She noted the ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 is about 15:1 in the present day Western diet, as opposed to a 1:1 ratio in diets of the past. Omega-3 fatty acids are found in fish oil supplements and fatty fish like mackerel and salmon, while cereal, grains, and vegetable oil are sources of omega-6.

Attaining a measure of balance of fatty acids in the diet may be a “prudent approach,” said Dr. Rebello. “Substituting some meat entrées with fatty fish and polyunsaturated vegetable oils with monounsaturated fats such as olive oil are small changes that are likely to garner adherence.”

Dr. Rebello noted that the study used NHANES food intake data, which rely on participant self-report and so may not be accurate.

The study received funding from the MOE (Ministry of Education in China) Project of Humanities and Social Sciences and the Research Startup Fund of Southwest University. Dr. McIntyre has received research grant support from CIHR/GACD/Chinese National Natural Research Foundation and speaker/consultation fees from Lundbeck, Janssen, Purdue, Pfizer, Otsuka, Takeda, Neurocrine, Sunovion, Bausch Health, Novo Nordisk, Kris, Sanofi, Eisai, Intra-Cellular, NewBridge Pharmaceuticals, and AbbVie. He is a CEO of Braxia Scientific Corp.

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

Dietary intake of polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA), particularly omega 6, is associated with improved cognitive function in older adults, new research suggests.

The study provides important “pieces of the puzzle” of the diet and cognition connection, but the results aren’t “ready for prime time,” study investigator Roger S. McIntyre, MD, professor of psychiatry and pharmacology, University of Toronto, said in an interview.

“I don’t think we’re there yet when it comes to recommending supplementation to the general public,” said Dr. McIntyre, adding a larger “more compelling study” is needed.

The study was published online Jan. 14 in The American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry.
 

Clinically meaningful?

Research shows that 25%-50% of community-dwelling adults aged 65-85 years have some cognitive impairment. Other evidence indicates cognition is affected by dietary fat intake.

Many lines of research show that alterations in lipid homeostasis can cause brain dysfunction, said Dr. McIntyre. “This shouldn’t surprise us because our brain is made up of protein, water, and fat.”

This new analysis used combined data from the 2011-2012 and 2013-2014 cycles of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), a series of ongoing cross-sectional surveys conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The data are collected in two phases, an in-home face-to-face interview and a physical examination.

Researchers obtained dietary intake information through two 24-hour dietary recall interviews. Dietary information included total energy (kcal/d), intakes in grams per day (g/d) of total fat, saturated fatty acid (SFAT), monounsaturated fatty acid (MUFA), PUFA, total omega-3 and total omega-6 fatty acids, and milligrams per day (mg/d) of cholesterol.

For cognitive function, the researchers used total and delayed recall scores of the Consortium to Establish a Registry for Alzheimer’s Disease (CERAD), the animal fluency test, and the digit symbol substitution test (DSST).

The study included 2,253 adults aged 60 years and older (mean age, 69.4 years) and 51% were non-Hispanic White individuals.

After adjustment for age, sex, race/ethnicity, educational attainment, smoking status, alcohol consumption, income, and total energy, dietary intake of PUFA and omega-6 fatty acid was positively associated with DSST.

The DSST score increased about 0.06 standard deviation (SD) (about 1 score) with each SD increase in these fatty acids (8.8 g/d for PUFA and 7.9 g/d for omega-6) (P values were .02 for PUFA and .01 for omega-6).

However, it’s unclear what an improvement of 1 DSST score means clinically, said Dr. McIntyre. “The P value is significant, but how does that translate? Does this mean a person can now think more clearly or function better?”
 

‘Million dollar question’ remains unanswered

The fact that omega-6, considered neuroinflammatory, was associated with improved DSST score illustrates the complexity of this field, said Dr. McIntyre.

“We’re learning that when it comes to inflammation, many of the molecules in our brain that are implicated as anti-inflammatory can also be pro-inflammatory, so bad guys can be good guys and good guys can be bad guys.”

It speaks to the notion of homeostasis, he added. “Just like a seesaw; when you push this part down, that part goes up.”

The analysis showed the animal fluency score increased about 0.05 SD (around 0.3 score) with each SD (1.1 g/d) increase in dietary intake of omega-3.

There were no significant associations between other dietary fat intake and cognitive performance.

The researchers investigated the role of oxidative stress and antioxidant biomarkers (gamma glutamyl transpeptidase [GGT], bilirubin, uric acid, and vitamin D).

Cells produce oxidative radicals that are normally “mopped up” by our “innate antioxidant capability,” said Dr. McIntyre. “But in states of cognitive impairment, these oxidative stress markers accumulate and they exceed what the normal innate response is able to manage.”

The study showed GGT levels decreased with increased PUFA and omega-6 fatty acid intakes; levels of bilirubin decreased with increase in most dietary fat intakes; uric acid levels decreased with MUFA intake and omega-6/omega-3 ratio; and vitamin D levels increased with omega-3 fatty acid intake but decreased with SFAT intake.

Causal mediation analysis showed the association between dietary intake of fatty acids and DSST performance was partially mediated by GGT levels. However, Dr. McIntyre emphasized that this does not prove causality.

“The million dollar question is, is this the sole explanation for the association? In other words, is it the oxidative stress that caused the cognitive impairment and therefore correcting it improved it, or is it the case that oxidative stress is a proxy of other activities that are also taking place?”
 

A ‘plausible’ link

In an editorial, Candida Rebello, PhD, of the department of integrated physiology and molecular medicine at Pennington Biomedical Research Center, Baton Rouge, La., said the finding that omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids are positively associated with cognition in older adults makes some sense.

She noted that aging is associated with an overt inflammatory phenotype, and evidence shows these fatty acids are precursors for bioactive molecules that play a role in self-limiting the acute inflammatory response.

Dr. Rebello said the positive association of omega-6 fatty acid with cognition shown in this study contrasts with the “common belief” that increasing dietary intake of these fatty acids enhances inflammation, but agreed the association is “plausible.”

She said it’s “essential” to determine “the underlying mechanisms that regulate the diverse features of inflammation and sort out the processes that protect from neuronal damage and those that contribute towards it.”

She noted the ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 is about 15:1 in the present day Western diet, as opposed to a 1:1 ratio in diets of the past. Omega-3 fatty acids are found in fish oil supplements and fatty fish like mackerel and salmon, while cereal, grains, and vegetable oil are sources of omega-6.

Attaining a measure of balance of fatty acids in the diet may be a “prudent approach,” said Dr. Rebello. “Substituting some meat entrées with fatty fish and polyunsaturated vegetable oils with monounsaturated fats such as olive oil are small changes that are likely to garner adherence.”

Dr. Rebello noted that the study used NHANES food intake data, which rely on participant self-report and so may not be accurate.

The study received funding from the MOE (Ministry of Education in China) Project of Humanities and Social Sciences and the Research Startup Fund of Southwest University. Dr. McIntyre has received research grant support from CIHR/GACD/Chinese National Natural Research Foundation and speaker/consultation fees from Lundbeck, Janssen, Purdue, Pfizer, Otsuka, Takeda, Neurocrine, Sunovion, Bausch Health, Novo Nordisk, Kris, Sanofi, Eisai, Intra-Cellular, NewBridge Pharmaceuticals, and AbbVie. He is a CEO of Braxia Scientific Corp.

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

Heart disease. Cancer. Diabetes. Dementia.

Researchers spend billions of dollars every year trying to eradicate these medical scourges.

Yet even if we discover cures to these and all other chronic conditions, it won’t change our ultimate prognosis: death.

“That’s because you haven’t stopped aging,” says Jay Olshansky, PhD, a professor of epidemiology and biostatistics at the University of Illinois at Chicago School of Public Health.

But what if we could? What if we are trying to extend longevity in the wrong way? Instead of focusing on diseases, should we take aim at aging itself?

Some scientists think so. Fueled in part by a billion dollars of investor money, they are attempting to reverse-engineer your molecular biological clock. Their goal? To eliminate not merely diseases that kill people, but to prevent death itself. 
 

Hacking the code for immortality

Aubrey de Grey, PhD, a biomedical gerontologist, has drawn wide attention for his belief that the first person who will live to be 1,000 years old is already among us. 

He believes there’s no cap on how long we can live, depending on what medicines we develop in the future.

“The whole idea is that there would not be a limit on how long we can keep people healthy,” Dr. de Grey says. He’s the chief science officer and co-founder of the SENS Research Foundation, which funds research on how to put the brakes on aging.

Dr. De Grey’s view, in theory, isn’t so far-fetched.

Scientists have studied the immortal jellyfish, Turritopsis dohrnii. It’s the only animal that can cheat death by reverting from adulthood back to its polyp stage when threatened with danger or starvation.

Other clues to possible eternal life also may exist underwater. Certain marine clams can live more than 500 years. And lobsters stock a seemingly limitless supply of a youthful enzyme that has some scientists wondering if the crustacean, under the best conditions, just might live forever.

Among humans, researchers have been studying “super-agers” – people who not only live exceptionally long, but also do so without many of the chronic diseases that plague their peers. That’s even though they share some of the same bad habits as everyone else.

“They are making it past the age of 80 with their minds completely intact. That’s what’s so unusual,” Dr. Olshansky says. The rest of their bodies are doing better than those of average 80-year-olds, too.

People who reached ages 95 to 112 got cancer, heart disease, diabetes, osteoporosis, and stroke up to 24 years later than those with average lifespans, data show. Figuring out why might pave the way for targeted gene therapy to mimic the DNA of these nonagenarians and centenarians.

“There’s likely to be secrets contained within their genome that are eventually discovered that will help us develop therapeutic interventions to mimic the effects of decelerated aging,” Dr. Olshansky says.

Treating aging this way may offer a bigger payoff than targeting individual diseases. That’s because even if you manage to dodge any illnesses, there’s ultimately no escaping old age.

“Longevity is a side effect of health,” Dr. de Grey says. “If we can keep people healthy, then their likelihood of dying is reduced.”
 

Aging as a preventable condition

In 2015, Michael Cantor was prescribed metformin for prediabetes. Once that was under control, his doctor said Mr. Cantor could quit the drug. But Mr. Cantor had heard about studies testing it as an anti-aging drug. The 62-year-old Connecticut-based attorney asked if he could stay on it. A year ago Cantor’s wife, Shari, who is mayor of West Hartford, Conn., started to take metformin, too.

“I read the articles, they made a lot of sense to me, and with the number of people that have been taking this drug worldwide for decades, I felt like there was nothing to lose,” he says.

The couple can’t say if their daily doses have led to any changes in how they look or feel. After all, they’re taking the pills not to treat current ailments but to prevent ones in the future.

They may have answers soon. Nir Barzilai, MD, director of the National Institutes of Health’s Nathan Shock Centers of Excellence in the Basic Biology of Aging, is leading a study that hopes to prove aging is a preventable health condition. The TAME (Targeting Aging with Metformin) study is designed to do this by demonstrating that metformin, a cheap and widely prescribed pill for diabetes, may also be an anti-aging elixir.

The TAME trial is currently in phase III – typically the final step of research into any treatment before drugmakers can apply for FDA approval.

Earlier studies found that people with type 2 diabetes who take metformin have lower death rates from any cause, compared to peers who don’t take the drug. Metformin also seems to help curb the incidence of age-related diseases, including heart disease, dementia, and Alzheimer›s. It also may lower the risk of many types of cancer as well as raise the chances of survival. Observations made since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic suggest that people who get the virus while taking metformin are less likely to land in the hospital or die from it.

It’s not clear exactly how metformin works to do all that. The compound was originally derived from Galega officinalis, also known as goat’s rue, a perennial plant used as medicine since medieval times.

Dr. Barzilai says he hopes to prove that aging is a preventable condition.

“If the results are what they think they will be, the whole world could go on metformin and extend life for everybody – extend your good quality of life,” Dr. Barzilai says. “That’s what we all want. Every extra year that we could get where we’re still vigorous and vital would be amazing.”

Long life versus healthy life

Some researchers argue that only the “healthspan” – the period of life free of illness – is worth extending. Of course, a healthy lifestyle can add years to most people’s lives and actually improve cellular aging. Some of the biggest payoffs come from quitting or never smoking, logging more than 5½ hours of physical activity per week, and keeping a normal weight.

Drugs may be able to do that as well by interrupting common markers of aging, including telomere length, inflammation, oxidative stress, and slower cell metabolism.

“You don’t have to target all of these hallmarks to get improvement” in healthspans, says Dr. Barzilai, who also is director of the Institute for Aging Research at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in the Bronx and scientific director of the American Federation for Aging Research.

“If you target one, you show benefit in the others.”

The medical term for growing old is senescence. Buffeted by DNA damage and stresses, your cells deteriorate and eventually stop multiplying, but don’t die.

That slowdown may have big consequences for your health. Your genes become more likely to get mutations, which can pave the way for cancer. Mitochondria, which produce energy in the cell, struggle to fuel your body. That can damage cells and cause chronic inflammation, which plays a part in diabetes, arthritis, ulcerative colitis, and many other diseases.

One major hallmark of aging is the growing stockpile of these senescent cells. Damaged cells become deactivated as a way to protect your body from harmful or uncontrolled cell division. But like the rotten apple that spoils the whole bunch, senescent cells encourage their neighbors to turn dysfunctional, too. They also emit proteins that trigger inflammation. Your body naturally removes these dormant cells. But older immune systems have a harder time cleaning up, so the senescent cells are more likely to hang around.

Flushing out this accumulated debris may be one way to avert aging, some experts say.

Dr. De Grey also believes that could be done with drugs.

“These therapies would actually repair [cellular] damage,” he says. “They’ll eliminate damage from the body by resetting or turning back the clock.”

James Kirkland, MD, PhD, of the Mayo Clinic, is one researcher exploring this theory. He gave a mixture of the cancer drug dasatinib and a plant pigment called quercetin to people with diabetic kidney disease. Quercetin is an antioxidant that gives grapes, tomatoes, and other fruits and vegetables their flavor.

A small phase I clinical trial showed that the dasatinib-quercetin combination got rid of senescent cells in the tissues of people with the disease.

The researchers don’t know yet if the results will translate into prolonged youth. They also don’t know how high a dosage is needed and what long-term problems the treatment might cause. People with chronic leukemia take dasatinib for years with few serious ill effects.

In another recent study, scientists used oxygen therapy to tackle senescent cells. Thirty-five adults ages 64 and older received oxygen therapy in a pressurized chamber. After 60 daily sessions, they showed a decrease in senescent cells and improvement in the length of DNA segments called telomeres. Shortened segments of telomeres are thought to be another marker of aging.

Researchers are also looking to the gene-editing technology CRISPR for anti-aging treatments, but the testing is only in mice so far.

Dr. Barzilai hopes that if the metformin trial succeeds, it will open the floodgates to a wave of new drugs that can stop or reverse human aging. Some of the major players in this field include Juvenescence, AgeX Therapeutics, LyGenesis, and Life Biosciences, which Dr. Barzilai founded.

“Until aging is seen as preventable, health plans won’t have to pay for this type of treatment,” he says. And if health plans won’t cover aging, pharmaceutical companies have little incentive to invest in drug development.

That may be the only thing standing between humans and unprecedented lifespans. The Census Bureau projects that Americans born in 2060 should live an average of 85.6 years, up from 78.7 years in 2018. Dr. De Grey’s prediction tops that mark by a factor of about 50. He believes that the life expectancy for someone born in 2100 may well be 5,000 years.

Dr. Barzilai, for his part, has a prediction that’s seemingly more modest.

“We die at 80. Getting an additional 35 years is relatively low-hanging fruit,” he says. “But I don’t believe that is a fixed limit.”

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

Heart disease. Cancer. Diabetes. Dementia.

Researchers spend billions of dollars every year trying to eradicate these medical scourges.

Yet even if we discover cures to these and all other chronic conditions, it won’t change our ultimate prognosis: death.

“That’s because you haven’t stopped aging,” says Jay Olshansky, PhD, a professor of epidemiology and biostatistics at the University of Illinois at Chicago School of Public Health.

But what if we could? What if we are trying to extend longevity in the wrong way? Instead of focusing on diseases, should we take aim at aging itself?

Some scientists think so. Fueled in part by a billion dollars of investor money, they are attempting to reverse-engineer your molecular biological clock. Their goal? To eliminate not merely diseases that kill people, but to prevent death itself. 
 

Hacking the code for immortality

Aubrey de Grey, PhD, a biomedical gerontologist, has drawn wide attention for his belief that the first person who will live to be 1,000 years old is already among us. 

He believes there’s no cap on how long we can live, depending on what medicines we develop in the future.

“The whole idea is that there would not be a limit on how long we can keep people healthy,” Dr. de Grey says. He’s the chief science officer and co-founder of the SENS Research Foundation, which funds research on how to put the brakes on aging.

Dr. De Grey’s view, in theory, isn’t so far-fetched.

Scientists have studied the immortal jellyfish, Turritopsis dohrnii. It’s the only animal that can cheat death by reverting from adulthood back to its polyp stage when threatened with danger or starvation.

Other clues to possible eternal life also may exist underwater. Certain marine clams can live more than 500 years. And lobsters stock a seemingly limitless supply of a youthful enzyme that has some scientists wondering if the crustacean, under the best conditions, just might live forever.

Among humans, researchers have been studying “super-agers” – people who not only live exceptionally long, but also do so without many of the chronic diseases that plague their peers. That’s even though they share some of the same bad habits as everyone else.

“They are making it past the age of 80 with their minds completely intact. That’s what’s so unusual,” Dr. Olshansky says. The rest of their bodies are doing better than those of average 80-year-olds, too.

People who reached ages 95 to 112 got cancer, heart disease, diabetes, osteoporosis, and stroke up to 24 years later than those with average lifespans, data show. Figuring out why might pave the way for targeted gene therapy to mimic the DNA of these nonagenarians and centenarians.

“There’s likely to be secrets contained within their genome that are eventually discovered that will help us develop therapeutic interventions to mimic the effects of decelerated aging,” Dr. Olshansky says.

Treating aging this way may offer a bigger payoff than targeting individual diseases. That’s because even if you manage to dodge any illnesses, there’s ultimately no escaping old age.

“Longevity is a side effect of health,” Dr. de Grey says. “If we can keep people healthy, then their likelihood of dying is reduced.”
 

Aging as a preventable condition

In 2015, Michael Cantor was prescribed metformin for prediabetes. Once that was under control, his doctor said Mr. Cantor could quit the drug. But Mr. Cantor had heard about studies testing it as an anti-aging drug. The 62-year-old Connecticut-based attorney asked if he could stay on it. A year ago Cantor’s wife, Shari, who is mayor of West Hartford, Conn., started to take metformin, too.

“I read the articles, they made a lot of sense to me, and with the number of people that have been taking this drug worldwide for decades, I felt like there was nothing to lose,” he says.

The couple can’t say if their daily doses have led to any changes in how they look or feel. After all, they’re taking the pills not to treat current ailments but to prevent ones in the future.

They may have answers soon. Nir Barzilai, MD, director of the National Institutes of Health’s Nathan Shock Centers of Excellence in the Basic Biology of Aging, is leading a study that hopes to prove aging is a preventable health condition. The TAME (Targeting Aging with Metformin) study is designed to do this by demonstrating that metformin, a cheap and widely prescribed pill for diabetes, may also be an anti-aging elixir.

The TAME trial is currently in phase III – typically the final step of research into any treatment before drugmakers can apply for FDA approval.

Earlier studies found that people with type 2 diabetes who take metformin have lower death rates from any cause, compared to peers who don’t take the drug. Metformin also seems to help curb the incidence of age-related diseases, including heart disease, dementia, and Alzheimer›s. It also may lower the risk of many types of cancer as well as raise the chances of survival. Observations made since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic suggest that people who get the virus while taking metformin are less likely to land in the hospital or die from it.

It’s not clear exactly how metformin works to do all that. The compound was originally derived from Galega officinalis, also known as goat’s rue, a perennial plant used as medicine since medieval times.

Dr. Barzilai says he hopes to prove that aging is a preventable condition.

“If the results are what they think they will be, the whole world could go on metformin and extend life for everybody – extend your good quality of life,” Dr. Barzilai says. “That’s what we all want. Every extra year that we could get where we’re still vigorous and vital would be amazing.”

Long life versus healthy life

Some researchers argue that only the “healthspan” – the period of life free of illness – is worth extending. Of course, a healthy lifestyle can add years to most people’s lives and actually improve cellular aging. Some of the biggest payoffs come from quitting or never smoking, logging more than 5½ hours of physical activity per week, and keeping a normal weight.

Drugs may be able to do that as well by interrupting common markers of aging, including telomere length, inflammation, oxidative stress, and slower cell metabolism.

“You don’t have to target all of these hallmarks to get improvement” in healthspans, says Dr. Barzilai, who also is director of the Institute for Aging Research at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in the Bronx and scientific director of the American Federation for Aging Research.

“If you target one, you show benefit in the others.”

The medical term for growing old is senescence. Buffeted by DNA damage and stresses, your cells deteriorate and eventually stop multiplying, but don’t die.

That slowdown may have big consequences for your health. Your genes become more likely to get mutations, which can pave the way for cancer. Mitochondria, which produce energy in the cell, struggle to fuel your body. That can damage cells and cause chronic inflammation, which plays a part in diabetes, arthritis, ulcerative colitis, and many other diseases.

One major hallmark of aging is the growing stockpile of these senescent cells. Damaged cells become deactivated as a way to protect your body from harmful or uncontrolled cell division. But like the rotten apple that spoils the whole bunch, senescent cells encourage their neighbors to turn dysfunctional, too. They also emit proteins that trigger inflammation. Your body naturally removes these dormant cells. But older immune systems have a harder time cleaning up, so the senescent cells are more likely to hang around.

Flushing out this accumulated debris may be one way to avert aging, some experts say.

Dr. De Grey also believes that could be done with drugs.

“These therapies would actually repair [cellular] damage,” he says. “They’ll eliminate damage from the body by resetting or turning back the clock.”

James Kirkland, MD, PhD, of the Mayo Clinic, is one researcher exploring this theory. He gave a mixture of the cancer drug dasatinib and a plant pigment called quercetin to people with diabetic kidney disease. Quercetin is an antioxidant that gives grapes, tomatoes, and other fruits and vegetables their flavor.

A small phase I clinical trial showed that the dasatinib-quercetin combination got rid of senescent cells in the tissues of people with the disease.

The researchers don’t know yet if the results will translate into prolonged youth. They also don’t know how high a dosage is needed and what long-term problems the treatment might cause. People with chronic leukemia take dasatinib for years with few serious ill effects.

In another recent study, scientists used oxygen therapy to tackle senescent cells. Thirty-five adults ages 64 and older received oxygen therapy in a pressurized chamber. After 60 daily sessions, they showed a decrease in senescent cells and improvement in the length of DNA segments called telomeres. Shortened segments of telomeres are thought to be another marker of aging.

Researchers are also looking to the gene-editing technology CRISPR for anti-aging treatments, but the testing is only in mice so far.

Dr. Barzilai hopes that if the metformin trial succeeds, it will open the floodgates to a wave of new drugs that can stop or reverse human aging. Some of the major players in this field include Juvenescence, AgeX Therapeutics, LyGenesis, and Life Biosciences, which Dr. Barzilai founded.

“Until aging is seen as preventable, health plans won’t have to pay for this type of treatment,” he says. And if health plans won’t cover aging, pharmaceutical companies have little incentive to invest in drug development.

That may be the only thing standing between humans and unprecedented lifespans. The Census Bureau projects that Americans born in 2060 should live an average of 85.6 years, up from 78.7 years in 2018. Dr. De Grey’s prediction tops that mark by a factor of about 50. He believes that the life expectancy for someone born in 2100 may well be 5,000 years.

Dr. Barzilai, for his part, has a prediction that’s seemingly more modest.

“We die at 80. Getting an additional 35 years is relatively low-hanging fruit,” he says. “But I don’t believe that is a fixed limit.”

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

Heart disease. Cancer. Diabetes. Dementia.

Researchers spend billions of dollars every year trying to eradicate these medical scourges.

Yet even if we discover cures to these and all other chronic conditions, it won’t change our ultimate prognosis: death.

“That’s because you haven’t stopped aging,” says Jay Olshansky, PhD, a professor of epidemiology and biostatistics at the University of Illinois at Chicago School of Public Health.

But what if we could? What if we are trying to extend longevity in the wrong way? Instead of focusing on diseases, should we take aim at aging itself?

Some scientists think so. Fueled in part by a billion dollars of investor money, they are attempting to reverse-engineer your molecular biological clock. Their goal? To eliminate not merely diseases that kill people, but to prevent death itself. 
 

Hacking the code for immortality

Aubrey de Grey, PhD, a biomedical gerontologist, has drawn wide attention for his belief that the first person who will live to be 1,000 years old is already among us. 

He believes there’s no cap on how long we can live, depending on what medicines we develop in the future.

“The whole idea is that there would not be a limit on how long we can keep people healthy,” Dr. de Grey says. He’s the chief science officer and co-founder of the SENS Research Foundation, which funds research on how to put the brakes on aging.

Dr. De Grey’s view, in theory, isn’t so far-fetched.

Scientists have studied the immortal jellyfish, Turritopsis dohrnii. It’s the only animal that can cheat death by reverting from adulthood back to its polyp stage when threatened with danger or starvation.

Other clues to possible eternal life also may exist underwater. Certain marine clams can live more than 500 years. And lobsters stock a seemingly limitless supply of a youthful enzyme that has some scientists wondering if the crustacean, under the best conditions, just might live forever.

Among humans, researchers have been studying “super-agers” – people who not only live exceptionally long, but also do so without many of the chronic diseases that plague their peers. That’s even though they share some of the same bad habits as everyone else.

“They are making it past the age of 80 with their minds completely intact. That’s what’s so unusual,” Dr. Olshansky says. The rest of their bodies are doing better than those of average 80-year-olds, too.

People who reached ages 95 to 112 got cancer, heart disease, diabetes, osteoporosis, and stroke up to 24 years later than those with average lifespans, data show. Figuring out why might pave the way for targeted gene therapy to mimic the DNA of these nonagenarians and centenarians.

“There’s likely to be secrets contained within their genome that are eventually discovered that will help us develop therapeutic interventions to mimic the effects of decelerated aging,” Dr. Olshansky says.

Treating aging this way may offer a bigger payoff than targeting individual diseases. That’s because even if you manage to dodge any illnesses, there’s ultimately no escaping old age.

“Longevity is a side effect of health,” Dr. de Grey says. “If we can keep people healthy, then their likelihood of dying is reduced.”
 

Aging as a preventable condition

In 2015, Michael Cantor was prescribed metformin for prediabetes. Once that was under control, his doctor said Mr. Cantor could quit the drug. But Mr. Cantor had heard about studies testing it as an anti-aging drug. The 62-year-old Connecticut-based attorney asked if he could stay on it. A year ago Cantor’s wife, Shari, who is mayor of West Hartford, Conn., started to take metformin, too.

“I read the articles, they made a lot of sense to me, and with the number of people that have been taking this drug worldwide for decades, I felt like there was nothing to lose,” he says.

The couple can’t say if their daily doses have led to any changes in how they look or feel. After all, they’re taking the pills not to treat current ailments but to prevent ones in the future.

They may have answers soon. Nir Barzilai, MD, director of the National Institutes of Health’s Nathan Shock Centers of Excellence in the Basic Biology of Aging, is leading a study that hopes to prove aging is a preventable health condition. The TAME (Targeting Aging with Metformin) study is designed to do this by demonstrating that metformin, a cheap and widely prescribed pill for diabetes, may also be an anti-aging elixir.

The TAME trial is currently in phase III – typically the final step of research into any treatment before drugmakers can apply for FDA approval.

Earlier studies found that people with type 2 diabetes who take metformin have lower death rates from any cause, compared to peers who don’t take the drug. Metformin also seems to help curb the incidence of age-related diseases, including heart disease, dementia, and Alzheimer›s. It also may lower the risk of many types of cancer as well as raise the chances of survival. Observations made since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic suggest that people who get the virus while taking metformin are less likely to land in the hospital or die from it.

It’s not clear exactly how metformin works to do all that. The compound was originally derived from Galega officinalis, also known as goat’s rue, a perennial plant used as medicine since medieval times.

Dr. Barzilai says he hopes to prove that aging is a preventable condition.

“If the results are what they think they will be, the whole world could go on metformin and extend life for everybody – extend your good quality of life,” Dr. Barzilai says. “That’s what we all want. Every extra year that we could get where we’re still vigorous and vital would be amazing.”

Long life versus healthy life

Some researchers argue that only the “healthspan” – the period of life free of illness – is worth extending. Of course, a healthy lifestyle can add years to most people’s lives and actually improve cellular aging. Some of the biggest payoffs come from quitting or never smoking, logging more than 5½ hours of physical activity per week, and keeping a normal weight.

Drugs may be able to do that as well by interrupting common markers of aging, including telomere length, inflammation, oxidative stress, and slower cell metabolism.

“You don’t have to target all of these hallmarks to get improvement” in healthspans, says Dr. Barzilai, who also is director of the Institute for Aging Research at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in the Bronx and scientific director of the American Federation for Aging Research.

“If you target one, you show benefit in the others.”

The medical term for growing old is senescence. Buffeted by DNA damage and stresses, your cells deteriorate and eventually stop multiplying, but don’t die.

That slowdown may have big consequences for your health. Your genes become more likely to get mutations, which can pave the way for cancer. Mitochondria, which produce energy in the cell, struggle to fuel your body. That can damage cells and cause chronic inflammation, which plays a part in diabetes, arthritis, ulcerative colitis, and many other diseases.

One major hallmark of aging is the growing stockpile of these senescent cells. Damaged cells become deactivated as a way to protect your body from harmful or uncontrolled cell division. But like the rotten apple that spoils the whole bunch, senescent cells encourage their neighbors to turn dysfunctional, too. They also emit proteins that trigger inflammation. Your body naturally removes these dormant cells. But older immune systems have a harder time cleaning up, so the senescent cells are more likely to hang around.

Flushing out this accumulated debris may be one way to avert aging, some experts say.

Dr. De Grey also believes that could be done with drugs.

“These therapies would actually repair [cellular] damage,” he says. “They’ll eliminate damage from the body by resetting or turning back the clock.”

James Kirkland, MD, PhD, of the Mayo Clinic, is one researcher exploring this theory. He gave a mixture of the cancer drug dasatinib and a plant pigment called quercetin to people with diabetic kidney disease. Quercetin is an antioxidant that gives grapes, tomatoes, and other fruits and vegetables their flavor.

A small phase I clinical trial showed that the dasatinib-quercetin combination got rid of senescent cells in the tissues of people with the disease.

The researchers don’t know yet if the results will translate into prolonged youth. They also don’t know how high a dosage is needed and what long-term problems the treatment might cause. People with chronic leukemia take dasatinib for years with few serious ill effects.

In another recent study, scientists used oxygen therapy to tackle senescent cells. Thirty-five adults ages 64 and older received oxygen therapy in a pressurized chamber. After 60 daily sessions, they showed a decrease in senescent cells and improvement in the length of DNA segments called telomeres. Shortened segments of telomeres are thought to be another marker of aging.

Researchers are also looking to the gene-editing technology CRISPR for anti-aging treatments, but the testing is only in mice so far.

Dr. Barzilai hopes that if the metformin trial succeeds, it will open the floodgates to a wave of new drugs that can stop or reverse human aging. Some of the major players in this field include Juvenescence, AgeX Therapeutics, LyGenesis, and Life Biosciences, which Dr. Barzilai founded.

“Until aging is seen as preventable, health plans won’t have to pay for this type of treatment,” he says. And if health plans won’t cover aging, pharmaceutical companies have little incentive to invest in drug development.

That may be the only thing standing between humans and unprecedented lifespans. The Census Bureau projects that Americans born in 2060 should live an average of 85.6 years, up from 78.7 years in 2018. Dr. De Grey’s prediction tops that mark by a factor of about 50. He believes that the life expectancy for someone born in 2100 may well be 5,000 years.

Dr. Barzilai, for his part, has a prediction that’s seemingly more modest.

“We die at 80. Getting an additional 35 years is relatively low-hanging fruit,” he says. “But I don’t believe that is a fixed limit.”

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

Oncologists were less likely than many other specialists to be named in malpractice suits during 2021, notes the latest Medscape Malpractice Report.

Over a third (39%) of oncologists who were surveyed said that they had been named in at least one malpractice suit, according to the Medscape Oncologist Malpractice Report 2021.

Jupiterimages/ThinkStock

This number is considerably lower than that reported by physicians across all specialties (51%), and it is also much lower than that reported by oncologists in past years. In the 2019 report, 54% of oncologists surveyed said they had been named in a malpractice suit, while in the 2017 report, the figure was 53%.

The dramatic decline in malpractice suits may have much to do with the COVID-19 pandemic, when oncology care was in a state of flux.

“Fewer people were seeking cancer care during the COVID pandemic, which might have impacted the number of lawsuits brought against oncologists,” says Paul Walker, a New York–based malpractice attorney at Walker Medical Law, who represents physicians and other healthcare professionals.

“Additionally, a fair number of people who died of COVID were also older,” he pointed out, and it is often older people who get cancer, so there were fewer older people who consulted an oncologist or were treated by one, he added.

However, the pandemic may be storing up trouble for future years. “Patient fears of contracting COVID-19 have led many to avoid seeking or resuming care, so delays in diagnosing new cancer cases could mean that more patients are diagnosed at a later stage of their disease, leading to potential adverse events and malpractice claims,” commented David L. Feldman, MD, MBA, chief medical officer of The Doctors Company Group.

This latest 2021 Medscape Malpractice Report was compiled from an online survey that included more than 4,300 physicians from 29 specialties. It included 106 oncologists. More than half of respondents (56%) had been in practice for more than 25 years, and 54% were aged 60 years or older. The survey was available from May 21 to August 28, 2021.

Similar to findings in previous years, complications from treatment/surgery were the most common reason for the lawsuits (31%). Failure to make a correct diagnosis or a delay in diagnosis was the second most common reason (23%), while 20% of patients sued because of a poor outcome or disease progression.
 

Surprise at being sued

Among the oncologists who reported involvement in a lawsuit in 2021, the majority (86%) said they were “very surprised” or “somewhat surprised” by the malpractice suit, which is similar to that of other physicians surveyed. However, fewer were surprised this year as compared to 2019 and 2017 (90% and 94%).

One reason for the surprise over the litigation was that it concerned a patient who had been treated a long time ago. One oncologist wrote that “the patient had not seen me for over 7 years and during that time, he did not call me with his new symptomatology. I was only named in the suit because I had previously been involved.”

Another common scenario reported by oncologists was being named in a lawsuit which was brought by another clinician’s patient. “I was the chairperson of the department, and one of the doctors in the practice was involved in the suit,” wrote one respondent. “I was named as an accomplice.”

More than half of surveyed oncologists said that they were able to identify the patient who bought the suit, and these figures are again comparable to those of other physicians. One oncologist commented that in the case he was involved with, the family did not understand or accept the nature of cancer and the different ways that a patient could die of complications. This patient had died of sepsis and pneumonia related to decubitus ulcers that were completely unrelated to her radiation therapy.

As in the case above, sometimes it is the family who filed the lawsuit, not the patient.

“The patient may even recognize that you did your best and be grateful for your skill and efforts, but the family can’t accept that grandma died of cancer and brings a lawsuit,” said Dennis Hursh, an attorney with Physicians Agreement Health Law in Pennsylvania.

When looking at outcomes of the lawsuit, 40% of oncologists were dismissed from the suit within the first few months, or the case was settled before going to trial. This trend is also consistent with the results from the 2019 and 2017 surveys. When the case did go to trial, 10% received a favorable verdict, which was the same in 2019.

“It seems that most of my clients end up being released from lawsuits, and many lawsuits are dismissed prior to proceeding to trial,” Mr. Hursh commented.
 

Murdering psychopath

Some oncologists weighed in on what they felt was the worst experience of being sued.

“Mental anguish, knowing that I did nothing wrong,” said one physician. Another reported that it was a feeling of being “inadequate and totally alone.”

Another oncologist commented that the “depositions from lawyers implied that I was worse than a murdering psychopath. My reputation was permanently damaged.”

However, the vast majority of oncologists (88%) did not believe that the lawsuit negatively affected their career, which was similar to physicians in general. That said, many did complain about the ongoing requirement to report the lawsuit to the credentialing committee, even if it was dismissed, and then having to pay increased malpractice premiums. “I still need to document this episode every single time I apply for any medical position, even more than 29 years after I was dismissed from the case,” said one respondent.

When asked if they would do anything differently, many oncologists (42%) said no, they would not have done anything differently. This is similar to the responses from physicians in general and with 2019 responses from oncologists. However, 15% of the respondents said that in retrospect, they would not have taken on that patient to begin with.

Some oncologists noted that they would have been more conscientious in relaying the information to the referring physician. Evan Lyman, an associate attorney at Voute, Lohrfink, McAndrew, Meisner & Roberts, LLP, in White Plains, N.Y., pointed out that a common reason for lawsuits is a slip-up of communication between the specialist and the referring physician.

Oncologists who had been sued have some insights to offer to colleagues, should they find themselves in a similar situation.

“Only answer with short and precise statements,” wrote one oncologist. “Attend all the depositions as much as you can; they are more likely to fabricate or exaggerate if you are not sitting in the room.”

Another physician said to base “everything on the medical record and do not answer hypothetical questions.”

“Document all interactions with patients as if a jury will be reading them, word by word,” said one respondent.

As for the public or patients, oncologists had this message: “malpractice suits should be rarely launched and only when gross errors can be absolutely proven.”

Another oncologist pointed out that communication is key. “Speak to the physicians against whom you have distrust. Lots of things could be cleared by good communication.”

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

Oncologists were less likely than many other specialists to be named in malpractice suits during 2021, notes the latest Medscape Malpractice Report.

Over a third (39%) of oncologists who were surveyed said that they had been named in at least one malpractice suit, according to the Medscape Oncologist Malpractice Report 2021.

Jupiterimages/ThinkStock

This number is considerably lower than that reported by physicians across all specialties (51%), and it is also much lower than that reported by oncologists in past years. In the 2019 report, 54% of oncologists surveyed said they had been named in a malpractice suit, while in the 2017 report, the figure was 53%.

The dramatic decline in malpractice suits may have much to do with the COVID-19 pandemic, when oncology care was in a state of flux.

“Fewer people were seeking cancer care during the COVID pandemic, which might have impacted the number of lawsuits brought against oncologists,” says Paul Walker, a New York–based malpractice attorney at Walker Medical Law, who represents physicians and other healthcare professionals.

“Additionally, a fair number of people who died of COVID were also older,” he pointed out, and it is often older people who get cancer, so there were fewer older people who consulted an oncologist or were treated by one, he added.

However, the pandemic may be storing up trouble for future years. “Patient fears of contracting COVID-19 have led many to avoid seeking or resuming care, so delays in diagnosing new cancer cases could mean that more patients are diagnosed at a later stage of their disease, leading to potential adverse events and malpractice claims,” commented David L. Feldman, MD, MBA, chief medical officer of The Doctors Company Group.

This latest 2021 Medscape Malpractice Report was compiled from an online survey that included more than 4,300 physicians from 29 specialties. It included 106 oncologists. More than half of respondents (56%) had been in practice for more than 25 years, and 54% were aged 60 years or older. The survey was available from May 21 to August 28, 2021.

Similar to findings in previous years, complications from treatment/surgery were the most common reason for the lawsuits (31%). Failure to make a correct diagnosis or a delay in diagnosis was the second most common reason (23%), while 20% of patients sued because of a poor outcome or disease progression.
 

Surprise at being sued

Among the oncologists who reported involvement in a lawsuit in 2021, the majority (86%) said they were “very surprised” or “somewhat surprised” by the malpractice suit, which is similar to that of other physicians surveyed. However, fewer were surprised this year as compared to 2019 and 2017 (90% and 94%).

One reason for the surprise over the litigation was that it concerned a patient who had been treated a long time ago. One oncologist wrote that “the patient had not seen me for over 7 years and during that time, he did not call me with his new symptomatology. I was only named in the suit because I had previously been involved.”

Another common scenario reported by oncologists was being named in a lawsuit which was brought by another clinician’s patient. “I was the chairperson of the department, and one of the doctors in the practice was involved in the suit,” wrote one respondent. “I was named as an accomplice.”

More than half of surveyed oncologists said that they were able to identify the patient who bought the suit, and these figures are again comparable to those of other physicians. One oncologist commented that in the case he was involved with, the family did not understand or accept the nature of cancer and the different ways that a patient could die of complications. This patient had died of sepsis and pneumonia related to decubitus ulcers that were completely unrelated to her radiation therapy.

As in the case above, sometimes it is the family who filed the lawsuit, not the patient.

“The patient may even recognize that you did your best and be grateful for your skill and efforts, but the family can’t accept that grandma died of cancer and brings a lawsuit,” said Dennis Hursh, an attorney with Physicians Agreement Health Law in Pennsylvania.

When looking at outcomes of the lawsuit, 40% of oncologists were dismissed from the suit within the first few months, or the case was settled before going to trial. This trend is also consistent with the results from the 2019 and 2017 surveys. When the case did go to trial, 10% received a favorable verdict, which was the same in 2019.

“It seems that most of my clients end up being released from lawsuits, and many lawsuits are dismissed prior to proceeding to trial,” Mr. Hursh commented.
 

Murdering psychopath

Some oncologists weighed in on what they felt was the worst experience of being sued.

“Mental anguish, knowing that I did nothing wrong,” said one physician. Another reported that it was a feeling of being “inadequate and totally alone.”

Another oncologist commented that the “depositions from lawyers implied that I was worse than a murdering psychopath. My reputation was permanently damaged.”

However, the vast majority of oncologists (88%) did not believe that the lawsuit negatively affected their career, which was similar to physicians in general. That said, many did complain about the ongoing requirement to report the lawsuit to the credentialing committee, even if it was dismissed, and then having to pay increased malpractice premiums. “I still need to document this episode every single time I apply for any medical position, even more than 29 years after I was dismissed from the case,” said one respondent.

When asked if they would do anything differently, many oncologists (42%) said no, they would not have done anything differently. This is similar to the responses from physicians in general and with 2019 responses from oncologists. However, 15% of the respondents said that in retrospect, they would not have taken on that patient to begin with.

Some oncologists noted that they would have been more conscientious in relaying the information to the referring physician. Evan Lyman, an associate attorney at Voute, Lohrfink, McAndrew, Meisner & Roberts, LLP, in White Plains, N.Y., pointed out that a common reason for lawsuits is a slip-up of communication between the specialist and the referring physician.

Oncologists who had been sued have some insights to offer to colleagues, should they find themselves in a similar situation.

“Only answer with short and precise statements,” wrote one oncologist. “Attend all the depositions as much as you can; they are more likely to fabricate or exaggerate if you are not sitting in the room.”

Another physician said to base “everything on the medical record and do not answer hypothetical questions.”

“Document all interactions with patients as if a jury will be reading them, word by word,” said one respondent.

As for the public or patients, oncologists had this message: “malpractice suits should be rarely launched and only when gross errors can be absolutely proven.”

Another oncologist pointed out that communication is key. “Speak to the physicians against whom you have distrust. Lots of things could be cleared by good communication.”

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

Oncologists were less likely than many other specialists to be named in malpractice suits during 2021, notes the latest Medscape Malpractice Report.

Over a third (39%) of oncologists who were surveyed said that they had been named in at least one malpractice suit, according to the Medscape Oncologist Malpractice Report 2021.

Jupiterimages/ThinkStock

This number is considerably lower than that reported by physicians across all specialties (51%), and it is also much lower than that reported by oncologists in past years. In the 2019 report, 54% of oncologists surveyed said they had been named in a malpractice suit, while in the 2017 report, the figure was 53%.

The dramatic decline in malpractice suits may have much to do with the COVID-19 pandemic, when oncology care was in a state of flux.

“Fewer people were seeking cancer care during the COVID pandemic, which might have impacted the number of lawsuits brought against oncologists,” says Paul Walker, a New York–based malpractice attorney at Walker Medical Law, who represents physicians and other healthcare professionals.

“Additionally, a fair number of people who died of COVID were also older,” he pointed out, and it is often older people who get cancer, so there were fewer older people who consulted an oncologist or were treated by one, he added.

However, the pandemic may be storing up trouble for future years. “Patient fears of contracting COVID-19 have led many to avoid seeking or resuming care, so delays in diagnosing new cancer cases could mean that more patients are diagnosed at a later stage of their disease, leading to potential adverse events and malpractice claims,” commented David L. Feldman, MD, MBA, chief medical officer of The Doctors Company Group.

This latest 2021 Medscape Malpractice Report was compiled from an online survey that included more than 4,300 physicians from 29 specialties. It included 106 oncologists. More than half of respondents (56%) had been in practice for more than 25 years, and 54% were aged 60 years or older. The survey was available from May 21 to August 28, 2021.

Similar to findings in previous years, complications from treatment/surgery were the most common reason for the lawsuits (31%). Failure to make a correct diagnosis or a delay in diagnosis was the second most common reason (23%), while 20% of patients sued because of a poor outcome or disease progression.
 

Surprise at being sued

Among the oncologists who reported involvement in a lawsuit in 2021, the majority (86%) said they were “very surprised” or “somewhat surprised” by the malpractice suit, which is similar to that of other physicians surveyed. However, fewer were surprised this year as compared to 2019 and 2017 (90% and 94%).

One reason for the surprise over the litigation was that it concerned a patient who had been treated a long time ago. One oncologist wrote that “the patient had not seen me for over 7 years and during that time, he did not call me with his new symptomatology. I was only named in the suit because I had previously been involved.”

Another common scenario reported by oncologists was being named in a lawsuit which was brought by another clinician’s patient. “I was the chairperson of the department, and one of the doctors in the practice was involved in the suit,” wrote one respondent. “I was named as an accomplice.”

More than half of surveyed oncologists said that they were able to identify the patient who bought the suit, and these figures are again comparable to those of other physicians. One oncologist commented that in the case he was involved with, the family did not understand or accept the nature of cancer and the different ways that a patient could die of complications. This patient had died of sepsis and pneumonia related to decubitus ulcers that were completely unrelated to her radiation therapy.

As in the case above, sometimes it is the family who filed the lawsuit, not the patient.

“The patient may even recognize that you did your best and be grateful for your skill and efforts, but the family can’t accept that grandma died of cancer and brings a lawsuit,” said Dennis Hursh, an attorney with Physicians Agreement Health Law in Pennsylvania.

When looking at outcomes of the lawsuit, 40% of oncologists were dismissed from the suit within the first few months, or the case was settled before going to trial. This trend is also consistent with the results from the 2019 and 2017 surveys. When the case did go to trial, 10% received a favorable verdict, which was the same in 2019.

“It seems that most of my clients end up being released from lawsuits, and many lawsuits are dismissed prior to proceeding to trial,” Mr. Hursh commented.
 

Murdering psychopath

Some oncologists weighed in on what they felt was the worst experience of being sued.

“Mental anguish, knowing that I did nothing wrong,” said one physician. Another reported that it was a feeling of being “inadequate and totally alone.”

Another oncologist commented that the “depositions from lawyers implied that I was worse than a murdering psychopath. My reputation was permanently damaged.”

However, the vast majority of oncologists (88%) did not believe that the lawsuit negatively affected their career, which was similar to physicians in general. That said, many did complain about the ongoing requirement to report the lawsuit to the credentialing committee, even if it was dismissed, and then having to pay increased malpractice premiums. “I still need to document this episode every single time I apply for any medical position, even more than 29 years after I was dismissed from the case,” said one respondent.

When asked if they would do anything differently, many oncologists (42%) said no, they would not have done anything differently. This is similar to the responses from physicians in general and with 2019 responses from oncologists. However, 15% of the respondents said that in retrospect, they would not have taken on that patient to begin with.

Some oncologists noted that they would have been more conscientious in relaying the information to the referring physician. Evan Lyman, an associate attorney at Voute, Lohrfink, McAndrew, Meisner & Roberts, LLP, in White Plains, N.Y., pointed out that a common reason for lawsuits is a slip-up of communication between the specialist and the referring physician.

Oncologists who had been sued have some insights to offer to colleagues, should they find themselves in a similar situation.

“Only answer with short and precise statements,” wrote one oncologist. “Attend all the depositions as much as you can; they are more likely to fabricate or exaggerate if you are not sitting in the room.”

Another physician said to base “everything on the medical record and do not answer hypothetical questions.”

“Document all interactions with patients as if a jury will be reading them, word by word,” said one respondent.

As for the public or patients, oncologists had this message: “malpractice suits should be rarely launched and only when gross errors can be absolutely proven.”

Another oncologist pointed out that communication is key. “Speak to the physicians against whom you have distrust. Lots of things could be cleared by good communication.”

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

The American Heart Association (AHA) draws attention to the important bidirectional link between cardiovascular health and brain health in its annual statistical update on heart disease and stroke.

“For several years now, the AHA and the scientific community have increasingly recognized the connections between cardiovascular health and brain health, so it was time for us to cement this into its own chapter, which we highlight as the brain health chapter,” Connie W. Tsao, MD, MPH, chair of the statistical update writing group, with Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an AHA podcast.

“The global rate of brain disease is quickly outpacing heart disease,” Mitchell S. V. Elkind, MD, immediate past president of the AHA, added in a news release.

“The rate of deaths from Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias rose more than twice as much in the past decade compared to the rate of deaths from heart disease, and that is something we must address,” said Dr. Elkind, with Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons in New York.

“It’s becoming more evident that reducing vascular disease risk factors can make a real difference in helping people live longer, healthier lives, free of heart disease and brain disease,” Dr. Elkind added.

The AHA’s Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics – 2022 Update was published online January 26 in Circulation).

The report highlights some of the research connecting heart and brain health, including the following:

• A meta-analysis of 139 studies showed that people with midlife hypertension were five times more likely to experience impairment on global cognition and about twice as likely to experience reduced executive function, dementia, and Alzheimer’s disease.
• A meta-analysis of four longitudinal studies found that the risk for dementia associated with heart failure was increased nearly twofold.
• In the large prospective Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) Neurocognitive Study, atrial fibrillation was associated with greater cognitive decline and dementia over 20 years.
• A meta-analysis of 10 prospective studies (including 24,801 participants) showed that coronary heart disease (CHD) was associated with a 40% increased risk of poor cognitive outcomes, including dementia, cognitive impairment, or cognitive decline.

“This new chapter on brain health was a critical one to add,” Dr. Tsao said in the news release.

“The data we’ve collected brings to light the strong correlations between heart health and brain health and makes it an easy story to tell -- what’s good for the heart is good for the brain,” Dr. Tsao added.

Along with the new chapter on brain health, the 2022 statistical update provides the latest statistics and heart disease and stroke. Among the highlights:

• Cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains the leading cause of death worldwide. In the United States in 2019, CVD, listed as the underlying cause of death, accounted for 874,613 deaths, about 2,396 deaths each day. On average, someone dies of CVD every 36 seconds.
• CVD claims more lives each year in the United States than all forms of cancer and chronic lower respiratory disease combined.
• In 2019, CHD was the leading cause (41.3%) of deaths attributable to CVD, followed by other CVD (17.3%), stroke (17.2%), hypertension (11.7%), heart failure (9.9%), and diseases of the arteries (2.8%).
• In 2019, stroke accounted for roughly 1 in every 19 deaths in the United States. On average, someone in the United States has a stroke every 40 seconds and someone dies of stroke every 3 minutes 30 seconds. When considered separately from other CVD, stroke ranks number five among all causes of death in the United States.

While the annual statistics update aims to be a contemporary update of annual heart disease and stroke statistics over the past year, it also examines trends over time, Dr. Tsao explains in the podcast.

“One noteworthy point is that we saw a decline in the rate of cardiovascular mortality over the past three decades or so until about 2010. But over the past decade now, we’re also seeing a rise in these numbers,” she said.

This could be due to rising rates of obesity, diabetes, and poor hypertension control, as well as other lifestyle behaviors, Tsao said.
 

Key risk factor data

Each year, the statistical update gauges the cardiovascular health of Americans by tracking seven key health factors and behaviors that increase risk for heart disease and stroke. Below is a snapshot of the latest risk factor data.

Smoking

In 2019, smoking was the leading risk factor for years of life lost to premature death and the third leading risk factor for years of life lived with disability or injury.

According to the 2020 surgeon general’s report on smoking cessation, more than 480,000 Americans die as a result of cigarette smoking, and more than 41,000 die of secondhand smoke exposure each year (roughly 1 in 5 deaths annually).

One in 7 adults are current smokers, 1 in 6 female adults are current smokers, and 1 in 5 high school students use e-cigarettes.
 

Physical inactivity

In 2018, 25.4% of U.S. adults did not engage in leisure-time physical activity, and only 24.0% met the 2018 Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans for both aerobic and muscle strengthening.

Among U.S. high school students in 2019, only 44.1% were physically active for 60 minutes or more on at least 5 days of the week.
 

Nutrition

While there is some evidence that Americans are improving their diet, fewer than 10% of U.S. adults met guidelines for whole grain, whole fruit, and nonstarchy vegetable consumption each day in 2017–2018.

Overweight/obesity

The prevalence of obesity among adults increased from 1999–2000 through 2017–2018 from 30.5% to 42.4%. Overall prevalence of obesity and severe obesity in U.S. youth 2 to 19 years of age increased from 13.9% to 19.3% and 2.6% to 6.1% between 1999–2000 and 2017–2018.

Cholesterol

Close to 94 million (38.1%) U.S. adults have total cholesterol of 200 mg/dL or higher, according to 2015–2018 data; about 28.0 million (11.5%) have total cholesterol of 240 mg/dL or higher; and 27.8% have high levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (130 mg/dL or higher).

Diabetes

In 2019, 87,647 U.S. deaths were attributed to diabetes; data show that 9.8 million U.S. adults have undiagnosed diabetes, 28.2 million have diagnosed diabetes, and 113.6 million have prediabetes.

Hypertension

A total of 121.5 million (47.3%) U.S. adults have hypertension, based on 2015–2018 data. In 2019, 102,072 U.S. deaths were primarily attributable to hypertension.

This statistical update was prepared by a volunteer writing group on behalf of the American Heart Association Council on Epidemiology and Prevention Statistics Committee and Stroke Statistics Subcommittee. Disclosures for the writing committee are listed with the original article.



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

The American Heart Association (AHA) draws attention to the important bidirectional link between cardiovascular health and brain health in its annual statistical update on heart disease and stroke.

“For several years now, the AHA and the scientific community have increasingly recognized the connections between cardiovascular health and brain health, so it was time for us to cement this into its own chapter, which we highlight as the brain health chapter,” Connie W. Tsao, MD, MPH, chair of the statistical update writing group, with Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an AHA podcast.

“The global rate of brain disease is quickly outpacing heart disease,” Mitchell S. V. Elkind, MD, immediate past president of the AHA, added in a news release.

“The rate of deaths from Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias rose more than twice as much in the past decade compared to the rate of deaths from heart disease, and that is something we must address,” said Dr. Elkind, with Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons in New York.

“It’s becoming more evident that reducing vascular disease risk factors can make a real difference in helping people live longer, healthier lives, free of heart disease and brain disease,” Dr. Elkind added.

The AHA’s Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics – 2022 Update was published online January 26 in Circulation).

The report highlights some of the research connecting heart and brain health, including the following:

• A meta-analysis of 139 studies showed that people with midlife hypertension were five times more likely to experience impairment on global cognition and about twice as likely to experience reduced executive function, dementia, and Alzheimer’s disease.
• A meta-analysis of four longitudinal studies found that the risk for dementia associated with heart failure was increased nearly twofold.
• In the large prospective Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) Neurocognitive Study, atrial fibrillation was associated with greater cognitive decline and dementia over 20 years.
• A meta-analysis of 10 prospective studies (including 24,801 participants) showed that coronary heart disease (CHD) was associated with a 40% increased risk of poor cognitive outcomes, including dementia, cognitive impairment, or cognitive decline.

“This new chapter on brain health was a critical one to add,” Dr. Tsao said in the news release.

“The data we’ve collected brings to light the strong correlations between heart health and brain health and makes it an easy story to tell -- what’s good for the heart is good for the brain,” Dr. Tsao added.

Along with the new chapter on brain health, the 2022 statistical update provides the latest statistics and heart disease and stroke. Among the highlights:

• Cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains the leading cause of death worldwide. In the United States in 2019, CVD, listed as the underlying cause of death, accounted for 874,613 deaths, about 2,396 deaths each day. On average, someone dies of CVD every 36 seconds.
• CVD claims more lives each year in the United States than all forms of cancer and chronic lower respiratory disease combined.
• In 2019, CHD was the leading cause (41.3%) of deaths attributable to CVD, followed by other CVD (17.3%), stroke (17.2%), hypertension (11.7%), heart failure (9.9%), and diseases of the arteries (2.8%).
• In 2019, stroke accounted for roughly 1 in every 19 deaths in the United States. On average, someone in the United States has a stroke every 40 seconds and someone dies of stroke every 3 minutes 30 seconds. When considered separately from other CVD, stroke ranks number five among all causes of death in the United States.

While the annual statistics update aims to be a contemporary update of annual heart disease and stroke statistics over the past year, it also examines trends over time, Dr. Tsao explains in the podcast.

“One noteworthy point is that we saw a decline in the rate of cardiovascular mortality over the past three decades or so until about 2010. But over the past decade now, we’re also seeing a rise in these numbers,” she said.

This could be due to rising rates of obesity, diabetes, and poor hypertension control, as well as other lifestyle behaviors, Tsao said.
 

Key risk factor data

Each year, the statistical update gauges the cardiovascular health of Americans by tracking seven key health factors and behaviors that increase risk for heart disease and stroke. Below is a snapshot of the latest risk factor data.

Smoking

In 2019, smoking was the leading risk factor for years of life lost to premature death and the third leading risk factor for years of life lived with disability or injury.

According to the 2020 surgeon general’s report on smoking cessation, more than 480,000 Americans die as a result of cigarette smoking, and more than 41,000 die of secondhand smoke exposure each year (roughly 1 in 5 deaths annually).

One in 7 adults are current smokers, 1 in 6 female adults are current smokers, and 1 in 5 high school students use e-cigarettes.
 

Physical inactivity

In 2018, 25.4% of U.S. adults did not engage in leisure-time physical activity, and only 24.0% met the 2018 Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans for both aerobic and muscle strengthening.

Among U.S. high school students in 2019, only 44.1% were physically active for 60 minutes or more on at least 5 days of the week.
 

Nutrition

While there is some evidence that Americans are improving their diet, fewer than 10% of U.S. adults met guidelines for whole grain, whole fruit, and nonstarchy vegetable consumption each day in 2017–2018.

Overweight/obesity

The prevalence of obesity among adults increased from 1999–2000 through 2017–2018 from 30.5% to 42.4%. Overall prevalence of obesity and severe obesity in U.S. youth 2 to 19 years of age increased from 13.9% to 19.3% and 2.6% to 6.1% between 1999–2000 and 2017–2018.

Cholesterol

Close to 94 million (38.1%) U.S. adults have total cholesterol of 200 mg/dL or higher, according to 2015–2018 data; about 28.0 million (11.5%) have total cholesterol of 240 mg/dL or higher; and 27.8% have high levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (130 mg/dL or higher).

Diabetes

In 2019, 87,647 U.S. deaths were attributed to diabetes; data show that 9.8 million U.S. adults have undiagnosed diabetes, 28.2 million have diagnosed diabetes, and 113.6 million have prediabetes.

Hypertension

A total of 121.5 million (47.3%) U.S. adults have hypertension, based on 2015–2018 data. In 2019, 102,072 U.S. deaths were primarily attributable to hypertension.

This statistical update was prepared by a volunteer writing group on behalf of the American Heart Association Council on Epidemiology and Prevention Statistics Committee and Stroke Statistics Subcommittee. Disclosures for the writing committee are listed with the original article.



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

The American Heart Association (AHA) draws attention to the important bidirectional link between cardiovascular health and brain health in its annual statistical update on heart disease and stroke.

“For several years now, the AHA and the scientific community have increasingly recognized the connections between cardiovascular health and brain health, so it was time for us to cement this into its own chapter, which we highlight as the brain health chapter,” Connie W. Tsao, MD, MPH, chair of the statistical update writing group, with Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an AHA podcast.

“The global rate of brain disease is quickly outpacing heart disease,” Mitchell S. V. Elkind, MD, immediate past president of the AHA, added in a news release.

“The rate of deaths from Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias rose more than twice as much in the past decade compared to the rate of deaths from heart disease, and that is something we must address,” said Dr. Elkind, with Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons in New York.

“It’s becoming more evident that reducing vascular disease risk factors can make a real difference in helping people live longer, healthier lives, free of heart disease and brain disease,” Dr. Elkind added.

The AHA’s Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics – 2022 Update was published online January 26 in Circulation).

The report highlights some of the research connecting heart and brain health, including the following:

• A meta-analysis of 139 studies showed that people with midlife hypertension were five times more likely to experience impairment on global cognition and about twice as likely to experience reduced executive function, dementia, and Alzheimer’s disease.
• A meta-analysis of four longitudinal studies found that the risk for dementia associated with heart failure was increased nearly twofold.
• In the large prospective Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) Neurocognitive Study, atrial fibrillation was associated with greater cognitive decline and dementia over 20 years.
• A meta-analysis of 10 prospective studies (including 24,801 participants) showed that coronary heart disease (CHD) was associated with a 40% increased risk of poor cognitive outcomes, including dementia, cognitive impairment, or cognitive decline.

“This new chapter on brain health was a critical one to add,” Dr. Tsao said in the news release.

“The data we’ve collected brings to light the strong correlations between heart health and brain health and makes it an easy story to tell -- what’s good for the heart is good for the brain,” Dr. Tsao added.

Along with the new chapter on brain health, the 2022 statistical update provides the latest statistics and heart disease and stroke. Among the highlights:

• Cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains the leading cause of death worldwide. In the United States in 2019, CVD, listed as the underlying cause of death, accounted for 874,613 deaths, about 2,396 deaths each day. On average, someone dies of CVD every 36 seconds.
• CVD claims more lives each year in the United States than all forms of cancer and chronic lower respiratory disease combined.
• In 2019, CHD was the leading cause (41.3%) of deaths attributable to CVD, followed by other CVD (17.3%), stroke (17.2%), hypertension (11.7%), heart failure (9.9%), and diseases of the arteries (2.8%).
• In 2019, stroke accounted for roughly 1 in every 19 deaths in the United States. On average, someone in the United States has a stroke every 40 seconds and someone dies of stroke every 3 minutes 30 seconds. When considered separately from other CVD, stroke ranks number five among all causes of death in the United States.

While the annual statistics update aims to be a contemporary update of annual heart disease and stroke statistics over the past year, it also examines trends over time, Dr. Tsao explains in the podcast.

“One noteworthy point is that we saw a decline in the rate of cardiovascular mortality over the past three decades or so until about 2010. But over the past decade now, we’re also seeing a rise in these numbers,” she said.

This could be due to rising rates of obesity, diabetes, and poor hypertension control, as well as other lifestyle behaviors, Tsao said.
 

Key risk factor data

Each year, the statistical update gauges the cardiovascular health of Americans by tracking seven key health factors and behaviors that increase risk for heart disease and stroke. Below is a snapshot of the latest risk factor data.

Smoking

In 2019, smoking was the leading risk factor for years of life lost to premature death and the third leading risk factor for years of life lived with disability or injury.

According to the 2020 surgeon general’s report on smoking cessation, more than 480,000 Americans die as a result of cigarette smoking, and more than 41,000 die of secondhand smoke exposure each year (roughly 1 in 5 deaths annually).

One in 7 adults are current smokers, 1 in 6 female adults are current smokers, and 1 in 5 high school students use e-cigarettes.
 

Physical inactivity

In 2018, 25.4% of U.S. adults did not engage in leisure-time physical activity, and only 24.0% met the 2018 Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans for both aerobic and muscle strengthening.

Among U.S. high school students in 2019, only 44.1% were physically active for 60 minutes or more on at least 5 days of the week.
 

Nutrition

While there is some evidence that Americans are improving their diet, fewer than 10% of U.S. adults met guidelines for whole grain, whole fruit, and nonstarchy vegetable consumption each day in 2017–2018.

Overweight/obesity

The prevalence of obesity among adults increased from 1999–2000 through 2017–2018 from 30.5% to 42.4%. Overall prevalence of obesity and severe obesity in U.S. youth 2 to 19 years of age increased from 13.9% to 19.3% and 2.6% to 6.1% between 1999–2000 and 2017–2018.

Cholesterol

Close to 94 million (38.1%) U.S. adults have total cholesterol of 200 mg/dL or higher, according to 2015–2018 data; about 28.0 million (11.5%) have total cholesterol of 240 mg/dL or higher; and 27.8% have high levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (130 mg/dL or higher).

Diabetes

In 2019, 87,647 U.S. deaths were attributed to diabetes; data show that 9.8 million U.S. adults have undiagnosed diabetes, 28.2 million have diagnosed diabetes, and 113.6 million have prediabetes.

Hypertension

A total of 121.5 million (47.3%) U.S. adults have hypertension, based on 2015–2018 data. In 2019, 102,072 U.S. deaths were primarily attributable to hypertension.

This statistical update was prepared by a volunteer writing group on behalf of the American Heart Association Council on Epidemiology and Prevention Statistics Committee and Stroke Statistics Subcommittee. Disclosures for the writing committee are listed with the original article.



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

It all started with genetic data. A gene here, a gene there. Eventually the story became clearer: If scientists are to one day find a cure for Alzheimer’s disease, they should look to the immune system.

Over the past couple decades, researchers have identified numerous genes involved in various immune system functions that may also contribute to Alzheimer’s disease. Some of the prime suspects are genes that control microglia, now the focus of intense research in developing new Alzheimer’s drugs.

Microglia are amoeba-like cells that scour the brain for injuries and invaders. They help clear dead or impaired brain cells and literally gobble up invading microbes. Without them, we’d be in trouble.

In a normal brain, a protein called beta-amyloid is cleared away through our lymphatic system by microglia as molecular junk. But sometimes it builds up. Certain gene mutations are one culprit in this toxic accumulation. Traumatic brain injury is another, and, perhaps, impaired microglial function.

One thing everyone agrees on is that in people with Alzheimer’s disease, too much amyloid accumulates between their brain cells and in the vessels that supply the brain with blood. Once amyloid begins to clog networks of neurons, it triggers the accumulation of another protein, called tau, inside of these brain cells. The presence of tau sends microglia and other immune mechanisms into overdrive, resulting in the inflammatory immune response that many experts believe ultimately saps brain vitality in Alzheimer’s disease.
 

The gene scene

To date, nearly a dozen genes involved in immune and microglial function have been tied to Alzheimer’s disease. The first was CD33, identified in 2008.

“When we got the results, I literally ran to my colleague’s office next door and said, you gotta see this!” said Harvard neuroscientist Rudolph Tanzi. Dr. Tanzi, who goes by Rudy, led the CD33 research. The discovery was quickly named a top medical breakthrough of 2008 by Time magazine.

“We were laughing because what they didn’t know is we had no idea what this gene did,” he joked. But over time, research by Dr. Tanzi and his group revealed that CD33 is a kind of microglial on-off switch, activating the cells as part of an inflammatory pathway.

“We kind of got it all going when it came to the genetics,” he said.

Microglia normally recognize molecular patterns associated with microbes and cellular damage as unwanted. This is how they know to take action – to devour unfamiliar pathogens and dead tissue. Dr. Tanzi believes microglia sense any sign of brain damage as an infection, which causes them to become hyperactive.

Much of our modern human immune system, he explained, evolved many hundreds of thousands of years ago. Our lifespans at the time were far shorter than they are today, and the majority of people didn’t live long enough to develop dementia or the withered brain cells that come with it. So our immune system, he said, assumes any faulty brain tissue is due to a microbe, not dementia. Microglia react aggressively, clearing the area to prevent the spread of infection.

“They say, ‘We better wipe out this part of the brain that’s infected, even if it’s not.’ They don’t know,” quipped Dr. Tanzi. “That’s what causes neuroinflammation. And CD33 turns this response on. The microglia become killers, not just janitors.”
 

A brake on overactive microglia

If CD33 is the yin, a gene called TREM2 is the yang. Discovered a few years after CD33, TREM2 reins in microglial activation, returning them to their role as cellular housekeepers.

Neurologist David Holtzman, MD, of Washington University in St. Louis, who studies TREM2, agrees that wherever you find amyloid, tau, or dead brain cells, there are microglia raring to go and ready to scavenge.

“I think at first a lot of people thought these cells were reacting to Alzheimer’s pathology, and not necessarily a cause of the disease,” he said.

It was the discovery of TREM2 on the heels of CD33 that really shifted the thinking, in part because it produces a protein that in the brain is only found in microglia. “Many of us [in the field] immediately said, ‘Look, there’s now a risk factor that is only expressed in microglia. It must be that innate immune cells are important in some way in the pathogenesis of the disease,’ “ he added.

Dr. Holtzman sees microglial activation in impending dementia as a double-edged sword. In the beginning, microglia clear unwanted amyloid to maintain brain health. But once accumulated amyloid and tau have done enough damage, the neuroinflammation that comes with microglial activation does more harm than good. Neurons die en masse and dementia sets in.

But not all researchers are convinced.

Serge Revist, PhD, is a professor in the department of molecular medicine at the Laval University Medical School in Quebec. Based on his lab’s research, he believes that while impaired immune activity is involved in Alzheimer’s disease, it is not the root cause. “I don’t think it is the immune cells that do the damage, I still think it is the beta-amyloid itself,” he said, “In my lab, in mouse studies, we’ve never found that immune cells were directly responsible for killing neurons.”

He does believe that in some patients with Alzheimer’s disease, microglia may not be able to handle the excess amyloid that accumulates in the disease and that developing treatments that improve the ability of microglia and the immune system to clear the protein could be effective.
 

Microglial medicines

The biological cascade leading to Alzheimer’s disease is a tangled one. Gene variants influencing the accumulation and clearance of amyloid are likely a major contributor. But immune activity caused by early life infection might also be involved, at least in some cases. This infectious theory of Alzheimer’s disease was first proposed by Dr. Tanzi’s now-deceased colleague Robert Moir, PhD. Dr. Tanzi’s group even has evidence that amyloid itself is antimicrobial and evolved to protect us from pathogens, only to become a problem when overactive and aggregated.

And the same goes for microglia, cells whose over-ambition might cause much of the brain degeneration seen in Alzheimer’s disease.

In theory, if a treatment could decrease CD33 activity or increase that of TREM2, doctors might one day may be able to slow or even stop the progression of dementia. Instead of going after amyloid itself – the mechanism behind so many failed investigational Alzheimer’s drugs – a therapy that quells the immune response to amyloid might be the answer in treating dementia.

“There are a number of scientists and companies trying to figure out how to influence genes like TREM2 and CD33 and to both decrease amyloid and act on the downstream consequences of the protein,” said Dr. Holtzman. “All of this is to say that somewhere in the biology that causes Alzheimer’s disease, the immune system is involved.”

It seems that in many cases, the most common form of a dementia might be due to a well-intentioned immune cell going rogue. “I think you’d hear this from basically any researcher worth their salt,” said Dr. Tanzi. “I feel strongly that without microglial activation, you will not get Alzheimer’s disease.”

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

It all started with genetic data. A gene here, a gene there. Eventually the story became clearer: If scientists are to one day find a cure for Alzheimer’s disease, they should look to the immune system.

Over the past couple decades, researchers have identified numerous genes involved in various immune system functions that may also contribute to Alzheimer’s disease. Some of the prime suspects are genes that control microglia, now the focus of intense research in developing new Alzheimer’s drugs.

Microglia are amoeba-like cells that scour the brain for injuries and invaders. They help clear dead or impaired brain cells and literally gobble up invading microbes. Without them, we’d be in trouble.

In a normal brain, a protein called beta-amyloid is cleared away through our lymphatic system by microglia as molecular junk. But sometimes it builds up. Certain gene mutations are one culprit in this toxic accumulation. Traumatic brain injury is another, and, perhaps, impaired microglial function.

One thing everyone agrees on is that in people with Alzheimer’s disease, too much amyloid accumulates between their brain cells and in the vessels that supply the brain with blood. Once amyloid begins to clog networks of neurons, it triggers the accumulation of another protein, called tau, inside of these brain cells. The presence of tau sends microglia and other immune mechanisms into overdrive, resulting in the inflammatory immune response that many experts believe ultimately saps brain vitality in Alzheimer’s disease.
 

The gene scene

To date, nearly a dozen genes involved in immune and microglial function have been tied to Alzheimer’s disease. The first was CD33, identified in 2008.

“When we got the results, I literally ran to my colleague’s office next door and said, you gotta see this!” said Harvard neuroscientist Rudolph Tanzi. Dr. Tanzi, who goes by Rudy, led the CD33 research. The discovery was quickly named a top medical breakthrough of 2008 by Time magazine.

“We were laughing because what they didn’t know is we had no idea what this gene did,” he joked. But over time, research by Dr. Tanzi and his group revealed that CD33 is a kind of microglial on-off switch, activating the cells as part of an inflammatory pathway.

“We kind of got it all going when it came to the genetics,” he said.

Microglia normally recognize molecular patterns associated with microbes and cellular damage as unwanted. This is how they know to take action – to devour unfamiliar pathogens and dead tissue. Dr. Tanzi believes microglia sense any sign of brain damage as an infection, which causes them to become hyperactive.

Much of our modern human immune system, he explained, evolved many hundreds of thousands of years ago. Our lifespans at the time were far shorter than they are today, and the majority of people didn’t live long enough to develop dementia or the withered brain cells that come with it. So our immune system, he said, assumes any faulty brain tissue is due to a microbe, not dementia. Microglia react aggressively, clearing the area to prevent the spread of infection.

“They say, ‘We better wipe out this part of the brain that’s infected, even if it’s not.’ They don’t know,” quipped Dr. Tanzi. “That’s what causes neuroinflammation. And CD33 turns this response on. The microglia become killers, not just janitors.”
 

A brake on overactive microglia

If CD33 is the yin, a gene called TREM2 is the yang. Discovered a few years after CD33, TREM2 reins in microglial activation, returning them to their role as cellular housekeepers.

Neurologist David Holtzman, MD, of Washington University in St. Louis, who studies TREM2, agrees that wherever you find amyloid, tau, or dead brain cells, there are microglia raring to go and ready to scavenge.

“I think at first a lot of people thought these cells were reacting to Alzheimer’s pathology, and not necessarily a cause of the disease,” he said.

It was the discovery of TREM2 on the heels of CD33 that really shifted the thinking, in part because it produces a protein that in the brain is only found in microglia. “Many of us [in the field] immediately said, ‘Look, there’s now a risk factor that is only expressed in microglia. It must be that innate immune cells are important in some way in the pathogenesis of the disease,’ “ he added.

Dr. Holtzman sees microglial activation in impending dementia as a double-edged sword. In the beginning, microglia clear unwanted amyloid to maintain brain health. But once accumulated amyloid and tau have done enough damage, the neuroinflammation that comes with microglial activation does more harm than good. Neurons die en masse and dementia sets in.

But not all researchers are convinced.

Serge Revist, PhD, is a professor in the department of molecular medicine at the Laval University Medical School in Quebec. Based on his lab’s research, he believes that while impaired immune activity is involved in Alzheimer’s disease, it is not the root cause. “I don’t think it is the immune cells that do the damage, I still think it is the beta-amyloid itself,” he said, “In my lab, in mouse studies, we’ve never found that immune cells were directly responsible for killing neurons.”

He does believe that in some patients with Alzheimer’s disease, microglia may not be able to handle the excess amyloid that accumulates in the disease and that developing treatments that improve the ability of microglia and the immune system to clear the protein could be effective.
 

Microglial medicines

The biological cascade leading to Alzheimer’s disease is a tangled one. Gene variants influencing the accumulation and clearance of amyloid are likely a major contributor. But immune activity caused by early life infection might also be involved, at least in some cases. This infectious theory of Alzheimer’s disease was first proposed by Dr. Tanzi’s now-deceased colleague Robert Moir, PhD. Dr. Tanzi’s group even has evidence that amyloid itself is antimicrobial and evolved to protect us from pathogens, only to become a problem when overactive and aggregated.

And the same goes for microglia, cells whose over-ambition might cause much of the brain degeneration seen in Alzheimer’s disease.

In theory, if a treatment could decrease CD33 activity or increase that of TREM2, doctors might one day may be able to slow or even stop the progression of dementia. Instead of going after amyloid itself – the mechanism behind so many failed investigational Alzheimer’s drugs – a therapy that quells the immune response to amyloid might be the answer in treating dementia.

“There are a number of scientists and companies trying to figure out how to influence genes like TREM2 and CD33 and to both decrease amyloid and act on the downstream consequences of the protein,” said Dr. Holtzman. “All of this is to say that somewhere in the biology that causes Alzheimer’s disease, the immune system is involved.”

It seems that in many cases, the most common form of a dementia might be due to a well-intentioned immune cell going rogue. “I think you’d hear this from basically any researcher worth their salt,” said Dr. Tanzi. “I feel strongly that without microglial activation, you will not get Alzheimer’s disease.”

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

It all started with genetic data. A gene here, a gene there. Eventually the story became clearer: If scientists are to one day find a cure for Alzheimer’s disease, they should look to the immune system.

Over the past couple decades, researchers have identified numerous genes involved in various immune system functions that may also contribute to Alzheimer’s disease. Some of the prime suspects are genes that control microglia, now the focus of intense research in developing new Alzheimer’s drugs.

Microglia are amoeba-like cells that scour the brain for injuries and invaders. They help clear dead or impaired brain cells and literally gobble up invading microbes. Without them, we’d be in trouble.

In a normal brain, a protein called beta-amyloid is cleared away through our lymphatic system by microglia as molecular junk. But sometimes it builds up. Certain gene mutations are one culprit in this toxic accumulation. Traumatic brain injury is another, and, perhaps, impaired microglial function.

One thing everyone agrees on is that in people with Alzheimer’s disease, too much amyloid accumulates between their brain cells and in the vessels that supply the brain with blood. Once amyloid begins to clog networks of neurons, it triggers the accumulation of another protein, called tau, inside of these brain cells. The presence of tau sends microglia and other immune mechanisms into overdrive, resulting in the inflammatory immune response that many experts believe ultimately saps brain vitality in Alzheimer’s disease.
 

The gene scene

To date, nearly a dozen genes involved in immune and microglial function have been tied to Alzheimer’s disease. The first was CD33, identified in 2008.

“When we got the results, I literally ran to my colleague’s office next door and said, you gotta see this!” said Harvard neuroscientist Rudolph Tanzi. Dr. Tanzi, who goes by Rudy, led the CD33 research. The discovery was quickly named a top medical breakthrough of 2008 by Time magazine.

“We were laughing because what they didn’t know is we had no idea what this gene did,” he joked. But over time, research by Dr. Tanzi and his group revealed that CD33 is a kind of microglial on-off switch, activating the cells as part of an inflammatory pathway.

“We kind of got it all going when it came to the genetics,” he said.

Microglia normally recognize molecular patterns associated with microbes and cellular damage as unwanted. This is how they know to take action – to devour unfamiliar pathogens and dead tissue. Dr. Tanzi believes microglia sense any sign of brain damage as an infection, which causes them to become hyperactive.

Much of our modern human immune system, he explained, evolved many hundreds of thousands of years ago. Our lifespans at the time were far shorter than they are today, and the majority of people didn’t live long enough to develop dementia or the withered brain cells that come with it. So our immune system, he said, assumes any faulty brain tissue is due to a microbe, not dementia. Microglia react aggressively, clearing the area to prevent the spread of infection.

“They say, ‘We better wipe out this part of the brain that’s infected, even if it’s not.’ They don’t know,” quipped Dr. Tanzi. “That’s what causes neuroinflammation. And CD33 turns this response on. The microglia become killers, not just janitors.”
 

A brake on overactive microglia

If CD33 is the yin, a gene called TREM2 is the yang. Discovered a few years after CD33, TREM2 reins in microglial activation, returning them to their role as cellular housekeepers.

Neurologist David Holtzman, MD, of Washington University in St. Louis, who studies TREM2, agrees that wherever you find amyloid, tau, or dead brain cells, there are microglia raring to go and ready to scavenge.

“I think at first a lot of people thought these cells were reacting to Alzheimer’s pathology, and not necessarily a cause of the disease,” he said.

It was the discovery of TREM2 on the heels of CD33 that really shifted the thinking, in part because it produces a protein that in the brain is only found in microglia. “Many of us [in the field] immediately said, ‘Look, there’s now a risk factor that is only expressed in microglia. It must be that innate immune cells are important in some way in the pathogenesis of the disease,’ “ he added.

Dr. Holtzman sees microglial activation in impending dementia as a double-edged sword. In the beginning, microglia clear unwanted amyloid to maintain brain health. But once accumulated amyloid and tau have done enough damage, the neuroinflammation that comes with microglial activation does more harm than good. Neurons die en masse and dementia sets in.

But not all researchers are convinced.

Serge Revist, PhD, is a professor in the department of molecular medicine at the Laval University Medical School in Quebec. Based on his lab’s research, he believes that while impaired immune activity is involved in Alzheimer’s disease, it is not the root cause. “I don’t think it is the immune cells that do the damage, I still think it is the beta-amyloid itself,” he said, “In my lab, in mouse studies, we’ve never found that immune cells were directly responsible for killing neurons.”

He does believe that in some patients with Alzheimer’s disease, microglia may not be able to handle the excess amyloid that accumulates in the disease and that developing treatments that improve the ability of microglia and the immune system to clear the protein could be effective.
 

Microglial medicines

The biological cascade leading to Alzheimer’s disease is a tangled one. Gene variants influencing the accumulation and clearance of amyloid are likely a major contributor. But immune activity caused by early life infection might also be involved, at least in some cases. This infectious theory of Alzheimer’s disease was first proposed by Dr. Tanzi’s now-deceased colleague Robert Moir, PhD. Dr. Tanzi’s group even has evidence that amyloid itself is antimicrobial and evolved to protect us from pathogens, only to become a problem when overactive and aggregated.

And the same goes for microglia, cells whose over-ambition might cause much of the brain degeneration seen in Alzheimer’s disease.

In theory, if a treatment could decrease CD33 activity or increase that of TREM2, doctors might one day may be able to slow or even stop the progression of dementia. Instead of going after amyloid itself – the mechanism behind so many failed investigational Alzheimer’s drugs – a therapy that quells the immune response to amyloid might be the answer in treating dementia.

“There are a number of scientists and companies trying to figure out how to influence genes like TREM2 and CD33 and to both decrease amyloid and act on the downstream consequences of the protein,” said Dr. Holtzman. “All of this is to say that somewhere in the biology that causes Alzheimer’s disease, the immune system is involved.”

It seems that in many cases, the most common form of a dementia might be due to a well-intentioned immune cell going rogue. “I think you’d hear this from basically any researcher worth their salt,” said Dr. Tanzi. “I feel strongly that without microglial activation, you will not get Alzheimer’s disease.”

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