Clinical Endocrinology News

Among U.S. patients who regularly undergo hemodialysis, 20% had some degree of hesitancy about receiving a COVID-19 vaccine in a survey of 1,515 patients conducted during January and February 2021.
 

The most frequently cited concern associated with hesitancy over vaccination against the SARS-CoV-2 virus was with regard to possible adverse effects. This was cited by more than half of the patients who were concerned about being vaccinated.

Hesitancy rates were highest among people aged 44 years or younger, women, people who identified as non-Hispanic Black or non-Hispanic other (generally Native American or Pacific Islander), those with less than some college education, and those without a history of influenza vaccination, Pablo Garcia, MD, reported at the National Kidney Foundation (NKF) 2021 Spring Clinical Meetings.
 

Hesitancy or access?

Overall, however, the findings suggest that the main barrier to COVID-19 vaccine uptake is “access rather than hesitancy,” explained Dr. Garcia, a nephrologist at Stanford (Calif.) University. He predicts that this barrier will soon resolve, in part because of a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention program launched in March 2021 that is supplying COVID-19 vaccine to U.S. dialysis centers to administer to their patients.

“This will facilitate access to the vaccine” for patients who regularly receive hemodialysis, Dr. Garcia said during his presentation.

“Administering vaccines in dialysis clinics will help. Patients are already accustomed to receiving influenza vaccine in the clinic,” said Joseph A. Vassalotti, MD, a nephrologist at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, and chief medical officer for the NKF.

Dr. Vassalotti cited the importance of protecting the vulnerable population of people who regularly receive hemodialysis. Among those patients, there was a 37% spike in all-cause mortality during peak weeks of the pandemic compared with similar periods during 2017-2019.
 

Any level of vaccine hesitancy is concerning

In an interview, he said, “Vaccination is the key to reducing this burden, so any level of vaccine hesitancy is concerning” with regard to patients who regularly undergo dialysis.

Hesitancy among patients who undergo dialysis appears to be less than in the general U.S. population, according to a series of surveys conducted from April through December 2020. In that series, hesitancy rates approached 50% in a sample of more than 8,000 people.

Hesitancy among people overall may have recently increased, at least for the short term, because of concerns over rare thrombotic events among people who receive certain types of COVID-19 vaccine, Dr. Vassalotti noted.

Dr. Garcia and associates conducted their survey from Jan. 8 to Feb. 11, 2021, among patients who regularly received hemodialysis at any of 150 randomly selected dialysis clinics that treat 30 or more patients and are managed by U.S. Renal Care. The study enrolled patients in 22 states. Most of the patients were aged 45-79 years; 30% were non-Hispanic White; 30% were Black, and 24% were Hispanic. The survey included 24 questions and took about 10 minutes to complete.

In reply to the statement, “If COVID-19 vaccine was proven safe and effective for the general population I would seek to get it,” 20% gave a reply of definitely not, probably not, or unsure; 79% answered either probably or definitely yes.

Another question asked about willingness to receive a vaccine if it was shown to be safe and effective for people receiving dialysis. In answer to that question, 19% said definitely not, probably not, or unsure.
 

Possible adverse effects an issue

Asked the reason why they were hesitant to receive the vaccine, 53% cited possible adverse effects; 19% cited general unease about vaccines; 19% said they did not think the COVID-19 vaccines would work; 17% said they did not think they needed a COVID-19 vaccine; and 15% said they had read or heard that COVID-19 vaccines were dangerous.

A set of questions asked survey respondents about their primary source of information about COVID-19 vaccines. About three-quarters cited television news; about 35% cited members of their dialysis clinic staff; about 30% cited friends and family; 20% cited social media; 20% cited their nephrologists; and roughly 15% cited newspapers.

The results suggest that potentially effective interventions to promote vaccine uptake include showing informational videos to patients during dialysis sessions and encouraging the staff at dialysis centers to proactively educate patients about COVID-19 vaccines and to promote uptake, suggest Dr. Garcia and Dr. Vassalotti.

Dr. Vassalotti noted that in a recent single-center survey of 90 U.S. patients undergoing hemodialysis that included 75 (85%) Black persons, the prevalence of hesitancy about COVID-19 vaccines was 50%. Hesitancy was often linked with gaps in patient education.

“We need broad educational measures, as well as targeting specific demographic groups” among whom the level of hesitancy is high, said Dr. Vassalotti.

He noted that patients who undergo dialysis are receptive to messages from dialysis clinic staff members and that this offers an “opportunity to understand misconceptions that underlie hesitancy and address them on an individual basis.”

The NKF has prepared a fact sheet for educating patients with kidney disease about the efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccines, Dr. Vassalotti noted.

Dr. Garcia has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Vassalotti is an adviser and consultant to Renalytix AI and is a consultant to Janssen.

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

Among U.S. patients who regularly undergo hemodialysis, 20% had some degree of hesitancy about receiving a COVID-19 vaccine in a survey of 1,515 patients conducted during January and February 2021.
 

The most frequently cited concern associated with hesitancy over vaccination against the SARS-CoV-2 virus was with regard to possible adverse effects. This was cited by more than half of the patients who were concerned about being vaccinated.

Hesitancy rates were highest among people aged 44 years or younger, women, people who identified as non-Hispanic Black or non-Hispanic other (generally Native American or Pacific Islander), those with less than some college education, and those without a history of influenza vaccination, Pablo Garcia, MD, reported at the National Kidney Foundation (NKF) 2021 Spring Clinical Meetings.
 

Hesitancy or access?

Overall, however, the findings suggest that the main barrier to COVID-19 vaccine uptake is “access rather than hesitancy,” explained Dr. Garcia, a nephrologist at Stanford (Calif.) University. He predicts that this barrier will soon resolve, in part because of a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention program launched in March 2021 that is supplying COVID-19 vaccine to U.S. dialysis centers to administer to their patients.

“This will facilitate access to the vaccine” for patients who regularly receive hemodialysis, Dr. Garcia said during his presentation.

“Administering vaccines in dialysis clinics will help. Patients are already accustomed to receiving influenza vaccine in the clinic,” said Joseph A. Vassalotti, MD, a nephrologist at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, and chief medical officer for the NKF.

Dr. Vassalotti cited the importance of protecting the vulnerable population of people who regularly receive hemodialysis. Among those patients, there was a 37% spike in all-cause mortality during peak weeks of the pandemic compared with similar periods during 2017-2019.
 

Any level of vaccine hesitancy is concerning

In an interview, he said, “Vaccination is the key to reducing this burden, so any level of vaccine hesitancy is concerning” with regard to patients who regularly undergo dialysis.

Hesitancy among patients who undergo dialysis appears to be less than in the general U.S. population, according to a series of surveys conducted from April through December 2020. In that series, hesitancy rates approached 50% in a sample of more than 8,000 people.

Hesitancy among people overall may have recently increased, at least for the short term, because of concerns over rare thrombotic events among people who receive certain types of COVID-19 vaccine, Dr. Vassalotti noted.

Dr. Garcia and associates conducted their survey from Jan. 8 to Feb. 11, 2021, among patients who regularly received hemodialysis at any of 150 randomly selected dialysis clinics that treat 30 or more patients and are managed by U.S. Renal Care. The study enrolled patients in 22 states. Most of the patients were aged 45-79 years; 30% were non-Hispanic White; 30% were Black, and 24% were Hispanic. The survey included 24 questions and took about 10 minutes to complete.

In reply to the statement, “If COVID-19 vaccine was proven safe and effective for the general population I would seek to get it,” 20% gave a reply of definitely not, probably not, or unsure; 79% answered either probably or definitely yes.

Another question asked about willingness to receive a vaccine if it was shown to be safe and effective for people receiving dialysis. In answer to that question, 19% said definitely not, probably not, or unsure.
 

Possible adverse effects an issue

Asked the reason why they were hesitant to receive the vaccine, 53% cited possible adverse effects; 19% cited general unease about vaccines; 19% said they did not think the COVID-19 vaccines would work; 17% said they did not think they needed a COVID-19 vaccine; and 15% said they had read or heard that COVID-19 vaccines were dangerous.

A set of questions asked survey respondents about their primary source of information about COVID-19 vaccines. About three-quarters cited television news; about 35% cited members of their dialysis clinic staff; about 30% cited friends and family; 20% cited social media; 20% cited their nephrologists; and roughly 15% cited newspapers.

The results suggest that potentially effective interventions to promote vaccine uptake include showing informational videos to patients during dialysis sessions and encouraging the staff at dialysis centers to proactively educate patients about COVID-19 vaccines and to promote uptake, suggest Dr. Garcia and Dr. Vassalotti.

Dr. Vassalotti noted that in a recent single-center survey of 90 U.S. patients undergoing hemodialysis that included 75 (85%) Black persons, the prevalence of hesitancy about COVID-19 vaccines was 50%. Hesitancy was often linked with gaps in patient education.

“We need broad educational measures, as well as targeting specific demographic groups” among whom the level of hesitancy is high, said Dr. Vassalotti.

He noted that patients who undergo dialysis are receptive to messages from dialysis clinic staff members and that this offers an “opportunity to understand misconceptions that underlie hesitancy and address them on an individual basis.”

The NKF has prepared a fact sheet for educating patients with kidney disease about the efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccines, Dr. Vassalotti noted.

Dr. Garcia has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Vassalotti is an adviser and consultant to Renalytix AI and is a consultant to Janssen.

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

Among U.S. patients who regularly undergo hemodialysis, 20% had some degree of hesitancy about receiving a COVID-19 vaccine in a survey of 1,515 patients conducted during January and February 2021.
 

The most frequently cited concern associated with hesitancy over vaccination against the SARS-CoV-2 virus was with regard to possible adverse effects. This was cited by more than half of the patients who were concerned about being vaccinated.

Hesitancy rates were highest among people aged 44 years or younger, women, people who identified as non-Hispanic Black or non-Hispanic other (generally Native American or Pacific Islander), those with less than some college education, and those without a history of influenza vaccination, Pablo Garcia, MD, reported at the National Kidney Foundation (NKF) 2021 Spring Clinical Meetings.
 

Hesitancy or access?

Overall, however, the findings suggest that the main barrier to COVID-19 vaccine uptake is “access rather than hesitancy,” explained Dr. Garcia, a nephrologist at Stanford (Calif.) University. He predicts that this barrier will soon resolve, in part because of a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention program launched in March 2021 that is supplying COVID-19 vaccine to U.S. dialysis centers to administer to their patients.

“This will facilitate access to the vaccine” for patients who regularly receive hemodialysis, Dr. Garcia said during his presentation.

“Administering vaccines in dialysis clinics will help. Patients are already accustomed to receiving influenza vaccine in the clinic,” said Joseph A. Vassalotti, MD, a nephrologist at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, and chief medical officer for the NKF.

Dr. Vassalotti cited the importance of protecting the vulnerable population of people who regularly receive hemodialysis. Among those patients, there was a 37% spike in all-cause mortality during peak weeks of the pandemic compared with similar periods during 2017-2019.
 

Any level of vaccine hesitancy is concerning

In an interview, he said, “Vaccination is the key to reducing this burden, so any level of vaccine hesitancy is concerning” with regard to patients who regularly undergo dialysis.

Hesitancy among patients who undergo dialysis appears to be less than in the general U.S. population, according to a series of surveys conducted from April through December 2020. In that series, hesitancy rates approached 50% in a sample of more than 8,000 people.

Hesitancy among people overall may have recently increased, at least for the short term, because of concerns over rare thrombotic events among people who receive certain types of COVID-19 vaccine, Dr. Vassalotti noted.

Dr. Garcia and associates conducted their survey from Jan. 8 to Feb. 11, 2021, among patients who regularly received hemodialysis at any of 150 randomly selected dialysis clinics that treat 30 or more patients and are managed by U.S. Renal Care. The study enrolled patients in 22 states. Most of the patients were aged 45-79 years; 30% were non-Hispanic White; 30% were Black, and 24% were Hispanic. The survey included 24 questions and took about 10 minutes to complete.

In reply to the statement, “If COVID-19 vaccine was proven safe and effective for the general population I would seek to get it,” 20% gave a reply of definitely not, probably not, or unsure; 79% answered either probably or definitely yes.

Another question asked about willingness to receive a vaccine if it was shown to be safe and effective for people receiving dialysis. In answer to that question, 19% said definitely not, probably not, or unsure.
 

Possible adverse effects an issue

Asked the reason why they were hesitant to receive the vaccine, 53% cited possible adverse effects; 19% cited general unease about vaccines; 19% said they did not think the COVID-19 vaccines would work; 17% said they did not think they needed a COVID-19 vaccine; and 15% said they had read or heard that COVID-19 vaccines were dangerous.

A set of questions asked survey respondents about their primary source of information about COVID-19 vaccines. About three-quarters cited television news; about 35% cited members of their dialysis clinic staff; about 30% cited friends and family; 20% cited social media; 20% cited their nephrologists; and roughly 15% cited newspapers.

The results suggest that potentially effective interventions to promote vaccine uptake include showing informational videos to patients during dialysis sessions and encouraging the staff at dialysis centers to proactively educate patients about COVID-19 vaccines and to promote uptake, suggest Dr. Garcia and Dr. Vassalotti.

Dr. Vassalotti noted that in a recent single-center survey of 90 U.S. patients undergoing hemodialysis that included 75 (85%) Black persons, the prevalence of hesitancy about COVID-19 vaccines was 50%. Hesitancy was often linked with gaps in patient education.

“We need broad educational measures, as well as targeting specific demographic groups” among whom the level of hesitancy is high, said Dr. Vassalotti.

He noted that patients who undergo dialysis are receptive to messages from dialysis clinic staff members and that this offers an “opportunity to understand misconceptions that underlie hesitancy and address them on an individual basis.”

The NKF has prepared a fact sheet for educating patients with kidney disease about the efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccines, Dr. Vassalotti noted.

Dr. Garcia has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Vassalotti is an adviser and consultant to Renalytix AI and is a consultant to Janssen.

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

Patients with heart failure get pneumonia at a rate almost three times greater than expected and, once they do get pneumonia, have about a fourfold greater risk of death, investigators for a retrospective analysis of 13,000 patients from two landmark randomized HF trials have found.

Catherine Hackett/MDedge News

The investigators also found that HF patients with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) are at the highest risk of developing pneumonia. The findings underscore the importance of patients with HF getting a pneumonia vaccination, they found.

The analysis showed that 6.3% of patients in the PARADIGM-HF trial and 10.6% of those in the PARAGON-HF trial developed pneumonia, reported the study authors, led by John J.V. McMurray, MD, of the British Heart Foundation Cardiovascular Research Center at the University of Glasgow in Scotland (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2021;77:1961-73).

“The main reason for doing this study was the fact that many heart failure patients are not vaccinated, as they should be, against pneumonia – both pneumococcus and influenza vaccination,” Dr. McMurray said in an interview. “We wanted to document the frequency and consequences of pneumonia in patients with heart failure to help highlight this deficiency in care.”

Dr. McMurray said he believes this is the first study to document the incidence of pneumonia and pneumonia-related outcomes according to the two major ejection fraction phenotypes.
 

PARADIGM-HF and PARAGON-HF

The post hoc analysis consisted of 8,399 patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) in PARADIGM-HF (Eur J Heart Fail. 2013 Sep;15[9]:1062-73) and 4,796 patients with HFpEF in PARAGON-HF (N Engl J Med. 2014 Sep 11;371[11]:993-1004). The analysis focused on the 528 and 510 patients in each study, respectively, who developed pneumonia. Those rates translated to an incidence rate of 29 per 1,000 patient-years (95% confidence interval, 27-31) in PARADIGM-HF and 39 per 1,000 patient-years (95% CI, 36-42) in PARAGON-HF.

After pneumonia, the risk of death in patients increased substantially. In PARADIGM-HF, the adjusted hazard ratio for the risk of death from any cause after pneumonia was 4.34 (95% CI, 3.73-5.05). In PARAGON-HF, it was 3.76 (95% CI, 3.09-4.58). HF patients who contracted pneumonia also tended to have HF longer than their counterparts who didn’t develop pneumonia, but the frequency of previous hospitalization for HF didn’t vary between the pneumonia and no-pneumonia groups.

Patients who developed pneumonia tended to be older (average age of 66.9 years vs. 64.6 years, P < .001) and male (83.9% vs. 77.8%, P < .001). The mean age of patients in PARADIGM-HF was almost a decade younger than those in PARAGON-HF, 64 vs. 73 years.

Pneumonia patients also had worse Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire scores (76 vs. 80 on average), but no difference in New York Heart Association functional class. “In general, patients who developed pneumonia had more symptoms and signs and HF than those who did not develop pneumonia,” Dr. McMurray and colleagues wrote.

Pneumonia patients also had higher rates of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (26% vs. 12%), diabetes (43% vs. 34%), and atrial fibrillation (46% vs. 36%).

Another reason for conducting the study, Dr. McMurray said, “was the prior findings in patients with coronary disease and acute myocardial infarction that the risk associated with an episode of pneumonia [e.g., in subsequent vascular events and deaths] persisted long after the acute event. We wanted to see if this was also the case for heart failure, and indeed it was.”

For example, the adjusted HR for cardiovascular death or hospitalization in the first month following an episode of pneumonia was 9.48 (range of 6.85-13.12, P < .001), leveling off to 1.59 after 3 months or more.
 

Vaccination crucial in HF patients

Dr. McMurray noted that this study emphasizes the importance of pneumonia vaccination for patients with HF. “Given that we have so few treatments to offer patients with HFpEF, this makes the potential value of vaccination in these patients all the greater,” he said.

The COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. McMurray said, is a “good reminder of the dangers of a respiratory infection and the importance of vaccination in these patients. COVID-19 has interesting parallels in being a systemic disease and one with postacute, persisting effects.”

The persistent risk for adverse cardiovascular events 3 months and later after pneumonia is a novel finding of the study, wrote Donna Mancini, MD, and Gregory Gibson, MD, in an invited commentary (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2021;77:1974-6). Both are with the Icahn School of Medicine at Mt. Sinai in New York. The post hoc study also “serves as an important reminder” of pneumonia risk in patients with HF, especially during the pandemic, they wrote.

“Although vaccination alone appears unlikely to be a panacea, it is a readily accessible tool for mitigating disease severity and improving outcomes,” Dr. Mancini and Dr. Gibson wrote. “After all, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.”

Novartis provided funding for the PARADIGM-HF and PARAGON-HF trials, and Dr. McMurray and coauthors disclosed financial relationships with Novartis. Dr. Mancini and Dr. Gibson have no relevant financial relationships to disclose.

Patients with heart failure get pneumonia at a rate almost three times greater than expected and, once they do get pneumonia, have about a fourfold greater risk of death, investigators for a retrospective analysis of 13,000 patients from two landmark randomized HF trials have found.

Catherine Hackett/MDedge News

The investigators also found that HF patients with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) are at the highest risk of developing pneumonia. The findings underscore the importance of patients with HF getting a pneumonia vaccination, they found.

The analysis showed that 6.3% of patients in the PARADIGM-HF trial and 10.6% of those in the PARAGON-HF trial developed pneumonia, reported the study authors, led by John J.V. McMurray, MD, of the British Heart Foundation Cardiovascular Research Center at the University of Glasgow in Scotland (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2021;77:1961-73).

“The main reason for doing this study was the fact that many heart failure patients are not vaccinated, as they should be, against pneumonia – both pneumococcus and influenza vaccination,” Dr. McMurray said in an interview. “We wanted to document the frequency and consequences of pneumonia in patients with heart failure to help highlight this deficiency in care.”

Dr. McMurray said he believes this is the first study to document the incidence of pneumonia and pneumonia-related outcomes according to the two major ejection fraction phenotypes.
 

PARADIGM-HF and PARAGON-HF

The post hoc analysis consisted of 8,399 patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) in PARADIGM-HF (Eur J Heart Fail. 2013 Sep;15[9]:1062-73) and 4,796 patients with HFpEF in PARAGON-HF (N Engl J Med. 2014 Sep 11;371[11]:993-1004). The analysis focused on the 528 and 510 patients in each study, respectively, who developed pneumonia. Those rates translated to an incidence rate of 29 per 1,000 patient-years (95% confidence interval, 27-31) in PARADIGM-HF and 39 per 1,000 patient-years (95% CI, 36-42) in PARAGON-HF.

After pneumonia, the risk of death in patients increased substantially. In PARADIGM-HF, the adjusted hazard ratio for the risk of death from any cause after pneumonia was 4.34 (95% CI, 3.73-5.05). In PARAGON-HF, it was 3.76 (95% CI, 3.09-4.58). HF patients who contracted pneumonia also tended to have HF longer than their counterparts who didn’t develop pneumonia, but the frequency of previous hospitalization for HF didn’t vary between the pneumonia and no-pneumonia groups.

Patients who developed pneumonia tended to be older (average age of 66.9 years vs. 64.6 years, P < .001) and male (83.9% vs. 77.8%, P < .001). The mean age of patients in PARADIGM-HF was almost a decade younger than those in PARAGON-HF, 64 vs. 73 years.

Pneumonia patients also had worse Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire scores (76 vs. 80 on average), but no difference in New York Heart Association functional class. “In general, patients who developed pneumonia had more symptoms and signs and HF than those who did not develop pneumonia,” Dr. McMurray and colleagues wrote.

Pneumonia patients also had higher rates of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (26% vs. 12%), diabetes (43% vs. 34%), and atrial fibrillation (46% vs. 36%).

Another reason for conducting the study, Dr. McMurray said, “was the prior findings in patients with coronary disease and acute myocardial infarction that the risk associated with an episode of pneumonia [e.g., in subsequent vascular events and deaths] persisted long after the acute event. We wanted to see if this was also the case for heart failure, and indeed it was.”

For example, the adjusted HR for cardiovascular death or hospitalization in the first month following an episode of pneumonia was 9.48 (range of 6.85-13.12, P < .001), leveling off to 1.59 after 3 months or more.
 

Vaccination crucial in HF patients

Dr. McMurray noted that this study emphasizes the importance of pneumonia vaccination for patients with HF. “Given that we have so few treatments to offer patients with HFpEF, this makes the potential value of vaccination in these patients all the greater,” he said.

The COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. McMurray said, is a “good reminder of the dangers of a respiratory infection and the importance of vaccination in these patients. COVID-19 has interesting parallels in being a systemic disease and one with postacute, persisting effects.”

The persistent risk for adverse cardiovascular events 3 months and later after pneumonia is a novel finding of the study, wrote Donna Mancini, MD, and Gregory Gibson, MD, in an invited commentary (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2021;77:1974-6). Both are with the Icahn School of Medicine at Mt. Sinai in New York. The post hoc study also “serves as an important reminder” of pneumonia risk in patients with HF, especially during the pandemic, they wrote.

“Although vaccination alone appears unlikely to be a panacea, it is a readily accessible tool for mitigating disease severity and improving outcomes,” Dr. Mancini and Dr. Gibson wrote. “After all, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.”

Novartis provided funding for the PARADIGM-HF and PARAGON-HF trials, and Dr. McMurray and coauthors disclosed financial relationships with Novartis. Dr. Mancini and Dr. Gibson have no relevant financial relationships to disclose.

Patients with heart failure get pneumonia at a rate almost three times greater than expected and, once they do get pneumonia, have about a fourfold greater risk of death, investigators for a retrospective analysis of 13,000 patients from two landmark randomized HF trials have found.

Catherine Hackett/MDedge News

The investigators also found that HF patients with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) are at the highest risk of developing pneumonia. The findings underscore the importance of patients with HF getting a pneumonia vaccination, they found.

The analysis showed that 6.3% of patients in the PARADIGM-HF trial and 10.6% of those in the PARAGON-HF trial developed pneumonia, reported the study authors, led by John J.V. McMurray, MD, of the British Heart Foundation Cardiovascular Research Center at the University of Glasgow in Scotland (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2021;77:1961-73).

“The main reason for doing this study was the fact that many heart failure patients are not vaccinated, as they should be, against pneumonia – both pneumococcus and influenza vaccination,” Dr. McMurray said in an interview. “We wanted to document the frequency and consequences of pneumonia in patients with heart failure to help highlight this deficiency in care.”

Dr. McMurray said he believes this is the first study to document the incidence of pneumonia and pneumonia-related outcomes according to the two major ejection fraction phenotypes.
 

PARADIGM-HF and PARAGON-HF

The post hoc analysis consisted of 8,399 patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) in PARADIGM-HF (Eur J Heart Fail. 2013 Sep;15[9]:1062-73) and 4,796 patients with HFpEF in PARAGON-HF (N Engl J Med. 2014 Sep 11;371[11]:993-1004). The analysis focused on the 528 and 510 patients in each study, respectively, who developed pneumonia. Those rates translated to an incidence rate of 29 per 1,000 patient-years (95% confidence interval, 27-31) in PARADIGM-HF and 39 per 1,000 patient-years (95% CI, 36-42) in PARAGON-HF.

After pneumonia, the risk of death in patients increased substantially. In PARADIGM-HF, the adjusted hazard ratio for the risk of death from any cause after pneumonia was 4.34 (95% CI, 3.73-5.05). In PARAGON-HF, it was 3.76 (95% CI, 3.09-4.58). HF patients who contracted pneumonia also tended to have HF longer than their counterparts who didn’t develop pneumonia, but the frequency of previous hospitalization for HF didn’t vary between the pneumonia and no-pneumonia groups.

Patients who developed pneumonia tended to be older (average age of 66.9 years vs. 64.6 years, P < .001) and male (83.9% vs. 77.8%, P < .001). The mean age of patients in PARADIGM-HF was almost a decade younger than those in PARAGON-HF, 64 vs. 73 years.

Pneumonia patients also had worse Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire scores (76 vs. 80 on average), but no difference in New York Heart Association functional class. “In general, patients who developed pneumonia had more symptoms and signs and HF than those who did not develop pneumonia,” Dr. McMurray and colleagues wrote.

Pneumonia patients also had higher rates of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (26% vs. 12%), diabetes (43% vs. 34%), and atrial fibrillation (46% vs. 36%).

Another reason for conducting the study, Dr. McMurray said, “was the prior findings in patients with coronary disease and acute myocardial infarction that the risk associated with an episode of pneumonia [e.g., in subsequent vascular events and deaths] persisted long after the acute event. We wanted to see if this was also the case for heart failure, and indeed it was.”

For example, the adjusted HR for cardiovascular death or hospitalization in the first month following an episode of pneumonia was 9.48 (range of 6.85-13.12, P < .001), leveling off to 1.59 after 3 months or more.
 

Vaccination crucial in HF patients

Dr. McMurray noted that this study emphasizes the importance of pneumonia vaccination for patients with HF. “Given that we have so few treatments to offer patients with HFpEF, this makes the potential value of vaccination in these patients all the greater,” he said.

The COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. McMurray said, is a “good reminder of the dangers of a respiratory infection and the importance of vaccination in these patients. COVID-19 has interesting parallels in being a systemic disease and one with postacute, persisting effects.”

The persistent risk for adverse cardiovascular events 3 months and later after pneumonia is a novel finding of the study, wrote Donna Mancini, MD, and Gregory Gibson, MD, in an invited commentary (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2021;77:1974-6). Both are with the Icahn School of Medicine at Mt. Sinai in New York. The post hoc study also “serves as an important reminder” of pneumonia risk in patients with HF, especially during the pandemic, they wrote.

“Although vaccination alone appears unlikely to be a panacea, it is a readily accessible tool for mitigating disease severity and improving outcomes,” Dr. Mancini and Dr. Gibson wrote. “After all, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.”

Novartis provided funding for the PARADIGM-HF and PARAGON-HF trials, and Dr. McMurray and coauthors disclosed financial relationships with Novartis. Dr. Mancini and Dr. Gibson have no relevant financial relationships to disclose.

Low-fat diets appear to decrease testosterone levels in men, but further randomized, controlled trials are needed to confirm this effect, the authors of a meta-analysis of six small intervention studies concluded.

A total of 206 healthy men with normal testosterone received a high-fat diet followed by a low-fat diet (or vice versa), and their mean total testosterone levels were 10%-15% lower (but still in the normal range) during the low-fat diet.

The study by registered nutritionist Joseph Whittaker, MSc, University of Worcester (England), and statistician Kexin Wu, MSc, University of Warwick, Coventry, England, was published online in the Journal of Steroid Biochemistry and Molecular Biology.

“I think our results are consistent and fairly strong, but they are not strong enough to give blanket recommendations,” Mr. Whittaker said in an interview.

However, “if somebody has low testosterone, particularly borderline, they could try increasing their fat intake, maybe on a Mediterranean diet,” he said, and see if that works to increase their testosterone by 60 ng/dL, the weighted mean difference in total testosterone levels between the low-fat versus high-fat diet interventions in this meta-analysis.

“A Mediterranean diet is a good way to increase ‘healthy fats,’ mono- and polyunsaturated fatty acids, which will likely decrease cardiovascular disease risk, and boost testosterone at the same time,” Mr. Whittaker noted.

Olive oil has been shown to boost testosterone more than butter, and it also reduces CVD, he continued. Nuts are high in “healthy fats” and consistently decrease CVD and mortality and may boost testosterone. Other sources of “good fat” in a healthy diet include avocado, and red meat and poultry in moderation.

“It is controversial, but our results also indicate that foods with saturated fatty acids may boost testosterone,” he added, noting however that such foods are also associated with an increase in cholesterol.
 

Is waning testosterone explained by leaner diet?

Men need healthy testosterone levels for good physical performance, mental health, and sexual health, and low levels are associated with a higher risk of heart disease, diabetes, and Alzheimer’s disease, according to a statement about this research issued by the University of Worcester.

Although testosterone levels do decline with advancing age, there has also been an additional age-independent and persistent decline in testosterone levels that began roughly after nutrition guidelines began recommending a lower-fat diet in 1965.

Fat consumption dropped from 45% of the diet in 1965 to 35% of the diet in 1991, and stayed around that lower level through to 2011.

However, it is not clear if this decrease in dietary fat intake might explain part of the concurrent decline in men’s testosterone levels.

Mr. Whittaker and Mr. Wu conducted a systematic literature review and identified six crossover intervention studies that compared testosterone levels during low-fat versus high-fat diets – Dorgan 1996, Wang 2005, Hamalainen 1984, Hill 1980, Reed 1987, and Hill 1979 – and then they combined these studies in a meta-analysis.

Five studies each enrolled 6-43 healthy men from North America, the United Kingdom, and Scandinavia, and the sixth study (Hill 1980) enrolled 34 healthy men from North America and 39 farm laborers from South Africa.

Overall, on average, the men were aged 34-54 years and slightly overweight (a mean body mass index of roughly 27 kg/m²) with normal testosterone (i.e., >300 ng/dL, based on the 2018 American Urological Association guidelines criteria).

Most men received a high-fat diet (40% of calories from fat) first, followed by a low-fat diet (on average 20% of calories from fat; range, 7%-25%), but the subgroup of men from South Africa received the low-fat diet first.

To put this into context, U.K. guidelines recommend a fat intake of less than 35% of daily calories, and U.S. guidelines recommend a fat intake of 20%-35% of daily calories.

The low-and high-fat interventions ranged from 2 to 10 weeks.  
 

Lowest testosterone levels with low-fat vegetarian diets

Overall, on average, the men’s total testosterone was 475 mg/dL when they were consuming a low-fat diet and 532 mg/dL when they were consuming a high-fat diet.

However, the South African men had higher testosterone levels when they consumed a low-fat diet. This suggests that “men with European ancestry may experience a greater decrease in testosterone in response to a low-fat diet,” the researchers wrote.

The decrease in total testosterone in the low-fat versus high-fat diet was largest (26%) in the two studies of men who consumed a vegetarian diet (Hill 1979 and Hill 1980). These diets may have been low in zinc, since a marginal zinc deficiency has been shown to decrease total testosterone, Mr. Whittaker and Mr. Wu speculated.

The meta-analysis also showed that levels of free testosterone, urinary testosterone, and dihydrotestosterone declined during the low-fat diet, whereas levels of luteinizing hormone or sex hormone binding globulin were similar with both diets.
 

Men with low testosterone and overweight, obesity

What nutritional advice should practitioners give to men who have low testosterone and overweight/obesity?

“If you are very overweight, losing weight is going to dramatically improve your testosterone,” Mr. Whittaker said.

However, proponents of various diets are often in stark disagreement about the merits of a low-fat versus low-carbohydrate diet to lose weight.

“In general,” he continued, “the literature shows low-carb (high-fat) diets are better for weight loss [although many will disagree with that statement].”

Although nutrition guidelines have stressed the importance of limiting fat intake, fat in the diet is also associated with lower triglyceride levels and blood pressure and higher HDL cholesterol levels, and now in this study, higher testosterone levels.
 

More research needed

The researchers acknowledge study limitations: The meta-analysis included just a few small studies with heterogeneous designs and findings, and there was possible bias from confounding variables.

“Ideally, we would like to see a few more studies to confirm our results,” Mr. Whittaker said in the statement. “However, these studies may never come; normally researchers want to find new results, not replicate old ones. In the meantime, men with low testosterone would be wise to avoid low-fat diets.”

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Low-fat diets appear to decrease testosterone levels in men, but further randomized, controlled trials are needed to confirm this effect, the authors of a meta-analysis of six small intervention studies concluded.

A total of 206 healthy men with normal testosterone received a high-fat diet followed by a low-fat diet (or vice versa), and their mean total testosterone levels were 10%-15% lower (but still in the normal range) during the low-fat diet.

The study by registered nutritionist Joseph Whittaker, MSc, University of Worcester (England), and statistician Kexin Wu, MSc, University of Warwick, Coventry, England, was published online in the Journal of Steroid Biochemistry and Molecular Biology.

“I think our results are consistent and fairly strong, but they are not strong enough to give blanket recommendations,” Mr. Whittaker said in an interview.

However, “if somebody has low testosterone, particularly borderline, they could try increasing their fat intake, maybe on a Mediterranean diet,” he said, and see if that works to increase their testosterone by 60 ng/dL, the weighted mean difference in total testosterone levels between the low-fat versus high-fat diet interventions in this meta-analysis.

“A Mediterranean diet is a good way to increase ‘healthy fats,’ mono- and polyunsaturated fatty acids, which will likely decrease cardiovascular disease risk, and boost testosterone at the same time,” Mr. Whittaker noted.

Olive oil has been shown to boost testosterone more than butter, and it also reduces CVD, he continued. Nuts are high in “healthy fats” and consistently decrease CVD and mortality and may boost testosterone. Other sources of “good fat” in a healthy diet include avocado, and red meat and poultry in moderation.

“It is controversial, but our results also indicate that foods with saturated fatty acids may boost testosterone,” he added, noting however that such foods are also associated with an increase in cholesterol.
 

Is waning testosterone explained by leaner diet?

Men need healthy testosterone levels for good physical performance, mental health, and sexual health, and low levels are associated with a higher risk of heart disease, diabetes, and Alzheimer’s disease, according to a statement about this research issued by the University of Worcester.

Although testosterone levels do decline with advancing age, there has also been an additional age-independent and persistent decline in testosterone levels that began roughly after nutrition guidelines began recommending a lower-fat diet in 1965.

Fat consumption dropped from 45% of the diet in 1965 to 35% of the diet in 1991, and stayed around that lower level through to 2011.

However, it is not clear if this decrease in dietary fat intake might explain part of the concurrent decline in men’s testosterone levels.

Mr. Whittaker and Mr. Wu conducted a systematic literature review and identified six crossover intervention studies that compared testosterone levels during low-fat versus high-fat diets – Dorgan 1996, Wang 2005, Hamalainen 1984, Hill 1980, Reed 1987, and Hill 1979 – and then they combined these studies in a meta-analysis.

Five studies each enrolled 6-43 healthy men from North America, the United Kingdom, and Scandinavia, and the sixth study (Hill 1980) enrolled 34 healthy men from North America and 39 farm laborers from South Africa.

Overall, on average, the men were aged 34-54 years and slightly overweight (a mean body mass index of roughly 27 kg/m²) with normal testosterone (i.e., >300 ng/dL, based on the 2018 American Urological Association guidelines criteria).

Most men received a high-fat diet (40% of calories from fat) first, followed by a low-fat diet (on average 20% of calories from fat; range, 7%-25%), but the subgroup of men from South Africa received the low-fat diet first.

To put this into context, U.K. guidelines recommend a fat intake of less than 35% of daily calories, and U.S. guidelines recommend a fat intake of 20%-35% of daily calories.

The low-and high-fat interventions ranged from 2 to 10 weeks.  
 

Lowest testosterone levels with low-fat vegetarian diets

Overall, on average, the men’s total testosterone was 475 mg/dL when they were consuming a low-fat diet and 532 mg/dL when they were consuming a high-fat diet.

However, the South African men had higher testosterone levels when they consumed a low-fat diet. This suggests that “men with European ancestry may experience a greater decrease in testosterone in response to a low-fat diet,” the researchers wrote.

The decrease in total testosterone in the low-fat versus high-fat diet was largest (26%) in the two studies of men who consumed a vegetarian diet (Hill 1979 and Hill 1980). These diets may have been low in zinc, since a marginal zinc deficiency has been shown to decrease total testosterone, Mr. Whittaker and Mr. Wu speculated.

The meta-analysis also showed that levels of free testosterone, urinary testosterone, and dihydrotestosterone declined during the low-fat diet, whereas levels of luteinizing hormone or sex hormone binding globulin were similar with both diets.
 

Men with low testosterone and overweight, obesity

What nutritional advice should practitioners give to men who have low testosterone and overweight/obesity?

“If you are very overweight, losing weight is going to dramatically improve your testosterone,” Mr. Whittaker said.

However, proponents of various diets are often in stark disagreement about the merits of a low-fat versus low-carbohydrate diet to lose weight.

“In general,” he continued, “the literature shows low-carb (high-fat) diets are better for weight loss [although many will disagree with that statement].”

Although nutrition guidelines have stressed the importance of limiting fat intake, fat in the diet is also associated with lower triglyceride levels and blood pressure and higher HDL cholesterol levels, and now in this study, higher testosterone levels.
 

More research needed

The researchers acknowledge study limitations: The meta-analysis included just a few small studies with heterogeneous designs and findings, and there was possible bias from confounding variables.

“Ideally, we would like to see a few more studies to confirm our results,” Mr. Whittaker said in the statement. “However, these studies may never come; normally researchers want to find new results, not replicate old ones. In the meantime, men with low testosterone would be wise to avoid low-fat diets.”

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Low-fat diets appear to decrease testosterone levels in men, but further randomized, controlled trials are needed to confirm this effect, the authors of a meta-analysis of six small intervention studies concluded.

A total of 206 healthy men with normal testosterone received a high-fat diet followed by a low-fat diet (or vice versa), and their mean total testosterone levels were 10%-15% lower (but still in the normal range) during the low-fat diet.

The study by registered nutritionist Joseph Whittaker, MSc, University of Worcester (England), and statistician Kexin Wu, MSc, University of Warwick, Coventry, England, was published online in the Journal of Steroid Biochemistry and Molecular Biology.

“I think our results are consistent and fairly strong, but they are not strong enough to give blanket recommendations,” Mr. Whittaker said in an interview.

However, “if somebody has low testosterone, particularly borderline, they could try increasing their fat intake, maybe on a Mediterranean diet,” he said, and see if that works to increase their testosterone by 60 ng/dL, the weighted mean difference in total testosterone levels between the low-fat versus high-fat diet interventions in this meta-analysis.

“A Mediterranean diet is a good way to increase ‘healthy fats,’ mono- and polyunsaturated fatty acids, which will likely decrease cardiovascular disease risk, and boost testosterone at the same time,” Mr. Whittaker noted.

Olive oil has been shown to boost testosterone more than butter, and it also reduces CVD, he continued. Nuts are high in “healthy fats” and consistently decrease CVD and mortality and may boost testosterone. Other sources of “good fat” in a healthy diet include avocado, and red meat and poultry in moderation.

“It is controversial, but our results also indicate that foods with saturated fatty acids may boost testosterone,” he added, noting however that such foods are also associated with an increase in cholesterol.
 

Is waning testosterone explained by leaner diet?

Men need healthy testosterone levels for good physical performance, mental health, and sexual health, and low levels are associated with a higher risk of heart disease, diabetes, and Alzheimer’s disease, according to a statement about this research issued by the University of Worcester.

Although testosterone levels do decline with advancing age, there has also been an additional age-independent and persistent decline in testosterone levels that began roughly after nutrition guidelines began recommending a lower-fat diet in 1965.

Fat consumption dropped from 45% of the diet in 1965 to 35% of the diet in 1991, and stayed around that lower level through to 2011.

However, it is not clear if this decrease in dietary fat intake might explain part of the concurrent decline in men’s testosterone levels.

Mr. Whittaker and Mr. Wu conducted a systematic literature review and identified six crossover intervention studies that compared testosterone levels during low-fat versus high-fat diets – Dorgan 1996, Wang 2005, Hamalainen 1984, Hill 1980, Reed 1987, and Hill 1979 – and then they combined these studies in a meta-analysis.

Five studies each enrolled 6-43 healthy men from North America, the United Kingdom, and Scandinavia, and the sixth study (Hill 1980) enrolled 34 healthy men from North America and 39 farm laborers from South Africa.

Overall, on average, the men were aged 34-54 years and slightly overweight (a mean body mass index of roughly 27 kg/m²) with normal testosterone (i.e., >300 ng/dL, based on the 2018 American Urological Association guidelines criteria).

Most men received a high-fat diet (40% of calories from fat) first, followed by a low-fat diet (on average 20% of calories from fat; range, 7%-25%), but the subgroup of men from South Africa received the low-fat diet first.

To put this into context, U.K. guidelines recommend a fat intake of less than 35% of daily calories, and U.S. guidelines recommend a fat intake of 20%-35% of daily calories.

The low-and high-fat interventions ranged from 2 to 10 weeks.  
 

Lowest testosterone levels with low-fat vegetarian diets

Overall, on average, the men’s total testosterone was 475 mg/dL when they were consuming a low-fat diet and 532 mg/dL when they were consuming a high-fat diet.

However, the South African men had higher testosterone levels when they consumed a low-fat diet. This suggests that “men with European ancestry may experience a greater decrease in testosterone in response to a low-fat diet,” the researchers wrote.

The decrease in total testosterone in the low-fat versus high-fat diet was largest (26%) in the two studies of men who consumed a vegetarian diet (Hill 1979 and Hill 1980). These diets may have been low in zinc, since a marginal zinc deficiency has been shown to decrease total testosterone, Mr. Whittaker and Mr. Wu speculated.

The meta-analysis also showed that levels of free testosterone, urinary testosterone, and dihydrotestosterone declined during the low-fat diet, whereas levels of luteinizing hormone or sex hormone binding globulin were similar with both diets.
 

Men with low testosterone and overweight, obesity

What nutritional advice should practitioners give to men who have low testosterone and overweight/obesity?

“If you are very overweight, losing weight is going to dramatically improve your testosterone,” Mr. Whittaker said.

However, proponents of various diets are often in stark disagreement about the merits of a low-fat versus low-carbohydrate diet to lose weight.

“In general,” he continued, “the literature shows low-carb (high-fat) diets are better for weight loss [although many will disagree with that statement].”

Although nutrition guidelines have stressed the importance of limiting fat intake, fat in the diet is also associated with lower triglyceride levels and blood pressure and higher HDL cholesterol levels, and now in this study, higher testosterone levels.
 

More research needed

The researchers acknowledge study limitations: The meta-analysis included just a few small studies with heterogeneous designs and findings, and there was possible bias from confounding variables.

“Ideally, we would like to see a few more studies to confirm our results,” Mr. Whittaker said in the statement. “However, these studies may never come; normally researchers want to find new results, not replicate old ones. In the meantime, men with low testosterone would be wise to avoid low-fat diets.”

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Dr. Ben-a-bo?

Nope.

Ben-nabi?

Nope.

Ben-NO-bo?

Also no.

My surname is tricky to pronounce for some people. I sometimes exaggerate to help patients get it right: “Beh-NAAH-bee-oh.” Almost daily someone will reply: “Oh, you’re Italian!” Well, no actually, my friend Enzo who was born in Sicily and lives in Milan, he’s Italian. I’m just a Rhode Islander who knows some Italian words from his grandmother. Most times though, I just answer: ‘Yep, I’m Italian.” It’s faster.

We use names as a shortcut to identify people. In clinic, it can help to find things in common quickly, similar to asking where you’re from. (East Coast patients seem to love that I’m from New England and if they’re Italian and from New York, well then, we’re paisans right from the start.)

However, using names to guess how someone identifies can be risky. In some instances, it could even be seen as microaggressive, particularly if you got it wrong.

Like most of you I’ll bet, I’m pretty good at pronouncing names – we practice thousands of times! Other than accepting a compliment for getting a tricky one right, such as Radivojevic (I think it’s Ra-di-VOI-ye-vich), I hadn’t thought much about names until I heard a great podcast on the topic. I thought I’d share a couple tips.

First, if you’re not particularly good at names or if you struggle with certain types of names, it’s better to ask than to butcher it. Like learning the wrong way to hit a golf ball, you may never be able to do it properly once you’ve done it wrong. (Trust me, I know from both.)

If I’m feeling confident, I’ll give it a try. But if unsure, I ask the patient to pronounce it for me, then I repeat it to confirm I’ve gotten it correct. Then I say it once or twice more during the visit. Lastly, for the knotty tongue-twisting ones, I write it phonetically in their chart.

It is important because mispronouncing names can alienate patients. It might make them feel like we don’t “know” them or that we don’t care about them. Making an effort to pronounce every patients’ name correctly I believe is a simple act we can all do to move us closer to mitigating racial biases and eliminating ethnic disparities in care. Just think how much harder it might be to convince skeptical patients to take their lisinopril if you can’t even get their names right.

Worse perhaps than getting the pronunciation wrong is to turn the name into an issue. Saying: “Oh, that’s hard to pronounce” could be felt as a subtly racist remark – it’s not hard for them to pronounce of course, only for you. Also, guessing a patient’s nationality from the name is risky. Asking “are you Russian?” to someone from Ukraine or “is that Chinese?” to someone from Vietnam can quickly turn a nice office visit down a road named “Awkward.” It can give the impression that they “all look the same” to you, exactly the type of exclusion we’re trying to eliminate in medicine.

Saying a patient’s name perfectly is rewarding and a super-efficient way to connect. It can make salient the truth that you care about the patient and about his or her story, even if the name happens to be Mrs. Xiomara Winyuwongse Khosrowshahi Sundararajan Ngoc. Go ahead, give it a try.

Want more on how properly pronounce names correctly? You might like this episode of NPR’s Life Kit.

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com

Dr. Ben-a-bo?

Nope.

Ben-nabi?

Nope.

Ben-NO-bo?

Also no.

My surname is tricky to pronounce for some people. I sometimes exaggerate to help patients get it right: “Beh-NAAH-bee-oh.” Almost daily someone will reply: “Oh, you’re Italian!” Well, no actually, my friend Enzo who was born in Sicily and lives in Milan, he’s Italian. I’m just a Rhode Islander who knows some Italian words from his grandmother. Most times though, I just answer: ‘Yep, I’m Italian.” It’s faster.

We use names as a shortcut to identify people. In clinic, it can help to find things in common quickly, similar to asking where you’re from. (East Coast patients seem to love that I’m from New England and if they’re Italian and from New York, well then, we’re paisans right from the start.)

However, using names to guess how someone identifies can be risky. In some instances, it could even be seen as microaggressive, particularly if you got it wrong.

Like most of you I’ll bet, I’m pretty good at pronouncing names – we practice thousands of times! Other than accepting a compliment for getting a tricky one right, such as Radivojevic (I think it’s Ra-di-VOI-ye-vich), I hadn’t thought much about names until I heard a great podcast on the topic. I thought I’d share a couple tips.

First, if you’re not particularly good at names or if you struggle with certain types of names, it’s better to ask than to butcher it. Like learning the wrong way to hit a golf ball, you may never be able to do it properly once you’ve done it wrong. (Trust me, I know from both.)

If I’m feeling confident, I’ll give it a try. But if unsure, I ask the patient to pronounce it for me, then I repeat it to confirm I’ve gotten it correct. Then I say it once or twice more during the visit. Lastly, for the knotty tongue-twisting ones, I write it phonetically in their chart.

It is important because mispronouncing names can alienate patients. It might make them feel like we don’t “know” them or that we don’t care about them. Making an effort to pronounce every patients’ name correctly I believe is a simple act we can all do to move us closer to mitigating racial biases and eliminating ethnic disparities in care. Just think how much harder it might be to convince skeptical patients to take their lisinopril if you can’t even get their names right.

Worse perhaps than getting the pronunciation wrong is to turn the name into an issue. Saying: “Oh, that’s hard to pronounce” could be felt as a subtly racist remark – it’s not hard for them to pronounce of course, only for you. Also, guessing a patient’s nationality from the name is risky. Asking “are you Russian?” to someone from Ukraine or “is that Chinese?” to someone from Vietnam can quickly turn a nice office visit down a road named “Awkward.” It can give the impression that they “all look the same” to you, exactly the type of exclusion we’re trying to eliminate in medicine.

Saying a patient’s name perfectly is rewarding and a super-efficient way to connect. It can make salient the truth that you care about the patient and about his or her story, even if the name happens to be Mrs. Xiomara Winyuwongse Khosrowshahi Sundararajan Ngoc. Go ahead, give it a try.

Want more on how properly pronounce names correctly? You might like this episode of NPR’s Life Kit.

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com

Dr. Ben-a-bo?

Nope.

Ben-nabi?

Nope.

Ben-NO-bo?

Also no.

My surname is tricky to pronounce for some people. I sometimes exaggerate to help patients get it right: “Beh-NAAH-bee-oh.” Almost daily someone will reply: “Oh, you’re Italian!” Well, no actually, my friend Enzo who was born in Sicily and lives in Milan, he’s Italian. I’m just a Rhode Islander who knows some Italian words from his grandmother. Most times though, I just answer: ‘Yep, I’m Italian.” It’s faster.

We use names as a shortcut to identify people. In clinic, it can help to find things in common quickly, similar to asking where you’re from. (East Coast patients seem to love that I’m from New England and if they’re Italian and from New York, well then, we’re paisans right from the start.)

However, using names to guess how someone identifies can be risky. In some instances, it could even be seen as microaggressive, particularly if you got it wrong.

Like most of you I’ll bet, I’m pretty good at pronouncing names – we practice thousands of times! Other than accepting a compliment for getting a tricky one right, such as Radivojevic (I think it’s Ra-di-VOI-ye-vich), I hadn’t thought much about names until I heard a great podcast on the topic. I thought I’d share a couple tips.

First, if you’re not particularly good at names or if you struggle with certain types of names, it’s better to ask than to butcher it. Like learning the wrong way to hit a golf ball, you may never be able to do it properly once you’ve done it wrong. (Trust me, I know from both.)

If I’m feeling confident, I’ll give it a try. But if unsure, I ask the patient to pronounce it for me, then I repeat it to confirm I’ve gotten it correct. Then I say it once or twice more during the visit. Lastly, for the knotty tongue-twisting ones, I write it phonetically in their chart.

It is important because mispronouncing names can alienate patients. It might make them feel like we don’t “know” them or that we don’t care about them. Making an effort to pronounce every patients’ name correctly I believe is a simple act we can all do to move us closer to mitigating racial biases and eliminating ethnic disparities in care. Just think how much harder it might be to convince skeptical patients to take their lisinopril if you can’t even get their names right.

Worse perhaps than getting the pronunciation wrong is to turn the name into an issue. Saying: “Oh, that’s hard to pronounce” could be felt as a subtly racist remark – it’s not hard for them to pronounce of course, only for you. Also, guessing a patient’s nationality from the name is risky. Asking “are you Russian?” to someone from Ukraine or “is that Chinese?” to someone from Vietnam can quickly turn a nice office visit down a road named “Awkward.” It can give the impression that they “all look the same” to you, exactly the type of exclusion we’re trying to eliminate in medicine.

Saying a patient’s name perfectly is rewarding and a super-efficient way to connect. It can make salient the truth that you care about the patient and about his or her story, even if the name happens to be Mrs. Xiomara Winyuwongse Khosrowshahi Sundararajan Ngoc. Go ahead, give it a try.

Want more on how properly pronounce names correctly? You might like this episode of NPR’s Life Kit.

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com

A Food and Drug Administration advisory panel has endorsed a pancreatic islet cell transplant therapy for the treatment of people with type 1 diabetes that can’t be managed with current therapies.

On April 15, the FDA’s Cellular, Tissue, and Gene Therapies Advisory Committee voted 12 to 4 in favor of approval of donislecel (Lantidra). There was one abstention. The panel regarded the drug as having “an overall favorable benefit-risk profile for some patients with type 1 diabetes.” The product consists of purified allogeneic pancreatic islets of Langerhans derived from cadaveric donors and is infused into the portal vein of the liver.

Benefits of the treatment include the potential for insulin independence and elimination of severe hypoglycemia. Risks are those associated with the surgical procedure and with long-term immunosuppression.

The therapy is manufactured by CellTrans. According to Jose Oberholzer, MD, the founder of CellTrans, the proposed indication is for adults with “brittle” type 1 diabetes who meet the American Diabetes Association’s (ADA) criteria for whole-organ pancreas-alone transplant (i.e., transplant of pancreas but not kidney).

The ADA criteria include the following: frequent, severe hypoglycemia, hyperglycemia, and/or ketoacidosis that requires medical attention; clinical or emotional problems regarding the use of exogenous insulin; and consistent failure of insulin-based management to prevent acute diabetes complications.
 

Success in two-thirds of patients in small studies

Dr. Oberholzer presented data from two single-arm open-label studies: a phase 1/2 trial initiated in 2004 with 10 patients, and a phase 3 study with 20 patients that began in 2007. The inclusion criteria differed somewhat between the two studies, but all 30 patients had hypoglycemic unawareness. Mean follow-up was 7.8 years for the phase 1/2 trial and 4.7 years for the phase 3 trial.

For all of the patients, C-peptide levels were positive after transplant. The composite endpoint for success – an A1c level of ≤ 6.5% and the absence of severe hypoglycemic episodes for 1 year – was met by 19 patients (63.3%). For five patients (16.7%), the target A1c level was not achieved, and seven patients (23.3%) experienced a severe episode of hypoglycemia.

Twenty of the 30 patients achieved insulin independence for at least 1 year.

Improvements were also seen at 1 year in mixed meal test outcomes, fasting blood glucose levels, and overall glycemic control. Graft survival 10 years post transplant was achieved by 60% of patients, Dr. Oberholzer said.
 

Adverse events not unexpected, but still of concern

Two patients died, one as a result of fulminant sepsis at 20 months post transplant, and the other as a result of severe dementia 9 years post transplant. Three patients experienced four serious procedure-related events, including one liver laceration and two hepatic hematomas. Elevations in portal pressure occurred in two patients.

Most adverse events were associated with immunosuppression. These included 178 infections in 26 of the 30 patients. The most common of these were herpes virus infections, Epstein-Barr virus infections, oral candidiasis, and cytomegalovirus infections. Twelve infections were severe. Renal function declined persistently in two patients (20%), and six (20%) experienced new-onset proteinuria at 1 year.

The adverse events related to the procedure and the problems associated with immunosuppression were not unexpected and were consistent with those described for patients receiving whole pancreas transplants, FDA reviewer Patricia Beaston, MD, said in her review of the CellTrans data.
 

Panel members support treatment for a small group of patients

During the discussion, several panel members pointed out that the target patient population for this treatment will likely be smaller today than it was when the two studies were initiated, given advances in diabetes care. Those advances include continuous glucose monitoring devices with alarms and closed-loop insulin delivery systems – the “artificial pancreas” that automatically suspends insulin delivery to prevent hypoglycemia.

Panel chair Lisa Butterfield, PhD, a surgeon and immunologist at the University of California, San Francisco, voted in favor of approval. But, she added, “I do support postapproval gathering of data to learn more about the product. ... I don’t know how many patients will really benefit, but I think it’s to be determined.”

Christopher K. Breuer, MD, a general and pediatric surgeon at the Center for Regenerative Medicine, Nationwide Children’s Hospital, Columbus, Ohio, said he supported approval for “two very small subpopulations where it would provide the only viable therapy”: those who are eligible for pancreas transplant but cannot tolerate a major operation, and those who already use the latest automated insulin delivery systems and still do not achieve acceptable glycemic control.

Temporary voting member David Harlan, MD, director of the University of Massachusetts Diabetes Center of Excellence, Worcester, Mass., voted no.

He noted that only about 100 whole pancreas-only transplants are performed annually in the United States and that such transplants are “very effective, so we’re talking about patients who aren’t pancreas transplant candidates who might get this.”

Moreover, Dr. Harlan said, “I’ve seen the awful things that can happen in posttransplant recipients. It’s really hard to get that informed consent from someone when you’re asking them to consider a future that they don’t know. When it works, it’s great. When it doesn’t work, it can be catastrophic. I just worry about opening Pandora’s box.”

The only other diabetes specialist on the panel, temporary voting member Ellen Leschek, MD, said she “reluctantly voted yes because a few people could benefit, but I think it’s a much smaller number than the company may believe.”

Dr. Leschek, of the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, Bethesda, Md., said she’s concerned that “if it’s approved, too many people will get treated this way, when in fact, for a lot of those people, the risks will outweigh the benefits.”

Sandy Feng, MD, PhD, of the department of surgery at the University of California, San Francisco, pointed out that with regard to immunosuppressive therapy, “We’re concerned about the toxicity of what we currently use, but there are additional therapies being developed that might mitigate those toxicities that would be beneficial to this population.”

Dr. Feng, who voted yes, also said, “I do pancreas transplants. I can tell you that there is nothing that [patients with type 1 diabetes] like more than the freedom from dealing with the entire insulin issue. That has made a large impression on me over the last 20-plus years of clinical practice, so I do think this can help some people and will be incredibly meaningful to those people.”

FDA advisory panel members are vetted for conflicts of interest, and special waivers are granted if necessary. No such waivers were granted for this meeting.

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

A Food and Drug Administration advisory panel has endorsed a pancreatic islet cell transplant therapy for the treatment of people with type 1 diabetes that can’t be managed with current therapies.

On April 15, the FDA’s Cellular, Tissue, and Gene Therapies Advisory Committee voted 12 to 4 in favor of approval of donislecel (Lantidra). There was one abstention. The panel regarded the drug as having “an overall favorable benefit-risk profile for some patients with type 1 diabetes.” The product consists of purified allogeneic pancreatic islets of Langerhans derived from cadaveric donors and is infused into the portal vein of the liver.

Benefits of the treatment include the potential for insulin independence and elimination of severe hypoglycemia. Risks are those associated with the surgical procedure and with long-term immunosuppression.

The therapy is manufactured by CellTrans. According to Jose Oberholzer, MD, the founder of CellTrans, the proposed indication is for adults with “brittle” type 1 diabetes who meet the American Diabetes Association’s (ADA) criteria for whole-organ pancreas-alone transplant (i.e., transplant of pancreas but not kidney).

The ADA criteria include the following: frequent, severe hypoglycemia, hyperglycemia, and/or ketoacidosis that requires medical attention; clinical or emotional problems regarding the use of exogenous insulin; and consistent failure of insulin-based management to prevent acute diabetes complications.
 

Success in two-thirds of patients in small studies

Dr. Oberholzer presented data from two single-arm open-label studies: a phase 1/2 trial initiated in 2004 with 10 patients, and a phase 3 study with 20 patients that began in 2007. The inclusion criteria differed somewhat between the two studies, but all 30 patients had hypoglycemic unawareness. Mean follow-up was 7.8 years for the phase 1/2 trial and 4.7 years for the phase 3 trial.

For all of the patients, C-peptide levels were positive after transplant. The composite endpoint for success – an A1c level of ≤ 6.5% and the absence of severe hypoglycemic episodes for 1 year – was met by 19 patients (63.3%). For five patients (16.7%), the target A1c level was not achieved, and seven patients (23.3%) experienced a severe episode of hypoglycemia.

Twenty of the 30 patients achieved insulin independence for at least 1 year.

Improvements were also seen at 1 year in mixed meal test outcomes, fasting blood glucose levels, and overall glycemic control. Graft survival 10 years post transplant was achieved by 60% of patients, Dr. Oberholzer said.
 

Adverse events not unexpected, but still of concern

Two patients died, one as a result of fulminant sepsis at 20 months post transplant, and the other as a result of severe dementia 9 years post transplant. Three patients experienced four serious procedure-related events, including one liver laceration and two hepatic hematomas. Elevations in portal pressure occurred in two patients.

Most adverse events were associated with immunosuppression. These included 178 infections in 26 of the 30 patients. The most common of these were herpes virus infections, Epstein-Barr virus infections, oral candidiasis, and cytomegalovirus infections. Twelve infections were severe. Renal function declined persistently in two patients (20%), and six (20%) experienced new-onset proteinuria at 1 year.

The adverse events related to the procedure and the problems associated with immunosuppression were not unexpected and were consistent with those described for patients receiving whole pancreas transplants, FDA reviewer Patricia Beaston, MD, said in her review of the CellTrans data.
 

Panel members support treatment for a small group of patients

During the discussion, several panel members pointed out that the target patient population for this treatment will likely be smaller today than it was when the two studies were initiated, given advances in diabetes care. Those advances include continuous glucose monitoring devices with alarms and closed-loop insulin delivery systems – the “artificial pancreas” that automatically suspends insulin delivery to prevent hypoglycemia.

Panel chair Lisa Butterfield, PhD, a surgeon and immunologist at the University of California, San Francisco, voted in favor of approval. But, she added, “I do support postapproval gathering of data to learn more about the product. ... I don’t know how many patients will really benefit, but I think it’s to be determined.”

Christopher K. Breuer, MD, a general and pediatric surgeon at the Center for Regenerative Medicine, Nationwide Children’s Hospital, Columbus, Ohio, said he supported approval for “two very small subpopulations where it would provide the only viable therapy”: those who are eligible for pancreas transplant but cannot tolerate a major operation, and those who already use the latest automated insulin delivery systems and still do not achieve acceptable glycemic control.

Temporary voting member David Harlan, MD, director of the University of Massachusetts Diabetes Center of Excellence, Worcester, Mass., voted no.

He noted that only about 100 whole pancreas-only transplants are performed annually in the United States and that such transplants are “very effective, so we’re talking about patients who aren’t pancreas transplant candidates who might get this.”

Moreover, Dr. Harlan said, “I’ve seen the awful things that can happen in posttransplant recipients. It’s really hard to get that informed consent from someone when you’re asking them to consider a future that they don’t know. When it works, it’s great. When it doesn’t work, it can be catastrophic. I just worry about opening Pandora’s box.”

The only other diabetes specialist on the panel, temporary voting member Ellen Leschek, MD, said she “reluctantly voted yes because a few people could benefit, but I think it’s a much smaller number than the company may believe.”

Dr. Leschek, of the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, Bethesda, Md., said she’s concerned that “if it’s approved, too many people will get treated this way, when in fact, for a lot of those people, the risks will outweigh the benefits.”

Sandy Feng, MD, PhD, of the department of surgery at the University of California, San Francisco, pointed out that with regard to immunosuppressive therapy, “We’re concerned about the toxicity of what we currently use, but there are additional therapies being developed that might mitigate those toxicities that would be beneficial to this population.”

Dr. Feng, who voted yes, also said, “I do pancreas transplants. I can tell you that there is nothing that [patients with type 1 diabetes] like more than the freedom from dealing with the entire insulin issue. That has made a large impression on me over the last 20-plus years of clinical practice, so I do think this can help some people and will be incredibly meaningful to those people.”

FDA advisory panel members are vetted for conflicts of interest, and special waivers are granted if necessary. No such waivers were granted for this meeting.

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

A Food and Drug Administration advisory panel has endorsed a pancreatic islet cell transplant therapy for the treatment of people with type 1 diabetes that can’t be managed with current therapies.

On April 15, the FDA’s Cellular, Tissue, and Gene Therapies Advisory Committee voted 12 to 4 in favor of approval of donislecel (Lantidra). There was one abstention. The panel regarded the drug as having “an overall favorable benefit-risk profile for some patients with type 1 diabetes.” The product consists of purified allogeneic pancreatic islets of Langerhans derived from cadaveric donors and is infused into the portal vein of the liver.

Benefits of the treatment include the potential for insulin independence and elimination of severe hypoglycemia. Risks are those associated with the surgical procedure and with long-term immunosuppression.

The therapy is manufactured by CellTrans. According to Jose Oberholzer, MD, the founder of CellTrans, the proposed indication is for adults with “brittle” type 1 diabetes who meet the American Diabetes Association’s (ADA) criteria for whole-organ pancreas-alone transplant (i.e., transplant of pancreas but not kidney).

The ADA criteria include the following: frequent, severe hypoglycemia, hyperglycemia, and/or ketoacidosis that requires medical attention; clinical or emotional problems regarding the use of exogenous insulin; and consistent failure of insulin-based management to prevent acute diabetes complications.
 

Success in two-thirds of patients in small studies

Dr. Oberholzer presented data from two single-arm open-label studies: a phase 1/2 trial initiated in 2004 with 10 patients, and a phase 3 study with 20 patients that began in 2007. The inclusion criteria differed somewhat between the two studies, but all 30 patients had hypoglycemic unawareness. Mean follow-up was 7.8 years for the phase 1/2 trial and 4.7 years for the phase 3 trial.

For all of the patients, C-peptide levels were positive after transplant. The composite endpoint for success – an A1c level of ≤ 6.5% and the absence of severe hypoglycemic episodes for 1 year – was met by 19 patients (63.3%). For five patients (16.7%), the target A1c level was not achieved, and seven patients (23.3%) experienced a severe episode of hypoglycemia.

Twenty of the 30 patients achieved insulin independence for at least 1 year.

Improvements were also seen at 1 year in mixed meal test outcomes, fasting blood glucose levels, and overall glycemic control. Graft survival 10 years post transplant was achieved by 60% of patients, Dr. Oberholzer said.
 

Adverse events not unexpected, but still of concern

Two patients died, one as a result of fulminant sepsis at 20 months post transplant, and the other as a result of severe dementia 9 years post transplant. Three patients experienced four serious procedure-related events, including one liver laceration and two hepatic hematomas. Elevations in portal pressure occurred in two patients.

Most adverse events were associated with immunosuppression. These included 178 infections in 26 of the 30 patients. The most common of these were herpes virus infections, Epstein-Barr virus infections, oral candidiasis, and cytomegalovirus infections. Twelve infections were severe. Renal function declined persistently in two patients (20%), and six (20%) experienced new-onset proteinuria at 1 year.

The adverse events related to the procedure and the problems associated with immunosuppression were not unexpected and were consistent with those described for patients receiving whole pancreas transplants, FDA reviewer Patricia Beaston, MD, said in her review of the CellTrans data.
 

Panel members support treatment for a small group of patients

During the discussion, several panel members pointed out that the target patient population for this treatment will likely be smaller today than it was when the two studies were initiated, given advances in diabetes care. Those advances include continuous glucose monitoring devices with alarms and closed-loop insulin delivery systems – the “artificial pancreas” that automatically suspends insulin delivery to prevent hypoglycemia.

Panel chair Lisa Butterfield, PhD, a surgeon and immunologist at the University of California, San Francisco, voted in favor of approval. But, she added, “I do support postapproval gathering of data to learn more about the product. ... I don’t know how many patients will really benefit, but I think it’s to be determined.”

Christopher K. Breuer, MD, a general and pediatric surgeon at the Center for Regenerative Medicine, Nationwide Children’s Hospital, Columbus, Ohio, said he supported approval for “two very small subpopulations where it would provide the only viable therapy”: those who are eligible for pancreas transplant but cannot tolerate a major operation, and those who already use the latest automated insulin delivery systems and still do not achieve acceptable glycemic control.

Temporary voting member David Harlan, MD, director of the University of Massachusetts Diabetes Center of Excellence, Worcester, Mass., voted no.

He noted that only about 100 whole pancreas-only transplants are performed annually in the United States and that such transplants are “very effective, so we’re talking about patients who aren’t pancreas transplant candidates who might get this.”

Moreover, Dr. Harlan said, “I’ve seen the awful things that can happen in posttransplant recipients. It’s really hard to get that informed consent from someone when you’re asking them to consider a future that they don’t know. When it works, it’s great. When it doesn’t work, it can be catastrophic. I just worry about opening Pandora’s box.”

The only other diabetes specialist on the panel, temporary voting member Ellen Leschek, MD, said she “reluctantly voted yes because a few people could benefit, but I think it’s a much smaller number than the company may believe.”

Dr. Leschek, of the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, Bethesda, Md., said she’s concerned that “if it’s approved, too many people will get treated this way, when in fact, for a lot of those people, the risks will outweigh the benefits.”

Sandy Feng, MD, PhD, of the department of surgery at the University of California, San Francisco, pointed out that with regard to immunosuppressive therapy, “We’re concerned about the toxicity of what we currently use, but there are additional therapies being developed that might mitigate those toxicities that would be beneficial to this population.”

Dr. Feng, who voted yes, also said, “I do pancreas transplants. I can tell you that there is nothing that [patients with type 1 diabetes] like more than the freedom from dealing with the entire insulin issue. That has made a large impression on me over the last 20-plus years of clinical practice, so I do think this can help some people and will be incredibly meaningful to those people.”

FDA advisory panel members are vetted for conflicts of interest, and special waivers are granted if necessary. No such waivers were granted for this meeting.

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

For patients with obesity who want to lose weight but for whom conventional weight-loss strategies have failed, the combination of intragastric balloon placement and lifestyle modifications may be preferable to lifestyle modifications alone, according to new clinical practice guidelines from the American Gastroenterological Association.

In randomized clinical trials of patients with obesity (body mass index >30 kg/m²), placing an intragastric balloon (IGB) significantly improved key outcomes such as weight loss, metabolic parameters (such as fasting blood glucose, hemoglobin A1c), and rates of remission of diabetes, hypertension, and dyslipidemia, compared with standard noninvasive weight loss interventions, Thiruvengadam Muniraj, MD, MRCP, of Yale University in New Haven, Conn., and associates wrote in Gastroenterology. However, concomitant lifestyle modifications of “moderate to high intensity” are strongly recommended “to maintain and augment weight loss” after IGB placement, according to the guidelines published in Gastroenterology.

Obesity (BMI >30), affects approximately 40% of U.S. adults, but only about 1.1% of eligible patients receive bariatric weight-loss surgery, and few are aware that endoscopic treatment is an option, according to the guideline. Early IGB models were associated with “a number of devastating adverse events,” spurring their removal from the U.S. market in the 1980s and 1990s. Since then, however, several new models of IGBs have become available. The guidelines noted that, in seven randomized, controlled trials of these newer IGBs, there were no deaths and only a 5.6% overall rate of serious adverse events – most commonly injury to the gastrointestinal tract at 6-8 months’ follow-up. “More recently, postmarketing surveillance of IGB has reported additional rare adverse events of hyperinflation, acute pancreatitis, and death,” but overall, “IGBs appear to be associated with both a favorable adverse event and patient tolerability profile.”

Three models of fluid-filled balloons and two models of gas-filled balloons are currently available in the United States, the guidelines noted. The authors did not recommend one specific type or model over another. They cite limited data indicating that “fluid-filled balloons may be associated with more weight loss, lower tolerability, and less favorable safety profile, than gas filled balloons. Shared decision-making is suggested for determining device choice.”

Relatively few studies have evaluated lifestyle modifications after IGB placement. In one study of 80 patients, a very-low-calorie ketogenic diet led to significantly more weight loss (on average, 7.1 kg), compared with a conventional low-calorie diet. “Although diet does augment and sustain weight loss in patients receiving IGB therapy, it is unclear whether other lifestyle modifications (e.g., exercise) would have the same impact,” the guideline authors wrote.

They strongly recommended prophylactic proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy after IGB placement. The procedure can erode the gastrointestinal mucosa, and studies in which patients received prophylactic PPIs reported lower rates of serious adverse events, most notably upper GI bleeding. However, the numerous short- and long-term risks of these drugs make it “imperative that the lowest dose, frequency, and duration of PPIs be used in patients undergoing IGB therapy.”

Intragastric balloons can cause nausea and vomiting, leading to their premature removal. Therefore, when placing an IGB, concomitant antiemetic therapy is recommended along with an anesthetic that is unlikely to cause nausea. “Evidence is insufficient to recommend a specific antiemetic regimen” and “choice of regimen [should be] based on institutional policy, clinical context, and availability,” according to the guidelines.

Based on low-quality evidence, they included a conditional recommendation for daily vitamin supplementation with one to two adult-dose multivitamins after IGB placement. They suggest against perioperative laboratory screening for nutritional deficiencies, based on a lack of supporting evidence. However, since nutritional deficiencies with IGB placement have been reported, decisions about screening for nutritional deficiencies should be tailored based on clinical judgment.

To create the guideline, the authors reviewed databases for studies published through January 2020 in which patients with obesity had an IGB placed for at least 6 months. In all, 79 articles were cited, including more than 10 randomized clinical trials.

An update of the clinical practice guidelines is expected in 2024. The AGA Institute provided the only funding. Dr. Muniraj and five coauthors reported having no conflicts of interest. The other two coauthors disclosed relationships with Nestle Health Sciences, the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, the American College of Gastroenterology, and the Association of American Indian Physicians.
 

For patients with obesity who want to lose weight but for whom conventional weight-loss strategies have failed, the combination of intragastric balloon placement and lifestyle modifications may be preferable to lifestyle modifications alone, according to new clinical practice guidelines from the American Gastroenterological Association.

In randomized clinical trials of patients with obesity (body mass index >30 kg/m²), placing an intragastric balloon (IGB) significantly improved key outcomes such as weight loss, metabolic parameters (such as fasting blood glucose, hemoglobin A1c), and rates of remission of diabetes, hypertension, and dyslipidemia, compared with standard noninvasive weight loss interventions, Thiruvengadam Muniraj, MD, MRCP, of Yale University in New Haven, Conn., and associates wrote in Gastroenterology. However, concomitant lifestyle modifications of “moderate to high intensity” are strongly recommended “to maintain and augment weight loss” after IGB placement, according to the guidelines published in Gastroenterology.

Obesity (BMI >30), affects approximately 40% of U.S. adults, but only about 1.1% of eligible patients receive bariatric weight-loss surgery, and few are aware that endoscopic treatment is an option, according to the guideline. Early IGB models were associated with “a number of devastating adverse events,” spurring their removal from the U.S. market in the 1980s and 1990s. Since then, however, several new models of IGBs have become available. The guidelines noted that, in seven randomized, controlled trials of these newer IGBs, there were no deaths and only a 5.6% overall rate of serious adverse events – most commonly injury to the gastrointestinal tract at 6-8 months’ follow-up. “More recently, postmarketing surveillance of IGB has reported additional rare adverse events of hyperinflation, acute pancreatitis, and death,” but overall, “IGBs appear to be associated with both a favorable adverse event and patient tolerability profile.”

Three models of fluid-filled balloons and two models of gas-filled balloons are currently available in the United States, the guidelines noted. The authors did not recommend one specific type or model over another. They cite limited data indicating that “fluid-filled balloons may be associated with more weight loss, lower tolerability, and less favorable safety profile, than gas filled balloons. Shared decision-making is suggested for determining device choice.”

Relatively few studies have evaluated lifestyle modifications after IGB placement. In one study of 80 patients, a very-low-calorie ketogenic diet led to significantly more weight loss (on average, 7.1 kg), compared with a conventional low-calorie diet. “Although diet does augment and sustain weight loss in patients receiving IGB therapy, it is unclear whether other lifestyle modifications (e.g., exercise) would have the same impact,” the guideline authors wrote.

They strongly recommended prophylactic proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy after IGB placement. The procedure can erode the gastrointestinal mucosa, and studies in which patients received prophylactic PPIs reported lower rates of serious adverse events, most notably upper GI bleeding. However, the numerous short- and long-term risks of these drugs make it “imperative that the lowest dose, frequency, and duration of PPIs be used in patients undergoing IGB therapy.”

Intragastric balloons can cause nausea and vomiting, leading to their premature removal. Therefore, when placing an IGB, concomitant antiemetic therapy is recommended along with an anesthetic that is unlikely to cause nausea. “Evidence is insufficient to recommend a specific antiemetic regimen” and “choice of regimen [should be] based on institutional policy, clinical context, and availability,” according to the guidelines.

Based on low-quality evidence, they included a conditional recommendation for daily vitamin supplementation with one to two adult-dose multivitamins after IGB placement. They suggest against perioperative laboratory screening for nutritional deficiencies, based on a lack of supporting evidence. However, since nutritional deficiencies with IGB placement have been reported, decisions about screening for nutritional deficiencies should be tailored based on clinical judgment.

To create the guideline, the authors reviewed databases for studies published through January 2020 in which patients with obesity had an IGB placed for at least 6 months. In all, 79 articles were cited, including more than 10 randomized clinical trials.

An update of the clinical practice guidelines is expected in 2024. The AGA Institute provided the only funding. Dr. Muniraj and five coauthors reported having no conflicts of interest. The other two coauthors disclosed relationships with Nestle Health Sciences, the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, the American College of Gastroenterology, and the Association of American Indian Physicians.
 

For patients with obesity who want to lose weight but for whom conventional weight-loss strategies have failed, the combination of intragastric balloon placement and lifestyle modifications may be preferable to lifestyle modifications alone, according to new clinical practice guidelines from the American Gastroenterological Association.

In randomized clinical trials of patients with obesity (body mass index >30 kg/m²), placing an intragastric balloon (IGB) significantly improved key outcomes such as weight loss, metabolic parameters (such as fasting blood glucose, hemoglobin A1c), and rates of remission of diabetes, hypertension, and dyslipidemia, compared with standard noninvasive weight loss interventions, Thiruvengadam Muniraj, MD, MRCP, of Yale University in New Haven, Conn., and associates wrote in Gastroenterology. However, concomitant lifestyle modifications of “moderate to high intensity” are strongly recommended “to maintain and augment weight loss” after IGB placement, according to the guidelines published in Gastroenterology.

Obesity (BMI >30), affects approximately 40% of U.S. adults, but only about 1.1% of eligible patients receive bariatric weight-loss surgery, and few are aware that endoscopic treatment is an option, according to the guideline. Early IGB models were associated with “a number of devastating adverse events,” spurring their removal from the U.S. market in the 1980s and 1990s. Since then, however, several new models of IGBs have become available. The guidelines noted that, in seven randomized, controlled trials of these newer IGBs, there were no deaths and only a 5.6% overall rate of serious adverse events – most commonly injury to the gastrointestinal tract at 6-8 months’ follow-up. “More recently, postmarketing surveillance of IGB has reported additional rare adverse events of hyperinflation, acute pancreatitis, and death,” but overall, “IGBs appear to be associated with both a favorable adverse event and patient tolerability profile.”

Three models of fluid-filled balloons and two models of gas-filled balloons are currently available in the United States, the guidelines noted. The authors did not recommend one specific type or model over another. They cite limited data indicating that “fluid-filled balloons may be associated with more weight loss, lower tolerability, and less favorable safety profile, than gas filled balloons. Shared decision-making is suggested for determining device choice.”

Relatively few studies have evaluated lifestyle modifications after IGB placement. In one study of 80 patients, a very-low-calorie ketogenic diet led to significantly more weight loss (on average, 7.1 kg), compared with a conventional low-calorie diet. “Although diet does augment and sustain weight loss in patients receiving IGB therapy, it is unclear whether other lifestyle modifications (e.g., exercise) would have the same impact,” the guideline authors wrote.

They strongly recommended prophylactic proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy after IGB placement. The procedure can erode the gastrointestinal mucosa, and studies in which patients received prophylactic PPIs reported lower rates of serious adverse events, most notably upper GI bleeding. However, the numerous short- and long-term risks of these drugs make it “imperative that the lowest dose, frequency, and duration of PPIs be used in patients undergoing IGB therapy.”

Intragastric balloons can cause nausea and vomiting, leading to their premature removal. Therefore, when placing an IGB, concomitant antiemetic therapy is recommended along with an anesthetic that is unlikely to cause nausea. “Evidence is insufficient to recommend a specific antiemetic regimen” and “choice of regimen [should be] based on institutional policy, clinical context, and availability,” according to the guidelines.

Based on low-quality evidence, they included a conditional recommendation for daily vitamin supplementation with one to two adult-dose multivitamins after IGB placement. They suggest against perioperative laboratory screening for nutritional deficiencies, based on a lack of supporting evidence. However, since nutritional deficiencies with IGB placement have been reported, decisions about screening for nutritional deficiencies should be tailored based on clinical judgment.

To create the guideline, the authors reviewed databases for studies published through January 2020 in which patients with obesity had an IGB placed for at least 6 months. In all, 79 articles were cited, including more than 10 randomized clinical trials.

An update of the clinical practice guidelines is expected in 2024. The AGA Institute provided the only funding. Dr. Muniraj and five coauthors reported having no conflicts of interest. The other two coauthors disclosed relationships with Nestle Health Sciences, the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, the American College of Gastroenterology, and the Association of American Indian Physicians.
 

Most patients who are receiving maintenance hemodialysis develop a good antibody response after being given two doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, but their responses are still significantly lower than those of health care workers who do not have kidney disease, the first study of its kind shows.

“It is well known that patients on dialysis may have a reduced response to vaccination,” Ayelet Grupper, MD, of Tel Aviv Medical Center, and colleagues observe. Their study was published online April 6 in the Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology.

“I believe our findings should encourage patients with kidney failure treated with dialysis to be vaccinated as soon as vaccination becomes available for them, while we as caregivers should explore ways to enhance its efficacy in our patients,” senior author Moshe Shashar, MD, noted in a statement from the American Society of Nephrology.

Asked to comment, Peter Blake, MD, professor of medicine, University of Western Ontario, London, pointed out that COVID-19 is very common among hemodialysis patients and that the likelihood of these patients dying from it is very high. Indeed, 1.5% of approximately 12,500 patients receiving dialysis in the province of Ontario have died of COVID-19 – “a horrifying statistic and one that only long-term care home residents can compare with,” he told this news organization.

In the Israeli study, almost all dialysis patients mounted a serologic response to the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, which is “good news” overall, Dr. Blake said.

Also commenting on the study, Anushree Shirali, MD, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said she was impressed by the fact that most of the dialysis patients in the study mounted at least some IgG response to vaccination, which she said was good “in and of itself,” because that is not always the case with other vaccines.
 

Study compared dialysis patients with health care workers

The Israeli study included 56 patients who were receiving maintenance hemodialysis and 95 health care workers, who served as control persons.

“All participants had been previously vaccinated with the [Pfizer-BioNTech] vaccine, with the recommended dosing interval of 21 days between the first and second doses,” the investigators note. Immunogenicity was assessed using a dedicated immunoassay to quantify the level of IgG antibodies from participants’ plasma.

A cutoff for a positive antibody response was greater than or equal to 50 arbitrary units per milliliter (AU/mL). “All subjects in the control group developed a positive antibody response (≥50 AU/mL) as compared with 96% (54 of 56) in the dialysis group,” Dr. Shashar and colleagues report.

The median IgG level in the dialysis group was 2,900 AU/mL, which is significantly lower than the median of 7,401 AU/mL in the control group (P < .001), they report.

The investigators also observed a significant inverse correlation between older age and antibody levels in both groups.

The odds of being in the lower quartile were significantly higher for older individuals (odds ratio, 1.11 per year of age; P = .004) and for the dialysis group compared with the control group (OR, 2.7; P = .05).

Among the dialysis patients, older age and lower lymphocyte count were associated with antibody response in the lower quartile (OR, 1.22 per 1 year older; P = .03; and OR, 0.83 per 10-e3/mL-higher lymphocyte count; P = .05).

Among recipients older than 70 years, there was little difference in antibody response between the dialysis patients and the control group. Thus, age is clearly an important contributor to a robust humoral response, the authors observe.

For more than 90% of the patients receiving dialysis, the antibody response was well above 50 AU/mL, which was the cutoff for having a positive response.

Nevertheless, the authors suggest that their findings should prompt clinicians to consider either changing the dose or the schedule of COVID-19 vaccination for dialysis patients, as was done, for example, with the hepatitis B vaccine Engerix-B.

Dialysis patients now receive double doses of the hepatitis B vaccine, which is given in a four-series vaccine schedule rather than a three-series vaccine schedule, as is given to healthy individuals.

The authors also call for studies to assess the longevity of vaccine efficacy for dialysis patients and whether current vaccines are effective against variant strains among patients undergoing dialysis.
 

Some suggestion COVID-19 vaccines also elicit T-cell responses

Dr. Shirali said the news regarding the COVID-19 vaccine for dialysis patients is good, given the fact that such patients exhibit a poor response to the hepatitis B vaccine.

“There isn’t a large percentage of dialysis patients who mount a humoral response to the hepatitis B vaccine, even with the change in dosing that we use that is different than it is for the general population,” she told this news organization.

Dr. Shirali also noted that preliminary evidence suggests that COVID-19 vaccines elicit nonantibody and antibody T-cell responses and that such immunity is going to be just as important for protecting dialysis patients against COVID-19 as it is for protecting patients who are not receiving dialysis.

“Antibody responses are just one arm of vaccination,” she explained. “People can form memory T-cell responses with vaccination, and while this has not been well studied with COVID-19, there are preliminary data to suggest that T-cell responses are likely to be effective in the fight against COVID-19.” There is also the possibility that this type of response “may even be more durable than antibody responses,” she said.

The study received no funding. The authors, Dr. Blake and Dr. Shirali, have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Most patients who are receiving maintenance hemodialysis develop a good antibody response after being given two doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, but their responses are still significantly lower than those of health care workers who do not have kidney disease, the first study of its kind shows.

“It is well known that patients on dialysis may have a reduced response to vaccination,” Ayelet Grupper, MD, of Tel Aviv Medical Center, and colleagues observe. Their study was published online April 6 in the Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology.

“I believe our findings should encourage patients with kidney failure treated with dialysis to be vaccinated as soon as vaccination becomes available for them, while we as caregivers should explore ways to enhance its efficacy in our patients,” senior author Moshe Shashar, MD, noted in a statement from the American Society of Nephrology.

Asked to comment, Peter Blake, MD, professor of medicine, University of Western Ontario, London, pointed out that COVID-19 is very common among hemodialysis patients and that the likelihood of these patients dying from it is very high. Indeed, 1.5% of approximately 12,500 patients receiving dialysis in the province of Ontario have died of COVID-19 – “a horrifying statistic and one that only long-term care home residents can compare with,” he told this news organization.

In the Israeli study, almost all dialysis patients mounted a serologic response to the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, which is “good news” overall, Dr. Blake said.

Also commenting on the study, Anushree Shirali, MD, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said she was impressed by the fact that most of the dialysis patients in the study mounted at least some IgG response to vaccination, which she said was good “in and of itself,” because that is not always the case with other vaccines.
 

Study compared dialysis patients with health care workers

The Israeli study included 56 patients who were receiving maintenance hemodialysis and 95 health care workers, who served as control persons.

“All participants had been previously vaccinated with the [Pfizer-BioNTech] vaccine, with the recommended dosing interval of 21 days between the first and second doses,” the investigators note. Immunogenicity was assessed using a dedicated immunoassay to quantify the level of IgG antibodies from participants’ plasma.

A cutoff for a positive antibody response was greater than or equal to 50 arbitrary units per milliliter (AU/mL). “All subjects in the control group developed a positive antibody response (≥50 AU/mL) as compared with 96% (54 of 56) in the dialysis group,” Dr. Shashar and colleagues report.

The median IgG level in the dialysis group was 2,900 AU/mL, which is significantly lower than the median of 7,401 AU/mL in the control group (P < .001), they report.

The investigators also observed a significant inverse correlation between older age and antibody levels in both groups.

The odds of being in the lower quartile were significantly higher for older individuals (odds ratio, 1.11 per year of age; P = .004) and for the dialysis group compared with the control group (OR, 2.7; P = .05).

Among the dialysis patients, older age and lower lymphocyte count were associated with antibody response in the lower quartile (OR, 1.22 per 1 year older; P = .03; and OR, 0.83 per 10-e3/mL-higher lymphocyte count; P = .05).

Among recipients older than 70 years, there was little difference in antibody response between the dialysis patients and the control group. Thus, age is clearly an important contributor to a robust humoral response, the authors observe.

For more than 90% of the patients receiving dialysis, the antibody response was well above 50 AU/mL, which was the cutoff for having a positive response.

Nevertheless, the authors suggest that their findings should prompt clinicians to consider either changing the dose or the schedule of COVID-19 vaccination for dialysis patients, as was done, for example, with the hepatitis B vaccine Engerix-B.

Dialysis patients now receive double doses of the hepatitis B vaccine, which is given in a four-series vaccine schedule rather than a three-series vaccine schedule, as is given to healthy individuals.

The authors also call for studies to assess the longevity of vaccine efficacy for dialysis patients and whether current vaccines are effective against variant strains among patients undergoing dialysis.
 

Some suggestion COVID-19 vaccines also elicit T-cell responses

Dr. Shirali said the news regarding the COVID-19 vaccine for dialysis patients is good, given the fact that such patients exhibit a poor response to the hepatitis B vaccine.

“There isn’t a large percentage of dialysis patients who mount a humoral response to the hepatitis B vaccine, even with the change in dosing that we use that is different than it is for the general population,” she told this news organization.

Dr. Shirali also noted that preliminary evidence suggests that COVID-19 vaccines elicit nonantibody and antibody T-cell responses and that such immunity is going to be just as important for protecting dialysis patients against COVID-19 as it is for protecting patients who are not receiving dialysis.

“Antibody responses are just one arm of vaccination,” she explained. “People can form memory T-cell responses with vaccination, and while this has not been well studied with COVID-19, there are preliminary data to suggest that T-cell responses are likely to be effective in the fight against COVID-19.” There is also the possibility that this type of response “may even be more durable than antibody responses,” she said.

The study received no funding. The authors, Dr. Blake and Dr. Shirali, have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Most patients who are receiving maintenance hemodialysis develop a good antibody response after being given two doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, but their responses are still significantly lower than those of health care workers who do not have kidney disease, the first study of its kind shows.

“It is well known that patients on dialysis may have a reduced response to vaccination,” Ayelet Grupper, MD, of Tel Aviv Medical Center, and colleagues observe. Their study was published online April 6 in the Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology.

“I believe our findings should encourage patients with kidney failure treated with dialysis to be vaccinated as soon as vaccination becomes available for them, while we as caregivers should explore ways to enhance its efficacy in our patients,” senior author Moshe Shashar, MD, noted in a statement from the American Society of Nephrology.

Asked to comment, Peter Blake, MD, professor of medicine, University of Western Ontario, London, pointed out that COVID-19 is very common among hemodialysis patients and that the likelihood of these patients dying from it is very high. Indeed, 1.5% of approximately 12,500 patients receiving dialysis in the province of Ontario have died of COVID-19 – “a horrifying statistic and one that only long-term care home residents can compare with,” he told this news organization.

In the Israeli study, almost all dialysis patients mounted a serologic response to the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, which is “good news” overall, Dr. Blake said.

Also commenting on the study, Anushree Shirali, MD, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said she was impressed by the fact that most of the dialysis patients in the study mounted at least some IgG response to vaccination, which she said was good “in and of itself,” because that is not always the case with other vaccines.
 

Study compared dialysis patients with health care workers

The Israeli study included 56 patients who were receiving maintenance hemodialysis and 95 health care workers, who served as control persons.

“All participants had been previously vaccinated with the [Pfizer-BioNTech] vaccine, with the recommended dosing interval of 21 days between the first and second doses,” the investigators note. Immunogenicity was assessed using a dedicated immunoassay to quantify the level of IgG antibodies from participants’ plasma.

A cutoff for a positive antibody response was greater than or equal to 50 arbitrary units per milliliter (AU/mL). “All subjects in the control group developed a positive antibody response (≥50 AU/mL) as compared with 96% (54 of 56) in the dialysis group,” Dr. Shashar and colleagues report.

The median IgG level in the dialysis group was 2,900 AU/mL, which is significantly lower than the median of 7,401 AU/mL in the control group (P < .001), they report.

The investigators also observed a significant inverse correlation between older age and antibody levels in both groups.

The odds of being in the lower quartile were significantly higher for older individuals (odds ratio, 1.11 per year of age; P = .004) and for the dialysis group compared with the control group (OR, 2.7; P = .05).

Among the dialysis patients, older age and lower lymphocyte count were associated with antibody response in the lower quartile (OR, 1.22 per 1 year older; P = .03; and OR, 0.83 per 10-e3/mL-higher lymphocyte count; P = .05).

Among recipients older than 70 years, there was little difference in antibody response between the dialysis patients and the control group. Thus, age is clearly an important contributor to a robust humoral response, the authors observe.

For more than 90% of the patients receiving dialysis, the antibody response was well above 50 AU/mL, which was the cutoff for having a positive response.

Nevertheless, the authors suggest that their findings should prompt clinicians to consider either changing the dose or the schedule of COVID-19 vaccination for dialysis patients, as was done, for example, with the hepatitis B vaccine Engerix-B.

Dialysis patients now receive double doses of the hepatitis B vaccine, which is given in a four-series vaccine schedule rather than a three-series vaccine schedule, as is given to healthy individuals.

The authors also call for studies to assess the longevity of vaccine efficacy for dialysis patients and whether current vaccines are effective against variant strains among patients undergoing dialysis.
 

Some suggestion COVID-19 vaccines also elicit T-cell responses

Dr. Shirali said the news regarding the COVID-19 vaccine for dialysis patients is good, given the fact that such patients exhibit a poor response to the hepatitis B vaccine.

“There isn’t a large percentage of dialysis patients who mount a humoral response to the hepatitis B vaccine, even with the change in dosing that we use that is different than it is for the general population,” she told this news organization.

Dr. Shirali also noted that preliminary evidence suggests that COVID-19 vaccines elicit nonantibody and antibody T-cell responses and that such immunity is going to be just as important for protecting dialysis patients against COVID-19 as it is for protecting patients who are not receiving dialysis.

“Antibody responses are just one arm of vaccination,” she explained. “People can form memory T-cell responses with vaccination, and while this has not been well studied with COVID-19, there are preliminary data to suggest that T-cell responses are likely to be effective in the fight against COVID-19.” There is also the possibility that this type of response “may even be more durable than antibody responses,” she said.

The study received no funding. The authors, Dr. Blake and Dr. Shirali, have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The high-density lipoprotein particle’s complexity as a mediator of cardiovascular risk was on display in a case-control study that, the researchers say, points to its anti-inflammatory capacity as potentially a worthy addition to standard CV risk assessments.

A measure of HDL anti-inflammatory capacity in a prospective community cohort was inversely related to future CV risk independent of HDL’s role in cholesterol transport, total cholesterol, and other established biomarkers, as well as any lipid-modifying therapy.

The current analysis “identified an impaired HDL anti-inflammatory capacity as a functional metric prospectively associated with increased cardiovascular risk in the general population,” observed the authors of the study, published April 12, 2021, in Circulation, led by Congzhuo Jia, MD, University of Groningen (the Netherlands).

“In contrast with the cholesterol efflux function of HDL that tracks moderately with HDL cholesterol levels,” they wrote, HDL anti-inflammatory capacity was not significantly correlated with actual levels of the lipoprotein or a major constituent, apolipoprotein A1 (apoA1). Nor was it correlated with levels of a more generalized inflammatory biomarker, C-reactive protein by high-sensitivity assay (hsCRP).

In a test of its independence as a prognosticator, HDL anti-inflammatory capacity significantly and meaningfully improved prediction of CV events in the study after it was added to the familiar Framingham risk equations.

Measurement of HDL anti-inflammatory properties, therefore, has the potential to improve current CV risk assessments in people without clinical heart disease, the authors proposed.

The study “adds to our understanding of the potential cardioprotective role of HDL,” Michael Miller, MD, University of Maryland, Baltimore, said in an interview.

“We’ve known for some time that HDL has anti-inflammatory properties in vitro, and my understanding is this is the first study to assess these anti-inflammatory properties in a clinical trial,” said Dr. Miller, who studies lipid metabolism and directs the Center for Preventive Cardiology at his center but isn’t an author of the report.

The study is part of a long line of research aiming to “untangle the complexities of HDL and try to get a better handle as to the properties that make it cardioprotective,” he said. For example, “high levels are not always associated with cardioprotection, and low levels don’t always imply increased risk.”

The current findings highlight a quality of HDL that might be prognostic but also independent of its concentrations, apoA1 content, or cholesterol efflux capacity, Dr. Miller noted. That makes HDL anti-inflammatory capacity a “promising feature” of HDL that, if confirmed in further studies, could potentially be brought into the mainstream for CV risk prediction. “But it’s too premature at this time.”

The study of participants in the population-based PREVEND cohort study compared 340 patients with a first CV event – CV death, ischemic heart disease, nonfatal MI, or coronary revascularization – over a median of about 10 years with the same number of participants without such events. The two cohorts of people from the same city in the Netherlands had been matched according to sex, smoking status, age, and HDL cholesterol levels at baseline.

No measured clinical or laboratory value, the group wrote, was significantly correlated with HDL anti-inflammatory capacity, defined here as ability to suppress vascular cell adhesion molecule-1 (VCAM-1) mRNA expression as induced by tumor necrosis factor–alpha in endothelial cells in vitro.

HDL anti-inflammatory capacity was significantly lower in the case cohort, compared with the control cohort (P < .001), and was inversely related to new CV events, at an odds ratio per 1 standard deviation of 0.74 (95% confidence interval, 0.61-0.90; P = .002). Covariate adjustments included body mass index; alcohol intake; diabetes and hypertension status; use of lipid-lowering medicine; levels of total cholesterol, apoA1, triglyceride, and hsCRP; and measures of renal function.

No significant association was seen between HDL anti-inflammatory capacity and cholesterol efflux capacity (coefficient of correlation, −0.02; P > .05). But both metrics were independently associated with CV disease events. The OR per 1 standard deviation was 0.74 (95% CI, 0.61-0.90; P = .002) for cholesterol efflux capacity and 0.66 (95% CI, 0.54-0.81; P < .001) for HDL anti-inflammatory capacity.

Adding HDL anti-inflammatory capacity to the Framingham risk score significantly improved its predictive power; its likelihood-ratio statistic rose from 10.50 to 20.40 (P = .002), the group wrote. The addition of cholesterol efflux capacity further elevated the risk score’s likelihood-ratio statistic to 32.84 (P = .0005).

The analysis has all the limitations of a case-control study, Dr. Miller said, but it does “show a potential reasonable association” between anti-inflammatory capacity and CV risk “that needs to be taken to the next level.”

For example, it could be explored in a controlled trial that tracks anti-inflammatory capacity in individuals who receive an intervention that is likely to improve the biomarker – such as weight loss, he proposed – and follows them for clinical outcomes.

“If you want to elevate the stature of the anti-inflammatory index,” Dr. Miller said, “you will need to show that it’s clinically meaningful.”

Dr. Jia reported no conflicts. Dr. Miller has no relevant disclosures.

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

The high-density lipoprotein particle’s complexity as a mediator of cardiovascular risk was on display in a case-control study that, the researchers say, points to its anti-inflammatory capacity as potentially a worthy addition to standard CV risk assessments.

A measure of HDL anti-inflammatory capacity in a prospective community cohort was inversely related to future CV risk independent of HDL’s role in cholesterol transport, total cholesterol, and other established biomarkers, as well as any lipid-modifying therapy.

The current analysis “identified an impaired HDL anti-inflammatory capacity as a functional metric prospectively associated with increased cardiovascular risk in the general population,” observed the authors of the study, published April 12, 2021, in Circulation, led by Congzhuo Jia, MD, University of Groningen (the Netherlands).

“In contrast with the cholesterol efflux function of HDL that tracks moderately with HDL cholesterol levels,” they wrote, HDL anti-inflammatory capacity was not significantly correlated with actual levels of the lipoprotein or a major constituent, apolipoprotein A1 (apoA1). Nor was it correlated with levels of a more generalized inflammatory biomarker, C-reactive protein by high-sensitivity assay (hsCRP).

In a test of its independence as a prognosticator, HDL anti-inflammatory capacity significantly and meaningfully improved prediction of CV events in the study after it was added to the familiar Framingham risk equations.

Measurement of HDL anti-inflammatory properties, therefore, has the potential to improve current CV risk assessments in people without clinical heart disease, the authors proposed.

The study “adds to our understanding of the potential cardioprotective role of HDL,” Michael Miller, MD, University of Maryland, Baltimore, said in an interview.

“We’ve known for some time that HDL has anti-inflammatory properties in vitro, and my understanding is this is the first study to assess these anti-inflammatory properties in a clinical trial,” said Dr. Miller, who studies lipid metabolism and directs the Center for Preventive Cardiology at his center but isn’t an author of the report.

The study is part of a long line of research aiming to “untangle the complexities of HDL and try to get a better handle as to the properties that make it cardioprotective,” he said. For example, “high levels are not always associated with cardioprotection, and low levels don’t always imply increased risk.”

The current findings highlight a quality of HDL that might be prognostic but also independent of its concentrations, apoA1 content, or cholesterol efflux capacity, Dr. Miller noted. That makes HDL anti-inflammatory capacity a “promising feature” of HDL that, if confirmed in further studies, could potentially be brought into the mainstream for CV risk prediction. “But it’s too premature at this time.”

The study of participants in the population-based PREVEND cohort study compared 340 patients with a first CV event – CV death, ischemic heart disease, nonfatal MI, or coronary revascularization – over a median of about 10 years with the same number of participants without such events. The two cohorts of people from the same city in the Netherlands had been matched according to sex, smoking status, age, and HDL cholesterol levels at baseline.

No measured clinical or laboratory value, the group wrote, was significantly correlated with HDL anti-inflammatory capacity, defined here as ability to suppress vascular cell adhesion molecule-1 (VCAM-1) mRNA expression as induced by tumor necrosis factor–alpha in endothelial cells in vitro.

HDL anti-inflammatory capacity was significantly lower in the case cohort, compared with the control cohort (P < .001), and was inversely related to new CV events, at an odds ratio per 1 standard deviation of 0.74 (95% confidence interval, 0.61-0.90; P = .002). Covariate adjustments included body mass index; alcohol intake; diabetes and hypertension status; use of lipid-lowering medicine; levels of total cholesterol, apoA1, triglyceride, and hsCRP; and measures of renal function.

No significant association was seen between HDL anti-inflammatory capacity and cholesterol efflux capacity (coefficient of correlation, −0.02; P > .05). But both metrics were independently associated with CV disease events. The OR per 1 standard deviation was 0.74 (95% CI, 0.61-0.90; P = .002) for cholesterol efflux capacity and 0.66 (95% CI, 0.54-0.81; P < .001) for HDL anti-inflammatory capacity.

Adding HDL anti-inflammatory capacity to the Framingham risk score significantly improved its predictive power; its likelihood-ratio statistic rose from 10.50 to 20.40 (P = .002), the group wrote. The addition of cholesterol efflux capacity further elevated the risk score’s likelihood-ratio statistic to 32.84 (P = .0005).

The analysis has all the limitations of a case-control study, Dr. Miller said, but it does “show a potential reasonable association” between anti-inflammatory capacity and CV risk “that needs to be taken to the next level.”

For example, it could be explored in a controlled trial that tracks anti-inflammatory capacity in individuals who receive an intervention that is likely to improve the biomarker – such as weight loss, he proposed – and follows them for clinical outcomes.

“If you want to elevate the stature of the anti-inflammatory index,” Dr. Miller said, “you will need to show that it’s clinically meaningful.”

Dr. Jia reported no conflicts. Dr. Miller has no relevant disclosures.

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

The high-density lipoprotein particle’s complexity as a mediator of cardiovascular risk was on display in a case-control study that, the researchers say, points to its anti-inflammatory capacity as potentially a worthy addition to standard CV risk assessments.

A measure of HDL anti-inflammatory capacity in a prospective community cohort was inversely related to future CV risk independent of HDL’s role in cholesterol transport, total cholesterol, and other established biomarkers, as well as any lipid-modifying therapy.

The current analysis “identified an impaired HDL anti-inflammatory capacity as a functional metric prospectively associated with increased cardiovascular risk in the general population,” observed the authors of the study, published April 12, 2021, in Circulation, led by Congzhuo Jia, MD, University of Groningen (the Netherlands).

“In contrast with the cholesterol efflux function of HDL that tracks moderately with HDL cholesterol levels,” they wrote, HDL anti-inflammatory capacity was not significantly correlated with actual levels of the lipoprotein or a major constituent, apolipoprotein A1 (apoA1). Nor was it correlated with levels of a more generalized inflammatory biomarker, C-reactive protein by high-sensitivity assay (hsCRP).

In a test of its independence as a prognosticator, HDL anti-inflammatory capacity significantly and meaningfully improved prediction of CV events in the study after it was added to the familiar Framingham risk equations.

Measurement of HDL anti-inflammatory properties, therefore, has the potential to improve current CV risk assessments in people without clinical heart disease, the authors proposed.

The study “adds to our understanding of the potential cardioprotective role of HDL,” Michael Miller, MD, University of Maryland, Baltimore, said in an interview.

“We’ve known for some time that HDL has anti-inflammatory properties in vitro, and my understanding is this is the first study to assess these anti-inflammatory properties in a clinical trial,” said Dr. Miller, who studies lipid metabolism and directs the Center for Preventive Cardiology at his center but isn’t an author of the report.

The study is part of a long line of research aiming to “untangle the complexities of HDL and try to get a better handle as to the properties that make it cardioprotective,” he said. For example, “high levels are not always associated with cardioprotection, and low levels don’t always imply increased risk.”

The current findings highlight a quality of HDL that might be prognostic but also independent of its concentrations, apoA1 content, or cholesterol efflux capacity, Dr. Miller noted. That makes HDL anti-inflammatory capacity a “promising feature” of HDL that, if confirmed in further studies, could potentially be brought into the mainstream for CV risk prediction. “But it’s too premature at this time.”

The study of participants in the population-based PREVEND cohort study compared 340 patients with a first CV event – CV death, ischemic heart disease, nonfatal MI, or coronary revascularization – over a median of about 10 years with the same number of participants without such events. The two cohorts of people from the same city in the Netherlands had been matched according to sex, smoking status, age, and HDL cholesterol levels at baseline.

No measured clinical or laboratory value, the group wrote, was significantly correlated with HDL anti-inflammatory capacity, defined here as ability to suppress vascular cell adhesion molecule-1 (VCAM-1) mRNA expression as induced by tumor necrosis factor–alpha in endothelial cells in vitro.

HDL anti-inflammatory capacity was significantly lower in the case cohort, compared with the control cohort (P < .001), and was inversely related to new CV events, at an odds ratio per 1 standard deviation of 0.74 (95% confidence interval, 0.61-0.90; P = .002). Covariate adjustments included body mass index; alcohol intake; diabetes and hypertension status; use of lipid-lowering medicine; levels of total cholesterol, apoA1, triglyceride, and hsCRP; and measures of renal function.

No significant association was seen between HDL anti-inflammatory capacity and cholesterol efflux capacity (coefficient of correlation, −0.02; P > .05). But both metrics were independently associated with CV disease events. The OR per 1 standard deviation was 0.74 (95% CI, 0.61-0.90; P = .002) for cholesterol efflux capacity and 0.66 (95% CI, 0.54-0.81; P < .001) for HDL anti-inflammatory capacity.

Adding HDL anti-inflammatory capacity to the Framingham risk score significantly improved its predictive power; its likelihood-ratio statistic rose from 10.50 to 20.40 (P = .002), the group wrote. The addition of cholesterol efflux capacity further elevated the risk score’s likelihood-ratio statistic to 32.84 (P = .0005).

The analysis has all the limitations of a case-control study, Dr. Miller said, but it does “show a potential reasonable association” between anti-inflammatory capacity and CV risk “that needs to be taken to the next level.”

For example, it could be explored in a controlled trial that tracks anti-inflammatory capacity in individuals who receive an intervention that is likely to improve the biomarker – such as weight loss, he proposed – and follows them for clinical outcomes.

“If you want to elevate the stature of the anti-inflammatory index,” Dr. Miller said, “you will need to show that it’s clinically meaningful.”

Dr. Jia reported no conflicts. Dr. Miller has no relevant disclosures.

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

The recommended pause in use of the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine will last at least another week after a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention advisory committee on April 14 decided not to take action.

Johnson &amp; Johnson

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices decided there was not adequate information to change again recommend use of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.

The committee’s decision comes the day after the CDC and Food and Drug Administration recommended that J&J injections be paused after reports of rare, but serious types of blood clots in six patients among the 6.8 million people who had received the J&J vaccine in the United States.

A member of the committee, Beth Bell, MD, said: “I do not want to be sending a message that there is some huge concern here on a different order of magnitude than any other vaccine safety signals that we evaluate. And I don’t want to send a message that there is something fundamentally wrong with the vaccine because that also I don’t agree with.”

At the end of the 4-hour meeting, ACIP members decided to call a meeting in 1 or 2 weeks and evaluate more safety data, specifically reports of people who have received the J&J vaccine in the past 2 weeks.

Some, however, pointed out that delaying a decision could have substantial consequences as well in terms of unused vaccine doses and public confidence.

Committee member Camiile Kotton, MD, described the pause as “devastating.”

“Putting this vaccine on pause for those of us that are frontline health care workers has really been devastating,” she said. “I agree in general that we don’t have enough data to make a decision at this time but we were planning on using this vaccine in the state of Massachusetts for people who were homebound and otherwise not able to get a vaccine. We were planning on using it for our vulnerable inpatient population often with many comorbidities and at high risk for disease but haven’t been able to get vaccinated otherwise.”

Pausing the one-and-done vaccine that doesn’t have the significant refrigeration requirements of the others “is a significant loss,” she said.
 

What is known, not known

Sara Oliver, MD, who leads the COVID-19 Vaccines ACIP Work Group, summarized what is known and unknown about the blood clots.

Among the six cases of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System after the J&J shot, all were women aged 18-48 years and all developed the clots 6-13 days after receiving the vaccine.

No cases of these clots have been reported from either the Pfizer or Moderna shots, she noted.

In the United States, the two mRNA vaccine alternatives – the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines – are available “and based on current projections supply of both vaccines are expected to be relatively stable in the near future,” she said.

She said 14 million doses of Pfizer and Moderna are expected each week in the United States and J&J vaccines makes up less than 5% of vaccines administered in the country.

Approximately 13 million J&J doses are available to order or are already at administration sites, she said.

But much more is unknown, she said.

“There may be more cases identified in the coming days to weeks,” Dr. Oliver said, referring back to the average time from vaccination to symptom onset.

Scott Ratzan, MD, editor-in-chief of the Journal of Health Communication: International Perspectives and executive director of Business Partners to CONVINCE (BP2C), a global network of employers that promotes COVID-19 vaccination among employees, suppliers, and customers, applauded ACIP’s delay on making a decision.

Dr. Ratzan, who watched the deliberations online, said in an interview the decision “shows an admirable abundance of caution in the distribution of COVID-19 vaccines.”

“Unfortunately,” he said, “the pause also worsens the existing and pervasive vaccine hesitancy issue.

“We need a rational strategy regarding who should or should not get the J&J/Janssen vaccine since these rare adverse events appear to affect a particular group of people, females aged 18-48. It is essential that we build vaccine confidence and retain the option of using this vaccine for people who are not in this risk group.”

He pointed out there are safety red flags with the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines.

“We should feel reassured about the process of ensuring vaccine safety as the FDA and CDC have quickly addressed risk and shared the data transparently of the J&J vaccine and taken appropriate action,” he said.

ACIP’s executive secretary, Amanda Cohn, MD, said the date for the next meeting would be set by April 16.

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

The recommended pause in use of the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine will last at least another week after a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention advisory committee on April 14 decided not to take action.

Johnson &amp; Johnson

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices decided there was not adequate information to change again recommend use of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.

The committee’s decision comes the day after the CDC and Food and Drug Administration recommended that J&J injections be paused after reports of rare, but serious types of blood clots in six patients among the 6.8 million people who had received the J&J vaccine in the United States.

A member of the committee, Beth Bell, MD, said: “I do not want to be sending a message that there is some huge concern here on a different order of magnitude than any other vaccine safety signals that we evaluate. And I don’t want to send a message that there is something fundamentally wrong with the vaccine because that also I don’t agree with.”

At the end of the 4-hour meeting, ACIP members decided to call a meeting in 1 or 2 weeks and evaluate more safety data, specifically reports of people who have received the J&J vaccine in the past 2 weeks.

Some, however, pointed out that delaying a decision could have substantial consequences as well in terms of unused vaccine doses and public confidence.

Committee member Camiile Kotton, MD, described the pause as “devastating.”

“Putting this vaccine on pause for those of us that are frontline health care workers has really been devastating,” she said. “I agree in general that we don’t have enough data to make a decision at this time but we were planning on using this vaccine in the state of Massachusetts for people who were homebound and otherwise not able to get a vaccine. We were planning on using it for our vulnerable inpatient population often with many comorbidities and at high risk for disease but haven’t been able to get vaccinated otherwise.”

Pausing the one-and-done vaccine that doesn’t have the significant refrigeration requirements of the others “is a significant loss,” she said.
 

What is known, not known

Sara Oliver, MD, who leads the COVID-19 Vaccines ACIP Work Group, summarized what is known and unknown about the blood clots.

Among the six cases of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System after the J&J shot, all were women aged 18-48 years and all developed the clots 6-13 days after receiving the vaccine.

No cases of these clots have been reported from either the Pfizer or Moderna shots, she noted.

In the United States, the two mRNA vaccine alternatives – the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines – are available “and based on current projections supply of both vaccines are expected to be relatively stable in the near future,” she said.

She said 14 million doses of Pfizer and Moderna are expected each week in the United States and J&J vaccines makes up less than 5% of vaccines administered in the country.

Approximately 13 million J&J doses are available to order or are already at administration sites, she said.

But much more is unknown, she said.

“There may be more cases identified in the coming days to weeks,” Dr. Oliver said, referring back to the average time from vaccination to symptom onset.

Scott Ratzan, MD, editor-in-chief of the Journal of Health Communication: International Perspectives and executive director of Business Partners to CONVINCE (BP2C), a global network of employers that promotes COVID-19 vaccination among employees, suppliers, and customers, applauded ACIP’s delay on making a decision.

Dr. Ratzan, who watched the deliberations online, said in an interview the decision “shows an admirable abundance of caution in the distribution of COVID-19 vaccines.”

“Unfortunately,” he said, “the pause also worsens the existing and pervasive vaccine hesitancy issue.

“We need a rational strategy regarding who should or should not get the J&J/Janssen vaccine since these rare adverse events appear to affect a particular group of people, females aged 18-48. It is essential that we build vaccine confidence and retain the option of using this vaccine for people who are not in this risk group.”

He pointed out there are safety red flags with the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines.

“We should feel reassured about the process of ensuring vaccine safety as the FDA and CDC have quickly addressed risk and shared the data transparently of the J&J vaccine and taken appropriate action,” he said.

ACIP’s executive secretary, Amanda Cohn, MD, said the date for the next meeting would be set by April 16.

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

The recommended pause in use of the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine will last at least another week after a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention advisory committee on April 14 decided not to take action.

Johnson &amp; Johnson

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices decided there was not adequate information to change again recommend use of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.

The committee’s decision comes the day after the CDC and Food and Drug Administration recommended that J&J injections be paused after reports of rare, but serious types of blood clots in six patients among the 6.8 million people who had received the J&J vaccine in the United States.

A member of the committee, Beth Bell, MD, said: “I do not want to be sending a message that there is some huge concern here on a different order of magnitude than any other vaccine safety signals that we evaluate. And I don’t want to send a message that there is something fundamentally wrong with the vaccine because that also I don’t agree with.”

At the end of the 4-hour meeting, ACIP members decided to call a meeting in 1 or 2 weeks and evaluate more safety data, specifically reports of people who have received the J&J vaccine in the past 2 weeks.

Some, however, pointed out that delaying a decision could have substantial consequences as well in terms of unused vaccine doses and public confidence.

Committee member Camiile Kotton, MD, described the pause as “devastating.”

“Putting this vaccine on pause for those of us that are frontline health care workers has really been devastating,” she said. “I agree in general that we don’t have enough data to make a decision at this time but we were planning on using this vaccine in the state of Massachusetts for people who were homebound and otherwise not able to get a vaccine. We were planning on using it for our vulnerable inpatient population often with many comorbidities and at high risk for disease but haven’t been able to get vaccinated otherwise.”

Pausing the one-and-done vaccine that doesn’t have the significant refrigeration requirements of the others “is a significant loss,” she said.
 

What is known, not known

Sara Oliver, MD, who leads the COVID-19 Vaccines ACIP Work Group, summarized what is known and unknown about the blood clots.

Among the six cases of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System after the J&J shot, all were women aged 18-48 years and all developed the clots 6-13 days after receiving the vaccine.

No cases of these clots have been reported from either the Pfizer or Moderna shots, she noted.

In the United States, the two mRNA vaccine alternatives – the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines – are available “and based on current projections supply of both vaccines are expected to be relatively stable in the near future,” she said.

She said 14 million doses of Pfizer and Moderna are expected each week in the United States and J&J vaccines makes up less than 5% of vaccines administered in the country.

Approximately 13 million J&J doses are available to order or are already at administration sites, she said.

But much more is unknown, she said.

“There may be more cases identified in the coming days to weeks,” Dr. Oliver said, referring back to the average time from vaccination to symptom onset.

Scott Ratzan, MD, editor-in-chief of the Journal of Health Communication: International Perspectives and executive director of Business Partners to CONVINCE (BP2C), a global network of employers that promotes COVID-19 vaccination among employees, suppliers, and customers, applauded ACIP’s delay on making a decision.

Dr. Ratzan, who watched the deliberations online, said in an interview the decision “shows an admirable abundance of caution in the distribution of COVID-19 vaccines.”

“Unfortunately,” he said, “the pause also worsens the existing and pervasive vaccine hesitancy issue.

“We need a rational strategy regarding who should or should not get the J&J/Janssen vaccine since these rare adverse events appear to affect a particular group of people, females aged 18-48. It is essential that we build vaccine confidence and retain the option of using this vaccine for people who are not in this risk group.”

He pointed out there are safety red flags with the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines.

“We should feel reassured about the process of ensuring vaccine safety as the FDA and CDC have quickly addressed risk and shared the data transparently of the J&J vaccine and taken appropriate action,” he said.

ACIP’s executive secretary, Amanda Cohn, MD, said the date for the next meeting would be set by April 16.

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

An advisory committee to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is addressing the safety of the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine on April 14, 2021, after the CDC and Food and Drug Administration recommended that states hold off on using it pending a detailed review of six cases of the same kind of rare but serious event – a blood clot in the vessels that drain blood from the brain combined with a large drop in platelets, which increases the risk for bleeding.

This combination can lead to severe strokes that can lead to brain damage or death. Among the six cases reported, which came to light over the past 3 weeks, one person died, according to the CDC. All six were women and ranged in age from 18 to 48 years.

According to a report from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), which is maintained by the Department of Health & Human Services, the woman who died was 45. She developed a gradually worsening headache about a week after receiving the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.

On March 17, the day she came to the hospital, she was dry heaving. Her headache had suddenly gotten much worse, and the left side of her body was weak, which are signs of a stroke. A CT scan revealed both bleeding in her brain and a clot in her cortical vein. She died the following day.

In addition to VAERS, which accepts reports from anyone, the CDC and FDA are monitoring at least eight other safety systems maintained by hospitals, research centers, long-term care facilities, and insurance companies for signs of trouble with the vaccines. VAERS data is searchable and open to the public. Most of these systems are not publicly available to protect patient privacy. It’s unclear which systems detected the six cases cited by federal regulators.

“These are very serious and potentially fatal problems occurring in a healthy young adult. It’s serious and we need to get to the bottom of it,” said Ed Belongia, MD, director of the Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Population Health at the Marshfield (Wis.) Clinic Research Institute. Dr. Belongia leads a research team that helps the CDC monitor vaccine safety and effectiveness. 

“Safety is always the highest priority, and I think what we’ve seen here in the past 24 hours is our vaccine safety monitoring system is working,” he said.

Others agree. “I think what CDC and FDA have detected is a rare, but likely real adverse event associated with this vaccine,” said Paul Offit, MD, director of vaccine education at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.

Although much is still unknown about these events, they follow a similar pattern of blood clots reported with the AstraZeneca vaccine in Europe. That vaccine is now sold under the brand name Vaxzevria. 

This has experts questioning whether all vaccines of this type may cause these rare clots.

“I think it’s likely a class effect,” said Dr. Offit, who was a member of the FDA advisory committee that reviewed clinical trial data on the J&J vaccine before it was authorized for use.
 

Adenovirus vaccines scrutinized

Both the Johnson & Johnson and Vaxzevria vaccines use an adenovirus to ferry genetic instructions for making the coronaviruses spike protein into our cells.

Adenoviruses are common, relatively simple viruses that normally cause mild cold or flu symptoms. The ones used in the vaccine are disabled so they can’t make us sick. They’re more like Trojan horses. 

Once inside our cells, they release the DNA instructions they carry to make the spike protein of the new coronavirus. Those cells then crank out copies of the spike protein, which then get displayed on the outer surface of the cell membrane where they are recognized by the immune system. 

The immune system then makes antibodies and other defenses against the spike so that, when the real coronavirus comes along, our bodies are ready to fight the infection.

There’s no question the vaccine works. In clinical trials, the Johnson & Johnson vaccine was 66% percent effective at preventing against moderate to severe COVID-19 infection, and none of the patients who got COVID-19 after vaccination had to be admitted to the hospital or died.

The idea behind using adenoviruses in vaccines isn’t a new one. In a kind of fight-fire-with-fire approach, the idea is to use a virus, which is good at infecting us, to fight a different kind of virus.

Researchers have been working on the concept for about 10 years, but the COVID-19 vaccines that use this technology are some of the first adenovirus-vector vaccines deployed in humans. 

Only one other adenovirus vaccine, for Ebola, has been approved for use in humans. It was approved in Europe last year. Before the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, no other adenovirus vector has been available for use in humans in the United States.

There are six adenovirus-vector vaccines for COVID-19. In addition to AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson, there’s the Russian-developed vaccine Sputnik V, along with CanSino from China, and the Covishield vaccine in India.

Adenovirus vaccines are more stable than the mRNA vaccines. That makes them easier to store and transport. 

But they have a significant downside, too. Because adenoviruses infect humans out in the world, we already make antibodies against them. So there’s always a danger that our immune systems might recognize and react to the vaccine, rendering it ineffective. For that reason, scientists try to carefully select the adenovirus vectors, or carriers, they use.

The two vaccines under investigation for blood clots are slightly different. The Johnson & Johnson vaccine uses the vector AD26, because most of the population lacks preexisting immunity to it. Vaxzevria uses an adenovirus that infects chimpanzees, called ChAdOx1. 

Vaxzevria has been widely used in Europe but has not yet been authorized in the United States.

On April 7, the European Medicines Agency, Europe’s counterpart to the FDA, ruled that unusual blood clots with low blood platelets should be listed as rare side effects on the Vaxzevria vaccine.

The decision came after reviewing 62 cases of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST) linked to the vaccine and 25 cases of another rare type of clot, called a splanchnic vein thrombosis. Splanchnic veins drain blood from the major organs in the digestive system, including the stomach, liver, and intestines; 18 of those events were fatal.

The reports were culled from reporting in Europe and the United Kingdom, where around 25 million people have received the Vaxzevria vaccine, making these clots exceptionally rare, but serious.

So far, six cases of CVST have been reported in the United States, after more than 7 million doses of the Johnson & Johnson vaccines have been administered.

A key question for U.S. regulators will be the background rate for these types of rare combinations of clots and deplenished platelets. The background rate is the number of events that would be expected to occur naturally in a population of unvaccinated people. On a press call on April 13, Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, was asked about the frequency of this dangerous combination. He said the combination of low platelets and clots was so rare that it was hard to pinpoint, but might be somewhere between 2 and 14 cases per million people over the course of a year.

The first Johnson & Johnson doses were given in early March. That means the six cases came to light within the first few weeks of use of the vaccine in the United States, a very short amount of time.

“These were six cases per million people for 2 weeks, which is the same thing as 25 million per year, so it’s clearly above the background rate,” Dr. Offit said.
 

Studies suggest possible mechanism

On April 9, the New England Journal of Medicine published a detailed evaluation of the 11 patients in Germany and Austria who developed the rare clots after their Vaxzevria vaccines.

The study detected rare antibodies to a signaling protein called platelet factor 4, which helps to coordinate clot formation.

These same type of antibodies form in some people given the blood thinning drug heparin. In those reactions, which are also exceptionally rare, the same type of syndrome develops, leading to large, devastating clots that consume circulating platelets.

It’s not yet clear whether people who develop reactions to the vaccines already have some platelet factor 4 antibodies before they are vaccinated, or whether the vaccines somehow spur the body to make these antibodies, which then launch a kind of autoimmune attack.

The researchers on the paper gave the syndrome a name, vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT).

It’s also not clear why more cases seem to be in women than in men. Andrew Eisenberger, MD, an associate professor of hematology and oncology at Columbia University, New York, said the most common causes of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis have to do with conditions that raise estrogen levels, like pregnancy and hormonal contraception.

“Estrogen naturally leads to changes in several clotting proteins in the blood that may predispose to abnormal blood clotting in a few different sites in the body,” he said. “The clotting changes we are encountering with some of COVID-19 vaccines are likely to be synergistic with the effects of estrogen on the blood.”

No matter the cause, the CDC on April 13 alerted doctors to keep a high index of suspicion for VITT in patients who have received the Johnson & Johnson vaccination within the last 2 weeks. In those patients, the usual course of treatment with blood thinning drugs like heparin may be harmful.

Symptoms to watch for include severe headache or backache, new neurologic symptoms, severe abdominal pain, shortness of breath, leg swelling, tiny red spots on the skin, or easy bruising. 
 

Grappling with evidence

The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices will meet today in an emergency session to review the cases and see if any changes are needed to use of the J&J vaccine in the United States.

Last week, for example, the United Kingdom restricted the use of the AstraZeneca vaccine in people aged younger than 30 years, saying the risks and benefits of vaccination are “more finely balanced” for this age group.

With cases of COVID-19 rising again in the United States, and the Johnson & Johnson vaccine currently the most convenient form of protection against the virus, the committee will have to weigh the risks of that infection against the risk of rare clots caused by vaccination.

They will also likely have to rule out whether any of the cases had COVID. At least one study has reported CVST clots in three patients with confirmed COVID infections. In Europe, COVID infection did not seem to play a role in the formation of the clots with low platelets.

Hilda Bastian, PhD, a clinical trials expert who cofounded the Cochrane Collaboration, said it won’t be an easy task. Much will depend on how certain the committee members feel they know about all the events linked to the vaccine.

“That’s the really, really hard issue from my point of view for them right this moment. Have we missed any? Or how many are we likely to have missed?” asked Dr. Bastian, who lives in Australia.

“In a country that size with that fragmented [of] a health care system, how sure can you be that you know them all? That’s going to be a really difficult situation for them to grapple with, the quality of information that they’ve got,” she said.

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

An advisory committee to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is addressing the safety of the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine on April 14, 2021, after the CDC and Food and Drug Administration recommended that states hold off on using it pending a detailed review of six cases of the same kind of rare but serious event – a blood clot in the vessels that drain blood from the brain combined with a large drop in platelets, which increases the risk for bleeding.

This combination can lead to severe strokes that can lead to brain damage or death. Among the six cases reported, which came to light over the past 3 weeks, one person died, according to the CDC. All six were women and ranged in age from 18 to 48 years.

According to a report from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), which is maintained by the Department of Health & Human Services, the woman who died was 45. She developed a gradually worsening headache about a week after receiving the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.

On March 17, the day she came to the hospital, she was dry heaving. Her headache had suddenly gotten much worse, and the left side of her body was weak, which are signs of a stroke. A CT scan revealed both bleeding in her brain and a clot in her cortical vein. She died the following day.

In addition to VAERS, which accepts reports from anyone, the CDC and FDA are monitoring at least eight other safety systems maintained by hospitals, research centers, long-term care facilities, and insurance companies for signs of trouble with the vaccines. VAERS data is searchable and open to the public. Most of these systems are not publicly available to protect patient privacy. It’s unclear which systems detected the six cases cited by federal regulators.

“These are very serious and potentially fatal problems occurring in a healthy young adult. It’s serious and we need to get to the bottom of it,” said Ed Belongia, MD, director of the Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Population Health at the Marshfield (Wis.) Clinic Research Institute. Dr. Belongia leads a research team that helps the CDC monitor vaccine safety and effectiveness. 

“Safety is always the highest priority, and I think what we’ve seen here in the past 24 hours is our vaccine safety monitoring system is working,” he said.

Others agree. “I think what CDC and FDA have detected is a rare, but likely real adverse event associated with this vaccine,” said Paul Offit, MD, director of vaccine education at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.

Although much is still unknown about these events, they follow a similar pattern of blood clots reported with the AstraZeneca vaccine in Europe. That vaccine is now sold under the brand name Vaxzevria. 

This has experts questioning whether all vaccines of this type may cause these rare clots.

“I think it’s likely a class effect,” said Dr. Offit, who was a member of the FDA advisory committee that reviewed clinical trial data on the J&J vaccine before it was authorized for use.
 

Adenovirus vaccines scrutinized

Both the Johnson & Johnson and Vaxzevria vaccines use an adenovirus to ferry genetic instructions for making the coronaviruses spike protein into our cells.

Adenoviruses are common, relatively simple viruses that normally cause mild cold or flu symptoms. The ones used in the vaccine are disabled so they can’t make us sick. They’re more like Trojan horses. 

Once inside our cells, they release the DNA instructions they carry to make the spike protein of the new coronavirus. Those cells then crank out copies of the spike protein, which then get displayed on the outer surface of the cell membrane where they are recognized by the immune system. 

The immune system then makes antibodies and other defenses against the spike so that, when the real coronavirus comes along, our bodies are ready to fight the infection.

There’s no question the vaccine works. In clinical trials, the Johnson & Johnson vaccine was 66% percent effective at preventing against moderate to severe COVID-19 infection, and none of the patients who got COVID-19 after vaccination had to be admitted to the hospital or died.

The idea behind using adenoviruses in vaccines isn’t a new one. In a kind of fight-fire-with-fire approach, the idea is to use a virus, which is good at infecting us, to fight a different kind of virus.

Researchers have been working on the concept for about 10 years, but the COVID-19 vaccines that use this technology are some of the first adenovirus-vector vaccines deployed in humans. 

Only one other adenovirus vaccine, for Ebola, has been approved for use in humans. It was approved in Europe last year. Before the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, no other adenovirus vector has been available for use in humans in the United States.

There are six adenovirus-vector vaccines for COVID-19. In addition to AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson, there’s the Russian-developed vaccine Sputnik V, along with CanSino from China, and the Covishield vaccine in India.

Adenovirus vaccines are more stable than the mRNA vaccines. That makes them easier to store and transport. 

But they have a significant downside, too. Because adenoviruses infect humans out in the world, we already make antibodies against them. So there’s always a danger that our immune systems might recognize and react to the vaccine, rendering it ineffective. For that reason, scientists try to carefully select the adenovirus vectors, or carriers, they use.

The two vaccines under investigation for blood clots are slightly different. The Johnson & Johnson vaccine uses the vector AD26, because most of the population lacks preexisting immunity to it. Vaxzevria uses an adenovirus that infects chimpanzees, called ChAdOx1. 

Vaxzevria has been widely used in Europe but has not yet been authorized in the United States.

On April 7, the European Medicines Agency, Europe’s counterpart to the FDA, ruled that unusual blood clots with low blood platelets should be listed as rare side effects on the Vaxzevria vaccine.

The decision came after reviewing 62 cases of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST) linked to the vaccine and 25 cases of another rare type of clot, called a splanchnic vein thrombosis. Splanchnic veins drain blood from the major organs in the digestive system, including the stomach, liver, and intestines; 18 of those events were fatal.

The reports were culled from reporting in Europe and the United Kingdom, where around 25 million people have received the Vaxzevria vaccine, making these clots exceptionally rare, but serious.

So far, six cases of CVST have been reported in the United States, after more than 7 million doses of the Johnson & Johnson vaccines have been administered.

A key question for U.S. regulators will be the background rate for these types of rare combinations of clots and deplenished platelets. The background rate is the number of events that would be expected to occur naturally in a population of unvaccinated people. On a press call on April 13, Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, was asked about the frequency of this dangerous combination. He said the combination of low platelets and clots was so rare that it was hard to pinpoint, but might be somewhere between 2 and 14 cases per million people over the course of a year.

The first Johnson & Johnson doses were given in early March. That means the six cases came to light within the first few weeks of use of the vaccine in the United States, a very short amount of time.

“These were six cases per million people for 2 weeks, which is the same thing as 25 million per year, so it’s clearly above the background rate,” Dr. Offit said.
 

Studies suggest possible mechanism

On April 9, the New England Journal of Medicine published a detailed evaluation of the 11 patients in Germany and Austria who developed the rare clots after their Vaxzevria vaccines.

The study detected rare antibodies to a signaling protein called platelet factor 4, which helps to coordinate clot formation.

These same type of antibodies form in some people given the blood thinning drug heparin. In those reactions, which are also exceptionally rare, the same type of syndrome develops, leading to large, devastating clots that consume circulating platelets.

It’s not yet clear whether people who develop reactions to the vaccines already have some platelet factor 4 antibodies before they are vaccinated, or whether the vaccines somehow spur the body to make these antibodies, which then launch a kind of autoimmune attack.

The researchers on the paper gave the syndrome a name, vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT).

It’s also not clear why more cases seem to be in women than in men. Andrew Eisenberger, MD, an associate professor of hematology and oncology at Columbia University, New York, said the most common causes of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis have to do with conditions that raise estrogen levels, like pregnancy and hormonal contraception.

“Estrogen naturally leads to changes in several clotting proteins in the blood that may predispose to abnormal blood clotting in a few different sites in the body,” he said. “The clotting changes we are encountering with some of COVID-19 vaccines are likely to be synergistic with the effects of estrogen on the blood.”

No matter the cause, the CDC on April 13 alerted doctors to keep a high index of suspicion for VITT in patients who have received the Johnson & Johnson vaccination within the last 2 weeks. In those patients, the usual course of treatment with blood thinning drugs like heparin may be harmful.

Symptoms to watch for include severe headache or backache, new neurologic symptoms, severe abdominal pain, shortness of breath, leg swelling, tiny red spots on the skin, or easy bruising. 
 

Grappling with evidence

The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices will meet today in an emergency session to review the cases and see if any changes are needed to use of the J&J vaccine in the United States.

Last week, for example, the United Kingdom restricted the use of the AstraZeneca vaccine in people aged younger than 30 years, saying the risks and benefits of vaccination are “more finely balanced” for this age group.

With cases of COVID-19 rising again in the United States, and the Johnson & Johnson vaccine currently the most convenient form of protection against the virus, the committee will have to weigh the risks of that infection against the risk of rare clots caused by vaccination.

They will also likely have to rule out whether any of the cases had COVID. At least one study has reported CVST clots in three patients with confirmed COVID infections. In Europe, COVID infection did not seem to play a role in the formation of the clots with low platelets.

Hilda Bastian, PhD, a clinical trials expert who cofounded the Cochrane Collaboration, said it won’t be an easy task. Much will depend on how certain the committee members feel they know about all the events linked to the vaccine.

“That’s the really, really hard issue from my point of view for them right this moment. Have we missed any? Or how many are we likely to have missed?” asked Dr. Bastian, who lives in Australia.

“In a country that size with that fragmented [of] a health care system, how sure can you be that you know them all? That’s going to be a really difficult situation for them to grapple with, the quality of information that they’ve got,” she said.

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

An advisory committee to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is addressing the safety of the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine on April 14, 2021, after the CDC and Food and Drug Administration recommended that states hold off on using it pending a detailed review of six cases of the same kind of rare but serious event – a blood clot in the vessels that drain blood from the brain combined with a large drop in platelets, which increases the risk for bleeding.

This combination can lead to severe strokes that can lead to brain damage or death. Among the six cases reported, which came to light over the past 3 weeks, one person died, according to the CDC. All six were women and ranged in age from 18 to 48 years.

According to a report from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), which is maintained by the Department of Health & Human Services, the woman who died was 45. She developed a gradually worsening headache about a week after receiving the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.

On March 17, the day she came to the hospital, she was dry heaving. Her headache had suddenly gotten much worse, and the left side of her body was weak, which are signs of a stroke. A CT scan revealed both bleeding in her brain and a clot in her cortical vein. She died the following day.

In addition to VAERS, which accepts reports from anyone, the CDC and FDA are monitoring at least eight other safety systems maintained by hospitals, research centers, long-term care facilities, and insurance companies for signs of trouble with the vaccines. VAERS data is searchable and open to the public. Most of these systems are not publicly available to protect patient privacy. It’s unclear which systems detected the six cases cited by federal regulators.

“These are very serious and potentially fatal problems occurring in a healthy young adult. It’s serious and we need to get to the bottom of it,” said Ed Belongia, MD, director of the Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Population Health at the Marshfield (Wis.) Clinic Research Institute. Dr. Belongia leads a research team that helps the CDC monitor vaccine safety and effectiveness. 

“Safety is always the highest priority, and I think what we’ve seen here in the past 24 hours is our vaccine safety monitoring system is working,” he said.

Others agree. “I think what CDC and FDA have detected is a rare, but likely real adverse event associated with this vaccine,” said Paul Offit, MD, director of vaccine education at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.

Although much is still unknown about these events, they follow a similar pattern of blood clots reported with the AstraZeneca vaccine in Europe. That vaccine is now sold under the brand name Vaxzevria. 

This has experts questioning whether all vaccines of this type may cause these rare clots.

“I think it’s likely a class effect,” said Dr. Offit, who was a member of the FDA advisory committee that reviewed clinical trial data on the J&J vaccine before it was authorized for use.
 

Adenovirus vaccines scrutinized

Both the Johnson & Johnson and Vaxzevria vaccines use an adenovirus to ferry genetic instructions for making the coronaviruses spike protein into our cells.

Adenoviruses are common, relatively simple viruses that normally cause mild cold or flu symptoms. The ones used in the vaccine are disabled so they can’t make us sick. They’re more like Trojan horses. 

Once inside our cells, they release the DNA instructions they carry to make the spike protein of the new coronavirus. Those cells then crank out copies of the spike protein, which then get displayed on the outer surface of the cell membrane where they are recognized by the immune system. 

The immune system then makes antibodies and other defenses against the spike so that, when the real coronavirus comes along, our bodies are ready to fight the infection.

There’s no question the vaccine works. In clinical trials, the Johnson & Johnson vaccine was 66% percent effective at preventing against moderate to severe COVID-19 infection, and none of the patients who got COVID-19 after vaccination had to be admitted to the hospital or died.

The idea behind using adenoviruses in vaccines isn’t a new one. In a kind of fight-fire-with-fire approach, the idea is to use a virus, which is good at infecting us, to fight a different kind of virus.

Researchers have been working on the concept for about 10 years, but the COVID-19 vaccines that use this technology are some of the first adenovirus-vector vaccines deployed in humans. 

Only one other adenovirus vaccine, for Ebola, has been approved for use in humans. It was approved in Europe last year. Before the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, no other adenovirus vector has been available for use in humans in the United States.

There are six adenovirus-vector vaccines for COVID-19. In addition to AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson, there’s the Russian-developed vaccine Sputnik V, along with CanSino from China, and the Covishield vaccine in India.

Adenovirus vaccines are more stable than the mRNA vaccines. That makes them easier to store and transport. 

But they have a significant downside, too. Because adenoviruses infect humans out in the world, we already make antibodies against them. So there’s always a danger that our immune systems might recognize and react to the vaccine, rendering it ineffective. For that reason, scientists try to carefully select the adenovirus vectors, or carriers, they use.

The two vaccines under investigation for blood clots are slightly different. The Johnson & Johnson vaccine uses the vector AD26, because most of the population lacks preexisting immunity to it. Vaxzevria uses an adenovirus that infects chimpanzees, called ChAdOx1. 

Vaxzevria has been widely used in Europe but has not yet been authorized in the United States.

On April 7, the European Medicines Agency, Europe’s counterpart to the FDA, ruled that unusual blood clots with low blood platelets should be listed as rare side effects on the Vaxzevria vaccine.

The decision came after reviewing 62 cases of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST) linked to the vaccine and 25 cases of another rare type of clot, called a splanchnic vein thrombosis. Splanchnic veins drain blood from the major organs in the digestive system, including the stomach, liver, and intestines; 18 of those events were fatal.

The reports were culled from reporting in Europe and the United Kingdom, where around 25 million people have received the Vaxzevria vaccine, making these clots exceptionally rare, but serious.

So far, six cases of CVST have been reported in the United States, after more than 7 million doses of the Johnson & Johnson vaccines have been administered.

A key question for U.S. regulators will be the background rate for these types of rare combinations of clots and deplenished platelets. The background rate is the number of events that would be expected to occur naturally in a population of unvaccinated people. On a press call on April 13, Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, was asked about the frequency of this dangerous combination. He said the combination of low platelets and clots was so rare that it was hard to pinpoint, but might be somewhere between 2 and 14 cases per million people over the course of a year.

The first Johnson & Johnson doses were given in early March. That means the six cases came to light within the first few weeks of use of the vaccine in the United States, a very short amount of time.

“These were six cases per million people for 2 weeks, which is the same thing as 25 million per year, so it’s clearly above the background rate,” Dr. Offit said.
 

Studies suggest possible mechanism

On April 9, the New England Journal of Medicine published a detailed evaluation of the 11 patients in Germany and Austria who developed the rare clots after their Vaxzevria vaccines.

The study detected rare antibodies to a signaling protein called platelet factor 4, which helps to coordinate clot formation.

These same type of antibodies form in some people given the blood thinning drug heparin. In those reactions, which are also exceptionally rare, the same type of syndrome develops, leading to large, devastating clots that consume circulating platelets.

It’s not yet clear whether people who develop reactions to the vaccines already have some platelet factor 4 antibodies before they are vaccinated, or whether the vaccines somehow spur the body to make these antibodies, which then launch a kind of autoimmune attack.

The researchers on the paper gave the syndrome a name, vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT).

It’s also not clear why more cases seem to be in women than in men. Andrew Eisenberger, MD, an associate professor of hematology and oncology at Columbia University, New York, said the most common causes of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis have to do with conditions that raise estrogen levels, like pregnancy and hormonal contraception.

“Estrogen naturally leads to changes in several clotting proteins in the blood that may predispose to abnormal blood clotting in a few different sites in the body,” he said. “The clotting changes we are encountering with some of COVID-19 vaccines are likely to be synergistic with the effects of estrogen on the blood.”

No matter the cause, the CDC on April 13 alerted doctors to keep a high index of suspicion for VITT in patients who have received the Johnson & Johnson vaccination within the last 2 weeks. In those patients, the usual course of treatment with blood thinning drugs like heparin may be harmful.

Symptoms to watch for include severe headache or backache, new neurologic symptoms, severe abdominal pain, shortness of breath, leg swelling, tiny red spots on the skin, or easy bruising. 
 

Grappling with evidence

The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices will meet today in an emergency session to review the cases and see if any changes are needed to use of the J&J vaccine in the United States.

Last week, for example, the United Kingdom restricted the use of the AstraZeneca vaccine in people aged younger than 30 years, saying the risks and benefits of vaccination are “more finely balanced” for this age group.

With cases of COVID-19 rising again in the United States, and the Johnson & Johnson vaccine currently the most convenient form of protection against the virus, the committee will have to weigh the risks of that infection against the risk of rare clots caused by vaccination.

They will also likely have to rule out whether any of the cases had COVID. At least one study has reported CVST clots in three patients with confirmed COVID infections. In Europe, COVID infection did not seem to play a role in the formation of the clots with low platelets.

Hilda Bastian, PhD, a clinical trials expert who cofounded the Cochrane Collaboration, said it won’t be an easy task. Much will depend on how certain the committee members feel they know about all the events linked to the vaccine.

“That’s the really, really hard issue from my point of view for them right this moment. Have we missed any? Or how many are we likely to have missed?” asked Dr. Bastian, who lives in Australia.

“In a country that size with that fragmented [of] a health care system, how sure can you be that you know them all? That’s going to be a really difficult situation for them to grapple with, the quality of information that they’ve got,” she said.

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