Federal Practitioner

A round heart, or left ventricle sphericity, predicted cardiomyopathy and atrial fibrillation (AFib) in a deep learning analysis of MRI images from close to 39,000 participants in the UK Biobank, a new study shows.

An increase of 1 standard deviation in the sphericity index (short axis length/long axis length) was associated with a 47% increased incidence of cardiomyopathy and a 20% increased incidence of AFib, independent of clinical factors and traditional MRI measures.

Furthermore, a genetic analysis suggested a shared architecture between sphericity and nonischemic cardiomyopathy, pointing to NICM as a possible causal factor for left ventricle sphericity among individuals with normal LV size and function.

“Physicians have known the heart gets rounder after heart attacks and as we get older,” David Ouyang, MD, a cardiologist in the Smidt Heart Institute at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, and a researcher in the division of artificial intelligence in medicine, said in an interview. “We wanted to see if this sphericity is prognostic of future disease even in healthy individuals.”

Although it is too early to recommend heart shape assessment in healthy asymptomatic people, he said, “physicians should be extra careful and think about treatments when they notice a patient’s heart is particularly round.”

The study was published online March 29 in the journal Med.
 

Sphericity index key

The investigators hypothesized that there is variation in LV sphericity within the spectrum of normal LV chamber size and systolic function, and that such variation might be a marker of cardiac risk with genetic influences.

To test this hypothesis, they used automated deep-learning segmentation of cardiac MRI data to estimate and analyze the sphericity index in a cohort of 38,897 individuals participating in the UK Biobank.

After adjustment for age at MRI and sex, an increased sphericity index was associated with an increased risk for cardiomyopathy (hazard ratio, 1.57), AFib (HR, 1.35), and heart failure (HR, 1.37).

No significant association was seen with cardiac arrest.

The team then stratified the cohort into quintiles and compared the top 20%, middle 60%, and bottom 20%. The relationship between the sphericity index and risk extended across the distribution; individuals with higher than median sphericity had increased disease incidence, and those with lower than median sphericity had decreased incidence.

Overall, a single standard deviation in the sphericity index was associated with increased risk of cardiomyopathy (HR, 1.47) and of AFib (HR, 1.20), independent of clinical factors and usual MRI measurements.

In a minimally adjusted model, the sphericity index was a predictor of incident cardiomyopathy, AFib, and heart failure.

Adjustment for clinical factors partially attenuated the heart failure association; additional adjustment for MRI measurements fully attenuated that association and partially attenuated the association with AFib.

However, in all adjusted models, the association with cardiomyopathy showed little attenuation.

Furthermore, the team identified four loci associated with sphericity at genomewide significance – PLN, ANGPT1, PDZRN3, and HLA DR/DQ – and Mendelian randomization supported NICM as a cause of LV sphericity.
 

Looking ahead

“While conventional imaging metrics have significant diagnostic and prognostic value, some of these measurements have been adopted out of convenience or tradition,” the authors noted. “By representing a specific multidimensional remodeling phenotype, sphericity has emerged as a distinct morphologic trait with features not adequately captured by conventional measurements.

“We expect that the search space of potential imaging measurements is vast, and we have only begun to scratch at the surface of disease associations.”

Indeed, Dr. Ouyang said his group is “trying to evaluate the sphericity in echocardiograms or heart ultrasounds, which are more common and cheaper than MRI.”

“The main caveat is translating the information directly to patient care,” Richard C. Becker, MD, director and physician-in-chief of the University of Cincinnati Heart, Lung, and Vascular Institute, said in an interview. “Near-term yield could include using the spherical calculation in routine MRI of the heart, and based on the findings, following patients more closely if there is an abnormal shape. Or performing an MRI and targeted gene testing if there is a family history of cardiomyopathy or [of] an abnormal shape of the heart.”

“Validation of the findings and large-scale evaluation of the genes identified, and how they interact with patient and environmental factors, will be very important,” he added.

Nevertheless, “the study was well done and may serve as a foundation for future research,” Dr. Becker said. “The investigators used several powerful tools, including MRI, genomics, and [artificial intelligence] to draw their conclusions. This is precisely the way that ‘big data’ should be used – in a complementary fashion.”

The study authors and Dr. Becker reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A round heart, or left ventricle sphericity, predicted cardiomyopathy and atrial fibrillation (AFib) in a deep learning analysis of MRI images from close to 39,000 participants in the UK Biobank, a new study shows.

An increase of 1 standard deviation in the sphericity index (short axis length/long axis length) was associated with a 47% increased incidence of cardiomyopathy and a 20% increased incidence of AFib, independent of clinical factors and traditional MRI measures.

Furthermore, a genetic analysis suggested a shared architecture between sphericity and nonischemic cardiomyopathy, pointing to NICM as a possible causal factor for left ventricle sphericity among individuals with normal LV size and function.

“Physicians have known the heart gets rounder after heart attacks and as we get older,” David Ouyang, MD, a cardiologist in the Smidt Heart Institute at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, and a researcher in the division of artificial intelligence in medicine, said in an interview. “We wanted to see if this sphericity is prognostic of future disease even in healthy individuals.”

Although it is too early to recommend heart shape assessment in healthy asymptomatic people, he said, “physicians should be extra careful and think about treatments when they notice a patient’s heart is particularly round.”

The study was published online March 29 in the journal Med.
 

Sphericity index key

The investigators hypothesized that there is variation in LV sphericity within the spectrum of normal LV chamber size and systolic function, and that such variation might be a marker of cardiac risk with genetic influences.

To test this hypothesis, they used automated deep-learning segmentation of cardiac MRI data to estimate and analyze the sphericity index in a cohort of 38,897 individuals participating in the UK Biobank.

After adjustment for age at MRI and sex, an increased sphericity index was associated with an increased risk for cardiomyopathy (hazard ratio, 1.57), AFib (HR, 1.35), and heart failure (HR, 1.37).

No significant association was seen with cardiac arrest.

The team then stratified the cohort into quintiles and compared the top 20%, middle 60%, and bottom 20%. The relationship between the sphericity index and risk extended across the distribution; individuals with higher than median sphericity had increased disease incidence, and those with lower than median sphericity had decreased incidence.

Overall, a single standard deviation in the sphericity index was associated with increased risk of cardiomyopathy (HR, 1.47) and of AFib (HR, 1.20), independent of clinical factors and usual MRI measurements.

In a minimally adjusted model, the sphericity index was a predictor of incident cardiomyopathy, AFib, and heart failure.

Adjustment for clinical factors partially attenuated the heart failure association; additional adjustment for MRI measurements fully attenuated that association and partially attenuated the association with AFib.

However, in all adjusted models, the association with cardiomyopathy showed little attenuation.

Furthermore, the team identified four loci associated with sphericity at genomewide significance – PLN, ANGPT1, PDZRN3, and HLA DR/DQ – and Mendelian randomization supported NICM as a cause of LV sphericity.
 

Looking ahead

“While conventional imaging metrics have significant diagnostic and prognostic value, some of these measurements have been adopted out of convenience or tradition,” the authors noted. “By representing a specific multidimensional remodeling phenotype, sphericity has emerged as a distinct morphologic trait with features not adequately captured by conventional measurements.

“We expect that the search space of potential imaging measurements is vast, and we have only begun to scratch at the surface of disease associations.”

Indeed, Dr. Ouyang said his group is “trying to evaluate the sphericity in echocardiograms or heart ultrasounds, which are more common and cheaper than MRI.”

“The main caveat is translating the information directly to patient care,” Richard C. Becker, MD, director and physician-in-chief of the University of Cincinnati Heart, Lung, and Vascular Institute, said in an interview. “Near-term yield could include using the spherical calculation in routine MRI of the heart, and based on the findings, following patients more closely if there is an abnormal shape. Or performing an MRI and targeted gene testing if there is a family history of cardiomyopathy or [of] an abnormal shape of the heart.”

“Validation of the findings and large-scale evaluation of the genes identified, and how they interact with patient and environmental factors, will be very important,” he added.

Nevertheless, “the study was well done and may serve as a foundation for future research,” Dr. Becker said. “The investigators used several powerful tools, including MRI, genomics, and [artificial intelligence] to draw their conclusions. This is precisely the way that ‘big data’ should be used – in a complementary fashion.”

The study authors and Dr. Becker reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A round heart, or left ventricle sphericity, predicted cardiomyopathy and atrial fibrillation (AFib) in a deep learning analysis of MRI images from close to 39,000 participants in the UK Biobank, a new study shows.

An increase of 1 standard deviation in the sphericity index (short axis length/long axis length) was associated with a 47% increased incidence of cardiomyopathy and a 20% increased incidence of AFib, independent of clinical factors and traditional MRI measures.

Furthermore, a genetic analysis suggested a shared architecture between sphericity and nonischemic cardiomyopathy, pointing to NICM as a possible causal factor for left ventricle sphericity among individuals with normal LV size and function.

“Physicians have known the heart gets rounder after heart attacks and as we get older,” David Ouyang, MD, a cardiologist in the Smidt Heart Institute at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, and a researcher in the division of artificial intelligence in medicine, said in an interview. “We wanted to see if this sphericity is prognostic of future disease even in healthy individuals.”

Although it is too early to recommend heart shape assessment in healthy asymptomatic people, he said, “physicians should be extra careful and think about treatments when they notice a patient’s heart is particularly round.”

The study was published online March 29 in the journal Med.
 

Sphericity index key

The investigators hypothesized that there is variation in LV sphericity within the spectrum of normal LV chamber size and systolic function, and that such variation might be a marker of cardiac risk with genetic influences.

To test this hypothesis, they used automated deep-learning segmentation of cardiac MRI data to estimate and analyze the sphericity index in a cohort of 38,897 individuals participating in the UK Biobank.

After adjustment for age at MRI and sex, an increased sphericity index was associated with an increased risk for cardiomyopathy (hazard ratio, 1.57), AFib (HR, 1.35), and heart failure (HR, 1.37).

No significant association was seen with cardiac arrest.

The team then stratified the cohort into quintiles and compared the top 20%, middle 60%, and bottom 20%. The relationship between the sphericity index and risk extended across the distribution; individuals with higher than median sphericity had increased disease incidence, and those with lower than median sphericity had decreased incidence.

Overall, a single standard deviation in the sphericity index was associated with increased risk of cardiomyopathy (HR, 1.47) and of AFib (HR, 1.20), independent of clinical factors and usual MRI measurements.

In a minimally adjusted model, the sphericity index was a predictor of incident cardiomyopathy, AFib, and heart failure.

Adjustment for clinical factors partially attenuated the heart failure association; additional adjustment for MRI measurements fully attenuated that association and partially attenuated the association with AFib.

However, in all adjusted models, the association with cardiomyopathy showed little attenuation.

Furthermore, the team identified four loci associated with sphericity at genomewide significance – PLN, ANGPT1, PDZRN3, and HLA DR/DQ – and Mendelian randomization supported NICM as a cause of LV sphericity.
 

Looking ahead

“While conventional imaging metrics have significant diagnostic and prognostic value, some of these measurements have been adopted out of convenience or tradition,” the authors noted. “By representing a specific multidimensional remodeling phenotype, sphericity has emerged as a distinct morphologic trait with features not adequately captured by conventional measurements.

“We expect that the search space of potential imaging measurements is vast, and we have only begun to scratch at the surface of disease associations.”

Indeed, Dr. Ouyang said his group is “trying to evaluate the sphericity in echocardiograms or heart ultrasounds, which are more common and cheaper than MRI.”

“The main caveat is translating the information directly to patient care,” Richard C. Becker, MD, director and physician-in-chief of the University of Cincinnati Heart, Lung, and Vascular Institute, said in an interview. “Near-term yield could include using the spherical calculation in routine MRI of the heart, and based on the findings, following patients more closely if there is an abnormal shape. Or performing an MRI and targeted gene testing if there is a family history of cardiomyopathy or [of] an abnormal shape of the heart.”

“Validation of the findings and large-scale evaluation of the genes identified, and how they interact with patient and environmental factors, will be very important,” he added.

Nevertheless, “the study was well done and may serve as a foundation for future research,” Dr. Becker said. “The investigators used several powerful tools, including MRI, genomics, and [artificial intelligence] to draw their conclusions. This is precisely the way that ‘big data’ should be used – in a complementary fashion.”

The study authors and Dr. Becker reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Over the past 30 years, more than 80 new systemic therapies for cancer have been approved, and many patients diagnosed with localized disease have benefited with improved progression-free and overall survival. The same can be said for some – but by no means all – patients with metastatic disease at diagnosis, a new study indicates.

“Our results show that the survival of patients with de novo metastatic cancer improved slowly over 30 years but that these gains were typically modest and unevenly distributed among cancers,” comment the authors, led by Marianne Luyendijk, MSc, from the Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organization, Utrecht.

The study was published online  in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

The retrospective study compared survival data of patients with de novo metastatic disease diagnosed from 1989 through 1993 with those of patients diagnosed from 2014 to 2018.

The results show that 5-year survival increased by 15% or more among patients with metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumors; neuroendocrine tumors; melanoma; and cancers of the prostate, breast, thyroid, and testes.

For patients with other cancers, however, the gains in survival were more modest. For example, over the study period, 5-year survival of patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer increased by only 6%, a disappointing finding, given the advent of targeted therapies and immunotherapy during the most recent period, the authors note.

In contrast, there was a 16% improvement in long-term survival of patients with metastatic melanoma, likely owing to the introduction of immune checkpoint inhibitors and targeted therapies, such as tyrosine kinase inhibitors.

The data also showed differences over time in the proportion of patients diagnosed with de novo metastatic disease; some cancers, such as NSCLC and small cell lung cancer, were more frequently diagnosed at late stages in the more recent era, possibly owing to increased screening and the use of technology such as FDG-PET imaging.

On the other end of the spectrum, cancers of the prostate, rectum, uterine cervix, breast, gallbladder, and bile ducts were more likely to be caught at an earlier stage during later years of the study period.

The authors say that among the possible explanations for a less than robust reduction over time in metastatic disease is that new drugs do not always translate into improved survival. They cite a 2017 study showing that among 53 new cancer drugs approved by U.S., European, or Australian drug regulators, fewer than half improved overall survival by at least 3 months, and an additional 26% offered survival advantages that were either shorter than 3 months or of unknown benefit.

“This may also explain why the 1- and 5-year survival rates of some cancers have changed little in the last 30 years,” they write. “Nevertheless, even minor benefits in survival or other outcomes (for example, quality of life) may represent progress in treating patients with metastatic cancer.”

The investigators recommend that to improve understanding of the effect of new therapies on survival of metastatic disease, cancer registries include data on therapies used beyond the first line, as well as comorbidities and quality-of-life measures.

The authors did not report a study funding source. Ms. Luyendijk has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Several co-authors reported financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies.

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

Over the past 30 years, more than 80 new systemic therapies for cancer have been approved, and many patients diagnosed with localized disease have benefited with improved progression-free and overall survival. The same can be said for some – but by no means all – patients with metastatic disease at diagnosis, a new study indicates.

“Our results show that the survival of patients with de novo metastatic cancer improved slowly over 30 years but that these gains were typically modest and unevenly distributed among cancers,” comment the authors, led by Marianne Luyendijk, MSc, from the Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organization, Utrecht.

The study was published online  in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

The retrospective study compared survival data of patients with de novo metastatic disease diagnosed from 1989 through 1993 with those of patients diagnosed from 2014 to 2018.

The results show that 5-year survival increased by 15% or more among patients with metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumors; neuroendocrine tumors; melanoma; and cancers of the prostate, breast, thyroid, and testes.

For patients with other cancers, however, the gains in survival were more modest. For example, over the study period, 5-year survival of patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer increased by only 6%, a disappointing finding, given the advent of targeted therapies and immunotherapy during the most recent period, the authors note.

In contrast, there was a 16% improvement in long-term survival of patients with metastatic melanoma, likely owing to the introduction of immune checkpoint inhibitors and targeted therapies, such as tyrosine kinase inhibitors.

The data also showed differences over time in the proportion of patients diagnosed with de novo metastatic disease; some cancers, such as NSCLC and small cell lung cancer, were more frequently diagnosed at late stages in the more recent era, possibly owing to increased screening and the use of technology such as FDG-PET imaging.

On the other end of the spectrum, cancers of the prostate, rectum, uterine cervix, breast, gallbladder, and bile ducts were more likely to be caught at an earlier stage during later years of the study period.

The authors say that among the possible explanations for a less than robust reduction over time in metastatic disease is that new drugs do not always translate into improved survival. They cite a 2017 study showing that among 53 new cancer drugs approved by U.S., European, or Australian drug regulators, fewer than half improved overall survival by at least 3 months, and an additional 26% offered survival advantages that were either shorter than 3 months or of unknown benefit.

“This may also explain why the 1- and 5-year survival rates of some cancers have changed little in the last 30 years,” they write. “Nevertheless, even minor benefits in survival or other outcomes (for example, quality of life) may represent progress in treating patients with metastatic cancer.”

The investigators recommend that to improve understanding of the effect of new therapies on survival of metastatic disease, cancer registries include data on therapies used beyond the first line, as well as comorbidities and quality-of-life measures.

The authors did not report a study funding source. Ms. Luyendijk has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Several co-authors reported financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies.

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

Over the past 30 years, more than 80 new systemic therapies for cancer have been approved, and many patients diagnosed with localized disease have benefited with improved progression-free and overall survival. The same can be said for some – but by no means all – patients with metastatic disease at diagnosis, a new study indicates.

“Our results show that the survival of patients with de novo metastatic cancer improved slowly over 30 years but that these gains were typically modest and unevenly distributed among cancers,” comment the authors, led by Marianne Luyendijk, MSc, from the Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organization, Utrecht.

The study was published online  in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

The retrospective study compared survival data of patients with de novo metastatic disease diagnosed from 1989 through 1993 with those of patients diagnosed from 2014 to 2018.

The results show that 5-year survival increased by 15% or more among patients with metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumors; neuroendocrine tumors; melanoma; and cancers of the prostate, breast, thyroid, and testes.

For patients with other cancers, however, the gains in survival were more modest. For example, over the study period, 5-year survival of patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer increased by only 6%, a disappointing finding, given the advent of targeted therapies and immunotherapy during the most recent period, the authors note.

In contrast, there was a 16% improvement in long-term survival of patients with metastatic melanoma, likely owing to the introduction of immune checkpoint inhibitors and targeted therapies, such as tyrosine kinase inhibitors.

The data also showed differences over time in the proportion of patients diagnosed with de novo metastatic disease; some cancers, such as NSCLC and small cell lung cancer, were more frequently diagnosed at late stages in the more recent era, possibly owing to increased screening and the use of technology such as FDG-PET imaging.

On the other end of the spectrum, cancers of the prostate, rectum, uterine cervix, breast, gallbladder, and bile ducts were more likely to be caught at an earlier stage during later years of the study period.

The authors say that among the possible explanations for a less than robust reduction over time in metastatic disease is that new drugs do not always translate into improved survival. They cite a 2017 study showing that among 53 new cancer drugs approved by U.S., European, or Australian drug regulators, fewer than half improved overall survival by at least 3 months, and an additional 26% offered survival advantages that were either shorter than 3 months or of unknown benefit.

“This may also explain why the 1- and 5-year survival rates of some cancers have changed little in the last 30 years,” they write. “Nevertheless, even minor benefits in survival or other outcomes (for example, quality of life) may represent progress in treating patients with metastatic cancer.”

The investigators recommend that to improve understanding of the effect of new therapies on survival of metastatic disease, cancer registries include data on therapies used beyond the first line, as well as comorbidities and quality-of-life measures.

The authors did not report a study funding source. Ms. Luyendijk has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Several co-authors reported financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies.

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

Compared with infants who were not exposed to COVID-19 in the womb, those who were exposed had a lower weight and body mass index at birth, but greater weight gain, during the first year of life, in a new analysis.

This “exaggerated growth pattern observed among infants with COVID-19 exposure may in some cases be a catch-up response to a prenatal growth deficit,” Mollie W. Ockene and colleagues wrote in a report published recently in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

But given that lower birth weight and accelerated postnatal weight gain are risk factors for cardiometabolic disease, the findings “raise concern” about whether children born to mothers with prenatal COVID-19 go on to develop obesity, diabetes, or cardiovascular disease, senior coauthors Andrea G. Edlow, MD, and Lindsay T. Fourman, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, told this news organization.

Further studies in larger numbers of patients with longer follow-up and detailed assessments are needed, the researchers said, but this points to “a potentially increased cardiometabolic disease risk for the large global population of children with in utero COVID-19 exposure.”

It will be “important for clinicians caring for children with in utero exposure to maternal COVID-19 to be aware of this history,” Dr. Edlow and Dr. Fourman added, “and to view the child’s growth trajectory and metabolic risk factors in a holistic context that includes this prenatal infection exposure.”
 

COVID-19 vaccination important during and prior to pregnancy

The study also underscores the importance of primary prevention of COVID-19 among women who are contemplating pregnancy or who are already pregnant, the researchers noted, “including the need for widespread implementation of protective measures such as indoor masking and COVID-19 vaccination and boosting during or prior to pregnancy.”

Dr. Edlow and Dr. Fourman added, “Given the disproportionate impact that COVID-19 has had on historically marginalized populations, adverse health outcomes following in utero exposure to maternal COVID-19 may threaten to widen existing disparities in child health.”

On the other hand, although “COVID-19 vaccination rates lagged behind in minority populations following the initial vaccine rollout,” they noted, “these differences have fortunately narrowed over time, particularly for Hispanic individuals, though they do still persist in the Black population,” according to a recent report.
 

BMI trajectories during first year of life

In utero exposure to COVID-19 has been linked to fetal/neonatal morbidity and mortality, including stillbirth, preterm birth, preeclampsia, and gestational hypertension, but less is known about infant outcomes during the first year of life.

The researchers aimed to compare weight, length, and BMI trajectories over the first year of life in infants with, versus without, in utero exposure to COVID-19.

They identified 149 infants with in utero exposure to COVID-19 and 127 unexposed infants; all were born between March 30, 2020, and May 30, 2021, to mothers who participated in the Mass General Brigham COVID-19 Perinatal Biorepository.

The study excluded infants whose mothers received the vaccine (n = 5) or who had unclear vaccination status during pregnancy (n = 4) to reduce sample heterogeneity.

At the time of the study, few women had received the COVID-19 vaccine because vaccines were approved by the Food and Drug Administration for emergency use in December 2020 and the CDC recommended them for all pregnant women much later, in August 2021.

The researchers examined the weight, length, and BMI of the infants at birth, and at 2, 6, and 12 months, standardized using World Health Organization (WHO) growth charts.

Compared with mothers who did not have COVID-19 during pregnancy, those who had COVID-19 were younger (mean age, 32 vs. 34 years) and had a higher earliest BMI during pregnancy (29 vs. 26 kg/m²) and greater parity (previous births, excluding the index pregnancy, 1.2 vs. 0.9), and they were more likely to be Hispanic or Black and less likely to have private insurance.

Compared with infants exposed to COVID-19 in utero, infants who were not exposed were more likely to be male (47% vs. 55%).

Both infant groups were equally likely to be breastfed (90%).

Compared with the unexposed infants, infants born to mothers with prenatal COVID-19 had lower BMI z-scores at birth (effect size, −0.35; P = .03) and greater gain in BMI z-scores from birth to 12 months (effect size, 0.53; P = .03), but they had similar length at birth and over 12 months, after adjustment for maternal age at delivery, ethnicity, parity, insurance status, and earliest BMI during pregnancy, as well as infant sex, date of birth, and if applicable, history of breastfeeding.

The study received funding from the National Institutes of Health, Harvard Nutrition Obesity Research Center, Boston Area Diabetes Endocrinology Research Centers, American Heart Association, and Simons Foundation. Ms. Ockene has reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Edlow has reported being a consultant for Mirvie and receiving research funding from Merck outside the study. Dr. Fourman has reported serving as a consultant and receiving grant funding to her institution from Amryt outside the study. Disclosures for the other authors are listed with the article.

Compared with infants who were not exposed to COVID-19 in the womb, those who were exposed had a lower weight and body mass index at birth, but greater weight gain, during the first year of life, in a new analysis.

This “exaggerated growth pattern observed among infants with COVID-19 exposure may in some cases be a catch-up response to a prenatal growth deficit,” Mollie W. Ockene and colleagues wrote in a report published recently in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

But given that lower birth weight and accelerated postnatal weight gain are risk factors for cardiometabolic disease, the findings “raise concern” about whether children born to mothers with prenatal COVID-19 go on to develop obesity, diabetes, or cardiovascular disease, senior coauthors Andrea G. Edlow, MD, and Lindsay T. Fourman, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, told this news organization.

Further studies in larger numbers of patients with longer follow-up and detailed assessments are needed, the researchers said, but this points to “a potentially increased cardiometabolic disease risk for the large global population of children with in utero COVID-19 exposure.”

It will be “important for clinicians caring for children with in utero exposure to maternal COVID-19 to be aware of this history,” Dr. Edlow and Dr. Fourman added, “and to view the child’s growth trajectory and metabolic risk factors in a holistic context that includes this prenatal infection exposure.”
 

COVID-19 vaccination important during and prior to pregnancy

The study also underscores the importance of primary prevention of COVID-19 among women who are contemplating pregnancy or who are already pregnant, the researchers noted, “including the need for widespread implementation of protective measures such as indoor masking and COVID-19 vaccination and boosting during or prior to pregnancy.”

Dr. Edlow and Dr. Fourman added, “Given the disproportionate impact that COVID-19 has had on historically marginalized populations, adverse health outcomes following in utero exposure to maternal COVID-19 may threaten to widen existing disparities in child health.”

On the other hand, although “COVID-19 vaccination rates lagged behind in minority populations following the initial vaccine rollout,” they noted, “these differences have fortunately narrowed over time, particularly for Hispanic individuals, though they do still persist in the Black population,” according to a recent report.
 

BMI trajectories during first year of life

In utero exposure to COVID-19 has been linked to fetal/neonatal morbidity and mortality, including stillbirth, preterm birth, preeclampsia, and gestational hypertension, but less is known about infant outcomes during the first year of life.

The researchers aimed to compare weight, length, and BMI trajectories over the first year of life in infants with, versus without, in utero exposure to COVID-19.

They identified 149 infants with in utero exposure to COVID-19 and 127 unexposed infants; all were born between March 30, 2020, and May 30, 2021, to mothers who participated in the Mass General Brigham COVID-19 Perinatal Biorepository.

The study excluded infants whose mothers received the vaccine (n = 5) or who had unclear vaccination status during pregnancy (n = 4) to reduce sample heterogeneity.

At the time of the study, few women had received the COVID-19 vaccine because vaccines were approved by the Food and Drug Administration for emergency use in December 2020 and the CDC recommended them for all pregnant women much later, in August 2021.

The researchers examined the weight, length, and BMI of the infants at birth, and at 2, 6, and 12 months, standardized using World Health Organization (WHO) growth charts.

Compared with mothers who did not have COVID-19 during pregnancy, those who had COVID-19 were younger (mean age, 32 vs. 34 years) and had a higher earliest BMI during pregnancy (29 vs. 26 kg/m²) and greater parity (previous births, excluding the index pregnancy, 1.2 vs. 0.9), and they were more likely to be Hispanic or Black and less likely to have private insurance.

Compared with infants exposed to COVID-19 in utero, infants who were not exposed were more likely to be male (47% vs. 55%).

Both infant groups were equally likely to be breastfed (90%).

Compared with the unexposed infants, infants born to mothers with prenatal COVID-19 had lower BMI z-scores at birth (effect size, −0.35; P = .03) and greater gain in BMI z-scores from birth to 12 months (effect size, 0.53; P = .03), but they had similar length at birth and over 12 months, after adjustment for maternal age at delivery, ethnicity, parity, insurance status, and earliest BMI during pregnancy, as well as infant sex, date of birth, and if applicable, history of breastfeeding.

The study received funding from the National Institutes of Health, Harvard Nutrition Obesity Research Center, Boston Area Diabetes Endocrinology Research Centers, American Heart Association, and Simons Foundation. Ms. Ockene has reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Edlow has reported being a consultant for Mirvie and receiving research funding from Merck outside the study. Dr. Fourman has reported serving as a consultant and receiving grant funding to her institution from Amryt outside the study. Disclosures for the other authors are listed with the article.

Compared with infants who were not exposed to COVID-19 in the womb, those who were exposed had a lower weight and body mass index at birth, but greater weight gain, during the first year of life, in a new analysis.

This “exaggerated growth pattern observed among infants with COVID-19 exposure may in some cases be a catch-up response to a prenatal growth deficit,” Mollie W. Ockene and colleagues wrote in a report published recently in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

But given that lower birth weight and accelerated postnatal weight gain are risk factors for cardiometabolic disease, the findings “raise concern” about whether children born to mothers with prenatal COVID-19 go on to develop obesity, diabetes, or cardiovascular disease, senior coauthors Andrea G. Edlow, MD, and Lindsay T. Fourman, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, told this news organization.

Further studies in larger numbers of patients with longer follow-up and detailed assessments are needed, the researchers said, but this points to “a potentially increased cardiometabolic disease risk for the large global population of children with in utero COVID-19 exposure.”

It will be “important for clinicians caring for children with in utero exposure to maternal COVID-19 to be aware of this history,” Dr. Edlow and Dr. Fourman added, “and to view the child’s growth trajectory and metabolic risk factors in a holistic context that includes this prenatal infection exposure.”
 

COVID-19 vaccination important during and prior to pregnancy

The study also underscores the importance of primary prevention of COVID-19 among women who are contemplating pregnancy or who are already pregnant, the researchers noted, “including the need for widespread implementation of protective measures such as indoor masking and COVID-19 vaccination and boosting during or prior to pregnancy.”

Dr. Edlow and Dr. Fourman added, “Given the disproportionate impact that COVID-19 has had on historically marginalized populations, adverse health outcomes following in utero exposure to maternal COVID-19 may threaten to widen existing disparities in child health.”

On the other hand, although “COVID-19 vaccination rates lagged behind in minority populations following the initial vaccine rollout,” they noted, “these differences have fortunately narrowed over time, particularly for Hispanic individuals, though they do still persist in the Black population,” according to a recent report.
 

BMI trajectories during first year of life

In utero exposure to COVID-19 has been linked to fetal/neonatal morbidity and mortality, including stillbirth, preterm birth, preeclampsia, and gestational hypertension, but less is known about infant outcomes during the first year of life.

The researchers aimed to compare weight, length, and BMI trajectories over the first year of life in infants with, versus without, in utero exposure to COVID-19.

They identified 149 infants with in utero exposure to COVID-19 and 127 unexposed infants; all were born between March 30, 2020, and May 30, 2021, to mothers who participated in the Mass General Brigham COVID-19 Perinatal Biorepository.

The study excluded infants whose mothers received the vaccine (n = 5) or who had unclear vaccination status during pregnancy (n = 4) to reduce sample heterogeneity.

At the time of the study, few women had received the COVID-19 vaccine because vaccines were approved by the Food and Drug Administration for emergency use in December 2020 and the CDC recommended them for all pregnant women much later, in August 2021.

The researchers examined the weight, length, and BMI of the infants at birth, and at 2, 6, and 12 months, standardized using World Health Organization (WHO) growth charts.

Compared with mothers who did not have COVID-19 during pregnancy, those who had COVID-19 were younger (mean age, 32 vs. 34 years) and had a higher earliest BMI during pregnancy (29 vs. 26 kg/m²) and greater parity (previous births, excluding the index pregnancy, 1.2 vs. 0.9), and they were more likely to be Hispanic or Black and less likely to have private insurance.

Compared with infants exposed to COVID-19 in utero, infants who were not exposed were more likely to be male (47% vs. 55%).

Both infant groups were equally likely to be breastfed (90%).

Compared with the unexposed infants, infants born to mothers with prenatal COVID-19 had lower BMI z-scores at birth (effect size, −0.35; P = .03) and greater gain in BMI z-scores from birth to 12 months (effect size, 0.53; P = .03), but they had similar length at birth and over 12 months, after adjustment for maternal age at delivery, ethnicity, parity, insurance status, and earliest BMI during pregnancy, as well as infant sex, date of birth, and if applicable, history of breastfeeding.

The study received funding from the National Institutes of Health, Harvard Nutrition Obesity Research Center, Boston Area Diabetes Endocrinology Research Centers, American Heart Association, and Simons Foundation. Ms. Ockene has reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Edlow has reported being a consultant for Mirvie and receiving research funding from Merck outside the study. Dr. Fourman has reported serving as a consultant and receiving grant funding to her institution from Amryt outside the study. Disclosures for the other authors are listed with the article.

Anti–amyloid-beta drugs, which are used in the management of Alzheimer’s disease (AD), have the potential to compromise long-term brain health by accelerating brain atrophy, a comprehensive meta-analysis of MRI data from clinical trials suggests.

Depending on the anti–amyloid-beta drug class, these agents can accelerate loss of whole brain and hippocampal volume and increase ventricular volume. This has been shown for some of the beta-secretase inhibitors and with several of the antiamyloid monoclonal antibodies, researchers noted.

“These data warrant concern, but we can’t make any firm conclusions yet. It is possible that the finding is not detrimental, but the usual interpretation of this finding is that volume changes are a surrogate for disease progression,” study investigator Scott Ayton, PhD, of the Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health, University of Melbourne, said in an interview.

“These data should be factored into the decisions by clinicians when they consider prescribing antiamyloid therapies. Like any side effect, clinicians should inform patients regarding the risk of brain atrophy. Patients should be actively monitored for this side effect,” Dr. Ayton said.

The study was published online in Neurology.
 

Earlier progression from MCI to AD?

Dr. Ayton and colleagues evaluated brain volume changes in 31 clinical trials of anti–amyloid-beta drugs that demonstrated a favorable change in at least one biomarker of pathological amyloid-beta and included detailed MRI data sufficient to assess the volumetric changes in at least one brain region.

A meta-analysis on the highest dose in each trial on the hippocampus, ventricles, and whole brain showed drug-induced acceleration of volume changes that varied by anti–amyloid-beta drug class.

Secretase inhibitors accelerated atrophy in the hippocampus (mean difference –37.1 mcL; –19.6% relative to change in placebo) and whole brain (mean difference –3.3 mL; –21.8% relative to change in placebo), but not ventricles.

Conversely, monoclonal antibodies caused accelerated ventricular enlargement (mean difference +1.3 mL; +23.8% relative to change in placebo), which was driven by the subset of monoclonal antibodies that induce amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA) (+2.1 mL; +38.7% relative to change in placebo). There was a “striking correlation between ventricular volume and ARIA frequency,” the investigators reported.

The effect of ARIA-inducing monoclonal antibodies on whole brain volume varied, with accelerated whole brain volume loss caused by donanemab (mean difference –4.6 mL; +23% relative to change in placebo) and lecanemab (–5.2 mL; +36.4% relative to change in placebo). This was not observed with aducanumab and bapineuzumab.

Monoclonal antibodies did not cause accelerated volume loss to the hippocampus regardless of whether they caused ARIA.

The researchers also modeled the effect of anti–amyloid-beta drugs on brain volume changes. In this analysis, participants with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) treated with anti–amyloid-beta drugs were projected to have a “material regression” toward brain volumes typical of AD roughly 8 months earlier than untreated peers.

The data, they note, “permit robust conclusions regarding the effect of [anti–amyloid-beta] drug classes on different brain structures, but the lack of individual patient data (which has yet to be released) limits the interpretations of our findings.”

“Questions like which brain regions are impacted by [anti–amyloid-beta] drugs and whether the volume changes are related to ARIA, plaque loss, cognitive/noncognitive outcomes, or clinical factors such as age, sex, and apoE4 genotype can and should be addressed with available data,” said Dr. Ayton.

Dr. Ayton and colleagues called on data safety monitoring boards (DSMBs) for current clinical trials of anti–amyloid-beta drugs to review volumetric data to determine if patient safety is at risk, particularly in patients who develop ARIA.

In addition, they noted ethics boards that approve trials for anti–amyloid-beta drugs “should request that volume changes be actively monitored. Long-term follow-up of brain volumes should be factored into the trial designs to determine if brain atrophy is progressive, particularly in patients who develop ARIA.”

Finally, they added that drug companies that have conducted trials of anti–amyloid-beta drugs should interrogate prior data on brain volume, report the findings, and release the data for researchers to investigate.

“I have been banging on about this for years,” said Dr. Ayton. “Unfortunately, my raising of this issue has not led to any response. The data are not available, and the basic questions haven’t been asked (publicly).”
 

Commendable research

In an accompanying editorial, Frederik Barkhof, MD, PhD, with Amsterdam University Medical Centers, and David Knopman, MD, with Mayo Clinic Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center, Rochester, Minn., wrote that the investigators should be “commended” for their analysis. 

“The reality in 2023 is that the relevance of brain volume reductions in this therapeutic context remains uncertain,” they wrote.

“Longer periods of observation will be needed to know whether the brain volume losses continue at an accelerated rate or if they attenuate or disappear. Ultimately, it’s the clinical outcomes that matter, regardless of the MRI changes,” Barkhof and Knopman concluded.

The research was supported by funds from the Australian National Health & Medical Research Council. Dr. Ayton reported being a consultant for Eisai in the past 3 years. Dr. Barkhof reported serving on the data and safety monitoring board for Prothena and the A45-AHEAD studies; being a steering committee member for Merck, Bayer, and Biogen; and being a consultant for IXICO, Roche, Celltrion, Rewind Therapeutics, and Combinostics. Dr. Knopman reported serving on the DSMB for the Dominantly Inherited Alzheimer Network Treatment Unit study; serving on a DSMB for a tau therapeutic for Biogen; being an investigator for clinical trials sponsored by Biogen, Lilly Pharmaceuticals, and the University of Southern California. He reported consulting with Roche, Samus Therapeutics, Magellan Health, BioVie, and Alzeca Biosciences.

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

Anti–amyloid-beta drugs, which are used in the management of Alzheimer’s disease (AD), have the potential to compromise long-term brain health by accelerating brain atrophy, a comprehensive meta-analysis of MRI data from clinical trials suggests.

Depending on the anti–amyloid-beta drug class, these agents can accelerate loss of whole brain and hippocampal volume and increase ventricular volume. This has been shown for some of the beta-secretase inhibitors and with several of the antiamyloid monoclonal antibodies, researchers noted.

“These data warrant concern, but we can’t make any firm conclusions yet. It is possible that the finding is not detrimental, but the usual interpretation of this finding is that volume changes are a surrogate for disease progression,” study investigator Scott Ayton, PhD, of the Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health, University of Melbourne, said in an interview.

“These data should be factored into the decisions by clinicians when they consider prescribing antiamyloid therapies. Like any side effect, clinicians should inform patients regarding the risk of brain atrophy. Patients should be actively monitored for this side effect,” Dr. Ayton said.

The study was published online in Neurology.
 

Earlier progression from MCI to AD?

Dr. Ayton and colleagues evaluated brain volume changes in 31 clinical trials of anti–amyloid-beta drugs that demonstrated a favorable change in at least one biomarker of pathological amyloid-beta and included detailed MRI data sufficient to assess the volumetric changes in at least one brain region.

A meta-analysis on the highest dose in each trial on the hippocampus, ventricles, and whole brain showed drug-induced acceleration of volume changes that varied by anti–amyloid-beta drug class.

Secretase inhibitors accelerated atrophy in the hippocampus (mean difference –37.1 mcL; –19.6% relative to change in placebo) and whole brain (mean difference –3.3 mL; –21.8% relative to change in placebo), but not ventricles.

Conversely, monoclonal antibodies caused accelerated ventricular enlargement (mean difference +1.3 mL; +23.8% relative to change in placebo), which was driven by the subset of monoclonal antibodies that induce amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA) (+2.1 mL; +38.7% relative to change in placebo). There was a “striking correlation between ventricular volume and ARIA frequency,” the investigators reported.

The effect of ARIA-inducing monoclonal antibodies on whole brain volume varied, with accelerated whole brain volume loss caused by donanemab (mean difference –4.6 mL; +23% relative to change in placebo) and lecanemab (–5.2 mL; +36.4% relative to change in placebo). This was not observed with aducanumab and bapineuzumab.

Monoclonal antibodies did not cause accelerated volume loss to the hippocampus regardless of whether they caused ARIA.

The researchers also modeled the effect of anti–amyloid-beta drugs on brain volume changes. In this analysis, participants with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) treated with anti–amyloid-beta drugs were projected to have a “material regression” toward brain volumes typical of AD roughly 8 months earlier than untreated peers.

The data, they note, “permit robust conclusions regarding the effect of [anti–amyloid-beta] drug classes on different brain structures, but the lack of individual patient data (which has yet to be released) limits the interpretations of our findings.”

“Questions like which brain regions are impacted by [anti–amyloid-beta] drugs and whether the volume changes are related to ARIA, plaque loss, cognitive/noncognitive outcomes, or clinical factors such as age, sex, and apoE4 genotype can and should be addressed with available data,” said Dr. Ayton.

Dr. Ayton and colleagues called on data safety monitoring boards (DSMBs) for current clinical trials of anti–amyloid-beta drugs to review volumetric data to determine if patient safety is at risk, particularly in patients who develop ARIA.

In addition, they noted ethics boards that approve trials for anti–amyloid-beta drugs “should request that volume changes be actively monitored. Long-term follow-up of brain volumes should be factored into the trial designs to determine if brain atrophy is progressive, particularly in patients who develop ARIA.”

Finally, they added that drug companies that have conducted trials of anti–amyloid-beta drugs should interrogate prior data on brain volume, report the findings, and release the data for researchers to investigate.

“I have been banging on about this for years,” said Dr. Ayton. “Unfortunately, my raising of this issue has not led to any response. The data are not available, and the basic questions haven’t been asked (publicly).”
 

Commendable research

In an accompanying editorial, Frederik Barkhof, MD, PhD, with Amsterdam University Medical Centers, and David Knopman, MD, with Mayo Clinic Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center, Rochester, Minn., wrote that the investigators should be “commended” for their analysis. 

“The reality in 2023 is that the relevance of brain volume reductions in this therapeutic context remains uncertain,” they wrote.

“Longer periods of observation will be needed to know whether the brain volume losses continue at an accelerated rate or if they attenuate or disappear. Ultimately, it’s the clinical outcomes that matter, regardless of the MRI changes,” Barkhof and Knopman concluded.

The research was supported by funds from the Australian National Health & Medical Research Council. Dr. Ayton reported being a consultant for Eisai in the past 3 years. Dr. Barkhof reported serving on the data and safety monitoring board for Prothena and the A45-AHEAD studies; being a steering committee member for Merck, Bayer, and Biogen; and being a consultant for IXICO, Roche, Celltrion, Rewind Therapeutics, and Combinostics. Dr. Knopman reported serving on the DSMB for the Dominantly Inherited Alzheimer Network Treatment Unit study; serving on a DSMB for a tau therapeutic for Biogen; being an investigator for clinical trials sponsored by Biogen, Lilly Pharmaceuticals, and the University of Southern California. He reported consulting with Roche, Samus Therapeutics, Magellan Health, BioVie, and Alzeca Biosciences.

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

Anti–amyloid-beta drugs, which are used in the management of Alzheimer’s disease (AD), have the potential to compromise long-term brain health by accelerating brain atrophy, a comprehensive meta-analysis of MRI data from clinical trials suggests.

Depending on the anti–amyloid-beta drug class, these agents can accelerate loss of whole brain and hippocampal volume and increase ventricular volume. This has been shown for some of the beta-secretase inhibitors and with several of the antiamyloid monoclonal antibodies, researchers noted.

“These data warrant concern, but we can’t make any firm conclusions yet. It is possible that the finding is not detrimental, but the usual interpretation of this finding is that volume changes are a surrogate for disease progression,” study investigator Scott Ayton, PhD, of the Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health, University of Melbourne, said in an interview.

“These data should be factored into the decisions by clinicians when they consider prescribing antiamyloid therapies. Like any side effect, clinicians should inform patients regarding the risk of brain atrophy. Patients should be actively monitored for this side effect,” Dr. Ayton said.

The study was published online in Neurology.
 

Earlier progression from MCI to AD?

Dr. Ayton and colleagues evaluated brain volume changes in 31 clinical trials of anti–amyloid-beta drugs that demonstrated a favorable change in at least one biomarker of pathological amyloid-beta and included detailed MRI data sufficient to assess the volumetric changes in at least one brain region.

A meta-analysis on the highest dose in each trial on the hippocampus, ventricles, and whole brain showed drug-induced acceleration of volume changes that varied by anti–amyloid-beta drug class.

Secretase inhibitors accelerated atrophy in the hippocampus (mean difference –37.1 mcL; –19.6% relative to change in placebo) and whole brain (mean difference –3.3 mL; –21.8% relative to change in placebo), but not ventricles.

Conversely, monoclonal antibodies caused accelerated ventricular enlargement (mean difference +1.3 mL; +23.8% relative to change in placebo), which was driven by the subset of monoclonal antibodies that induce amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA) (+2.1 mL; +38.7% relative to change in placebo). There was a “striking correlation between ventricular volume and ARIA frequency,” the investigators reported.

The effect of ARIA-inducing monoclonal antibodies on whole brain volume varied, with accelerated whole brain volume loss caused by donanemab (mean difference –4.6 mL; +23% relative to change in placebo) and lecanemab (–5.2 mL; +36.4% relative to change in placebo). This was not observed with aducanumab and bapineuzumab.

Monoclonal antibodies did not cause accelerated volume loss to the hippocampus regardless of whether they caused ARIA.

The researchers also modeled the effect of anti–amyloid-beta drugs on brain volume changes. In this analysis, participants with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) treated with anti–amyloid-beta drugs were projected to have a “material regression” toward brain volumes typical of AD roughly 8 months earlier than untreated peers.

The data, they note, “permit robust conclusions regarding the effect of [anti–amyloid-beta] drug classes on different brain structures, but the lack of individual patient data (which has yet to be released) limits the interpretations of our findings.”

“Questions like which brain regions are impacted by [anti–amyloid-beta] drugs and whether the volume changes are related to ARIA, plaque loss, cognitive/noncognitive outcomes, or clinical factors such as age, sex, and apoE4 genotype can and should be addressed with available data,” said Dr. Ayton.

Dr. Ayton and colleagues called on data safety monitoring boards (DSMBs) for current clinical trials of anti–amyloid-beta drugs to review volumetric data to determine if patient safety is at risk, particularly in patients who develop ARIA.

In addition, they noted ethics boards that approve trials for anti–amyloid-beta drugs “should request that volume changes be actively monitored. Long-term follow-up of brain volumes should be factored into the trial designs to determine if brain atrophy is progressive, particularly in patients who develop ARIA.”

Finally, they added that drug companies that have conducted trials of anti–amyloid-beta drugs should interrogate prior data on brain volume, report the findings, and release the data for researchers to investigate.

“I have been banging on about this for years,” said Dr. Ayton. “Unfortunately, my raising of this issue has not led to any response. The data are not available, and the basic questions haven’t been asked (publicly).”
 

Commendable research

In an accompanying editorial, Frederik Barkhof, MD, PhD, with Amsterdam University Medical Centers, and David Knopman, MD, with Mayo Clinic Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center, Rochester, Minn., wrote that the investigators should be “commended” for their analysis. 

“The reality in 2023 is that the relevance of brain volume reductions in this therapeutic context remains uncertain,” they wrote.

“Longer periods of observation will be needed to know whether the brain volume losses continue at an accelerated rate or if they attenuate or disappear. Ultimately, it’s the clinical outcomes that matter, regardless of the MRI changes,” Barkhof and Knopman concluded.

The research was supported by funds from the Australian National Health & Medical Research Council. Dr. Ayton reported being a consultant for Eisai in the past 3 years. Dr. Barkhof reported serving on the data and safety monitoring board for Prothena and the A45-AHEAD studies; being a steering committee member for Merck, Bayer, and Biogen; and being a consultant for IXICO, Roche, Celltrion, Rewind Therapeutics, and Combinostics. Dr. Knopman reported serving on the DSMB for the Dominantly Inherited Alzheimer Network Treatment Unit study; serving on a DSMB for a tau therapeutic for Biogen; being an investigator for clinical trials sponsored by Biogen, Lilly Pharmaceuticals, and the University of Southern California. He reported consulting with Roche, Samus Therapeutics, Magellan Health, BioVie, and Alzeca Biosciences.

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

Court cases show that physicians continually underestimate their liability in supervising nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs).

Even in states that have abolished requirements that NPs be physician-supervised, physicians may still be liable by virtue of employing the NP, according to William P. Sullivan, DO, an attorney and emergency physician in Frankfort, Ill.

Indeed, the vast majority of lawsuits against NPs and PAs name the supervising physician. According to a study of claims against NPs from 2011 to 2016, 82% of the cases also named the supervising physician.

Employed or contracted physicians assigned to supervise NPs or PAs are also affected, Dr. Sullivan said. “The employed physicians’ contract with a hospital or staffing company may require them to assist in the selection, supervision, and/or training of NPs or PAs,” he said. He added that supervisory duties may also be assigned through hospital bylaws.

“The physician is usually not paid anything extra for this work and may not be given extra time to perform it,” Dr. Sullivan said. But still, he said, that physician could be named in a lawsuit and wind up bearing some responsibility for an NP’s or PA’s mistake.

In addition to facing medical malpractice suits, Dr. Sullivan said, doctors are often sanctioned by state licensure boards for improperly supervising NPs and PAs. Licensure boards often require extensive protocols for supervision of NPs and PAs.
 

Yet more states are removing supervision requirements

With the addition of Kansas and New York in 2022 and California in 2023, 27 states no longer require supervision for all or most NPs. Sixteen of those states, including New York and California, have instituted progressive practice authority that requires temporary supervision of new NPs but then removes supervision after a period of 6 months to 4 years, depending on the state, for the rest of their career.

“When it comes to NP independence, the horse is already out of the barn,” Dr. Sullivan said. “It’s unlikely that states will repeal laws granting NPs independence, and in fact, more states are likely to pass them.”

*PAs, in contrast, are well behind NPs in achieving independence, but the American Academy of Physician Associates (AAPA) is calling to eliminate a mandated relationship with a specific physician. So far, Utah, North Dakota and Wyoming have ended physician supervision of PAs, while California and Hawaii have eliminated mandated chart review. Other states are considering eliminating physician supervision of PAs, according to the AAPA.

In states that have abolished oversight requirements for NPs, “liability can then shift to the NP when the NP is fully independent,” Cathy Klein, an advanced practice registered nurse who helped found the NP profession 50 years ago, told this news organization. “More NPs are starting their own practices, and in many cases, patients actually prefer to see an NP.”

As more NPs became more autonomous, the average payment that NPs incurred in professional liability lawsuits rose by 10.5% from 2017 to 2022, to $332,187, according to the Nurses Service Organization (NSO), a nursing malpractice insurer.

The number of malpractice judgments against autonomous NPs alone has also been rising. From 2012 to 2017, autonomous NPs’ share of all NP cases rose from 7% to 16.4%, the NSO reported.

The good news for physicians is that states’ removal of restrictions on NPs has reduced physicians’ liability to some extent. A 2017 study found that enacting less restrictive scope-of-practice laws for NPs decreased the number of payments made by physicians in NP cases by as much as 31%.

However, the top location for NP payouts remains the physician’s office, not the autonomous NP’s practice, according to the latter NSO report. Plaintiffs sue NPs’ and PAs’ supervising physicians on the basis of legal concepts, such as vicarious liability and respondeat superior. Even if the physician-employer never saw the patient, he or she can be held liable.

Court cases in which supervising physician was found liable

There are plenty of judgments against supervising or collaborating physicians when the NP or PA made the error. Typically, the doctor was faulted for paying little attention to the NP or PA he or she was supposed to supervise.

Dr. Sullivan points to a 2016 case in which a New York jury held a physician 40% liable for a $7 million judgment in a malpractice case involving a PA’s care of a patient in the emergency department. The case is Shajan v. South Nassau Community Hospital in New York.

“The patient presented with nontraumatic leg pain to his lower leg, was diagnosed by the PA with a muscle strain, and discharged without a physician evaluation,” Dr. Sullivan said. The next day, the patient visited an orthopedist who immediately diagnosed compartment syndrome, an emergent condition in which pressure builds up in an affected extremity, damaging the muscles and nerves. “The patient developed irreversible nerve damage and chronic regional pain syndrome,” he said.

A malpractice lawsuit named the PA and the emergency physician he was supposed to be reporting to. Even though the physician had never seen the patient, he had signed off on the PA’s note from a patient’s ED visit. “Testimony during the trial focused on hospital protocols that the supervising physician was supposed to take,” Dr. Sullivan said.

When doctors share fault, they frequently failed to follow the collaborative agreement with the NP or PA. In Collip v. Ratts, a 2015 Indiana case in which the patient died from a drug interaction, the doctor’s certified public accountant stated that the doctor was required to review at least 5% of the NP’s charts every week to evaluate her prescriptive practices.

The doctor admitted that he never reviewed the NP’s charts on a weekly basis. He did conduct some cursory reviews of some of the NP’s notes, and in them he noted concerns for her prescribing practices and suggested she attend a narcotics-prescribing seminar, but he did not follow up to make sure she had done this.

Sometimes the NP or PA who made the mistake may actually be dropped from the lawsuit, leaving the supervising physician fully liable. In these cases, courts reason that a fully engaged supervisor could have prevented the error. In the 2006 case of  Husak v. Siegal, the Florida Supreme Court dropped the NP from the case, ruling that the NP had provided the supervising doctor all the information he needed in order to tell her what to do for the patient.

The court noted the physician had failed to look at the chart, even though he was required to do so under his supervisory agreement with the NP. The doctor “could have made the correct diagnosis or referral had he been attentive,” the court said. Therefore, there was “no evidence of independent negligence” by the NP, even though she was the one who had made the incorrect diagnosis that harmed the patient.

When states require an autonomous NP to have a supervisory relationship with a doctor, the supervisor may be unavailable and may fail to designate a substitute. In Texas in January 2019, a 7-year-old girl died of pneumonia after being treated by an NP in an urgent care clinic. The NP had told the parents that the child could safely go home and only needed ibuprofen. The parents brought the girl back home, and she died 15 hours later. The Wattenbargers sued the NP, and the doctor’s supervision was a topic in the trial.

The supervising physician for the NP was out of the country at the time. He said that he had found a substitute, but the substitute doctor testified she had no idea she was designated to be the substitute, according to Niran Al-Agba, MD, a family physician in Silverdale, Wash., who has written on the Texas case. Dr. Al-Agba told this news organization the case appears to have been settled confidentially.
 

Different standards for expert witnesses

In many states, courts do not allow physicians to testify as expert witnesses in malpractice cases against NPs, arguing that nurses have a different set of standards than doctors have, Dr. Sullivan reported.

These states include Arkansas, Illinois, North Carolina, and New York, according to a report by SEAK Inc., an expert witness training program. The report said most other states allow physician experts in these cases, but they may still require that they have experience with the nursing standard of care.

Dr. Sullivan said some courts are whittling away at the ban on physician experts, and the ban may eventually disappear. He reported that in Oklahoma, which normally upholds the ban, a judge recently allowed a physician-expert to testify in a case involving the death of a 19-year-old woman, Alexus Ochoa, in an ED staffed by an NP. The judge reasoned that Ms. Ochoa’s parents assumed the ED was staffed by physicians and would adhere to medical standards.
 

Supervision pointers from a physician

Physicians who supervise NPs or PAs say it is important to keep track of their skills and help them sharpen their expertise. Their scope of practice and physicians’ supervisory responsibilities are included in the collaborative agreement.

Arthur Apolinario, MD, a family physician in Clinton, N.C., says his 10-physician practice, which employs six NPs and one PA, works under a collaborative agreement. “The agreement defines each person’s scope of practice. They can’t do certain procedures, such as surgery, and they need extra training before doing certain tasks alone, such as joint injection.

“You have to always figure that if there is a lawsuit against one of them, you as the supervising physician would be named,” said Dr. Apolinario, who is also president of the North Carolina Medical Society. “We try to avert mistakes by meeting regularly with our NPs and PAs and making sure they keep up to date.”
 

Collaborating with autonomous NPs

Even when NPs operate independently in states that have abolished supervision, physicians may still have some liability if they give NPs advice, Dr. Al-Agba said.

At her Washington state practice, Dr. Al-Agba shares an office with an autonomous NP. “We share overhead and a front desk, but we have separate patients,” Dr. Al-Agba said. “This arrangement works very well for both of us.”

The NP sometimes asks her for advice. When this occurs, Dr. Al-Agba said she always makes sure to see the patient first. “If you don’t actually see the patient, there could be a misunderstanding that could lead to an error,” she said.
 

Conclusion

Even though NPs now have autonomy in most states, supervising physicians may still be liable for NP malpractice by virtue of being their employers, and physicians in the remaining states are liable for NPs through state law and for PAs in virtually all the states. To determine the supervising physician’s fault, courts often study whether the physician has met the terms of the collaborative agreement.

Physicians can reduce collaborating NPs’ and PAs’ liability by properly training them, by verifying their scope of practice, by making themselves easily available for consultation, and by occasionally seeing their patients. If their NPs and PAs do commit malpractice, supervising physicians may be able to protect themselves from liability by adhering to all requirements of the collaborative agreement.

*Correction, 4/19/2023: An earlier version of this story misstated the name of the AAPA and the states that have ended physician supervision of PAs.

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

Court cases show that physicians continually underestimate their liability in supervising nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs).

Even in states that have abolished requirements that NPs be physician-supervised, physicians may still be liable by virtue of employing the NP, according to William P. Sullivan, DO, an attorney and emergency physician in Frankfort, Ill.

Indeed, the vast majority of lawsuits against NPs and PAs name the supervising physician. According to a study of claims against NPs from 2011 to 2016, 82% of the cases also named the supervising physician.

Employed or contracted physicians assigned to supervise NPs or PAs are also affected, Dr. Sullivan said. “The employed physicians’ contract with a hospital or staffing company may require them to assist in the selection, supervision, and/or training of NPs or PAs,” he said. He added that supervisory duties may also be assigned through hospital bylaws.

“The physician is usually not paid anything extra for this work and may not be given extra time to perform it,” Dr. Sullivan said. But still, he said, that physician could be named in a lawsuit and wind up bearing some responsibility for an NP’s or PA’s mistake.

In addition to facing medical malpractice suits, Dr. Sullivan said, doctors are often sanctioned by state licensure boards for improperly supervising NPs and PAs. Licensure boards often require extensive protocols for supervision of NPs and PAs.
 

Yet more states are removing supervision requirements

With the addition of Kansas and New York in 2022 and California in 2023, 27 states no longer require supervision for all or most NPs. Sixteen of those states, including New York and California, have instituted progressive practice authority that requires temporary supervision of new NPs but then removes supervision after a period of 6 months to 4 years, depending on the state, for the rest of their career.

“When it comes to NP independence, the horse is already out of the barn,” Dr. Sullivan said. “It’s unlikely that states will repeal laws granting NPs independence, and in fact, more states are likely to pass them.”

*PAs, in contrast, are well behind NPs in achieving independence, but the American Academy of Physician Associates (AAPA) is calling to eliminate a mandated relationship with a specific physician. So far, Utah, North Dakota and Wyoming have ended physician supervision of PAs, while California and Hawaii have eliminated mandated chart review. Other states are considering eliminating physician supervision of PAs, according to the AAPA.

In states that have abolished oversight requirements for NPs, “liability can then shift to the NP when the NP is fully independent,” Cathy Klein, an advanced practice registered nurse who helped found the NP profession 50 years ago, told this news organization. “More NPs are starting their own practices, and in many cases, patients actually prefer to see an NP.”

As more NPs became more autonomous, the average payment that NPs incurred in professional liability lawsuits rose by 10.5% from 2017 to 2022, to $332,187, according to the Nurses Service Organization (NSO), a nursing malpractice insurer.

The number of malpractice judgments against autonomous NPs alone has also been rising. From 2012 to 2017, autonomous NPs’ share of all NP cases rose from 7% to 16.4%, the NSO reported.

The good news for physicians is that states’ removal of restrictions on NPs has reduced physicians’ liability to some extent. A 2017 study found that enacting less restrictive scope-of-practice laws for NPs decreased the number of payments made by physicians in NP cases by as much as 31%.

However, the top location for NP payouts remains the physician’s office, not the autonomous NP’s practice, according to the latter NSO report. Plaintiffs sue NPs’ and PAs’ supervising physicians on the basis of legal concepts, such as vicarious liability and respondeat superior. Even if the physician-employer never saw the patient, he or she can be held liable.

Court cases in which supervising physician was found liable

There are plenty of judgments against supervising or collaborating physicians when the NP or PA made the error. Typically, the doctor was faulted for paying little attention to the NP or PA he or she was supposed to supervise.

Dr. Sullivan points to a 2016 case in which a New York jury held a physician 40% liable for a $7 million judgment in a malpractice case involving a PA’s care of a patient in the emergency department. The case is Shajan v. South Nassau Community Hospital in New York.

“The patient presented with nontraumatic leg pain to his lower leg, was diagnosed by the PA with a muscle strain, and discharged without a physician evaluation,” Dr. Sullivan said. The next day, the patient visited an orthopedist who immediately diagnosed compartment syndrome, an emergent condition in which pressure builds up in an affected extremity, damaging the muscles and nerves. “The patient developed irreversible nerve damage and chronic regional pain syndrome,” he said.

A malpractice lawsuit named the PA and the emergency physician he was supposed to be reporting to. Even though the physician had never seen the patient, he had signed off on the PA’s note from a patient’s ED visit. “Testimony during the trial focused on hospital protocols that the supervising physician was supposed to take,” Dr. Sullivan said.

When doctors share fault, they frequently failed to follow the collaborative agreement with the NP or PA. In Collip v. Ratts, a 2015 Indiana case in which the patient died from a drug interaction, the doctor’s certified public accountant stated that the doctor was required to review at least 5% of the NP’s charts every week to evaluate her prescriptive practices.

The doctor admitted that he never reviewed the NP’s charts on a weekly basis. He did conduct some cursory reviews of some of the NP’s notes, and in them he noted concerns for her prescribing practices and suggested she attend a narcotics-prescribing seminar, but he did not follow up to make sure she had done this.

Sometimes the NP or PA who made the mistake may actually be dropped from the lawsuit, leaving the supervising physician fully liable. In these cases, courts reason that a fully engaged supervisor could have prevented the error. In the 2006 case of  Husak v. Siegal, the Florida Supreme Court dropped the NP from the case, ruling that the NP had provided the supervising doctor all the information he needed in order to tell her what to do for the patient.

The court noted the physician had failed to look at the chart, even though he was required to do so under his supervisory agreement with the NP. The doctor “could have made the correct diagnosis or referral had he been attentive,” the court said. Therefore, there was “no evidence of independent negligence” by the NP, even though she was the one who had made the incorrect diagnosis that harmed the patient.

When states require an autonomous NP to have a supervisory relationship with a doctor, the supervisor may be unavailable and may fail to designate a substitute. In Texas in January 2019, a 7-year-old girl died of pneumonia after being treated by an NP in an urgent care clinic. The NP had told the parents that the child could safely go home and only needed ibuprofen. The parents brought the girl back home, and she died 15 hours later. The Wattenbargers sued the NP, and the doctor’s supervision was a topic in the trial.

The supervising physician for the NP was out of the country at the time. He said that he had found a substitute, but the substitute doctor testified she had no idea she was designated to be the substitute, according to Niran Al-Agba, MD, a family physician in Silverdale, Wash., who has written on the Texas case. Dr. Al-Agba told this news organization the case appears to have been settled confidentially.
 

Different standards for expert witnesses

In many states, courts do not allow physicians to testify as expert witnesses in malpractice cases against NPs, arguing that nurses have a different set of standards than doctors have, Dr. Sullivan reported.

These states include Arkansas, Illinois, North Carolina, and New York, according to a report by SEAK Inc., an expert witness training program. The report said most other states allow physician experts in these cases, but they may still require that they have experience with the nursing standard of care.

Dr. Sullivan said some courts are whittling away at the ban on physician experts, and the ban may eventually disappear. He reported that in Oklahoma, which normally upholds the ban, a judge recently allowed a physician-expert to testify in a case involving the death of a 19-year-old woman, Alexus Ochoa, in an ED staffed by an NP. The judge reasoned that Ms. Ochoa’s parents assumed the ED was staffed by physicians and would adhere to medical standards.
 

Supervision pointers from a physician

Physicians who supervise NPs or PAs say it is important to keep track of their skills and help them sharpen their expertise. Their scope of practice and physicians’ supervisory responsibilities are included in the collaborative agreement.

Arthur Apolinario, MD, a family physician in Clinton, N.C., says his 10-physician practice, which employs six NPs and one PA, works under a collaborative agreement. “The agreement defines each person’s scope of practice. They can’t do certain procedures, such as surgery, and they need extra training before doing certain tasks alone, such as joint injection.

“You have to always figure that if there is a lawsuit against one of them, you as the supervising physician would be named,” said Dr. Apolinario, who is also president of the North Carolina Medical Society. “We try to avert mistakes by meeting regularly with our NPs and PAs and making sure they keep up to date.”
 

Collaborating with autonomous NPs

Even when NPs operate independently in states that have abolished supervision, physicians may still have some liability if they give NPs advice, Dr. Al-Agba said.

At her Washington state practice, Dr. Al-Agba shares an office with an autonomous NP. “We share overhead and a front desk, but we have separate patients,” Dr. Al-Agba said. “This arrangement works very well for both of us.”

The NP sometimes asks her for advice. When this occurs, Dr. Al-Agba said she always makes sure to see the patient first. “If you don’t actually see the patient, there could be a misunderstanding that could lead to an error,” she said.
 

Conclusion

Even though NPs now have autonomy in most states, supervising physicians may still be liable for NP malpractice by virtue of being their employers, and physicians in the remaining states are liable for NPs through state law and for PAs in virtually all the states. To determine the supervising physician’s fault, courts often study whether the physician has met the terms of the collaborative agreement.

Physicians can reduce collaborating NPs’ and PAs’ liability by properly training them, by verifying their scope of practice, by making themselves easily available for consultation, and by occasionally seeing their patients. If their NPs and PAs do commit malpractice, supervising physicians may be able to protect themselves from liability by adhering to all requirements of the collaborative agreement.

*Correction, 4/19/2023: An earlier version of this story misstated the name of the AAPA and the states that have ended physician supervision of PAs.

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

Court cases show that physicians continually underestimate their liability in supervising nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs).

Even in states that have abolished requirements that NPs be physician-supervised, physicians may still be liable by virtue of employing the NP, according to William P. Sullivan, DO, an attorney and emergency physician in Frankfort, Ill.

Indeed, the vast majority of lawsuits against NPs and PAs name the supervising physician. According to a study of claims against NPs from 2011 to 2016, 82% of the cases also named the supervising physician.

Employed or contracted physicians assigned to supervise NPs or PAs are also affected, Dr. Sullivan said. “The employed physicians’ contract with a hospital or staffing company may require them to assist in the selection, supervision, and/or training of NPs or PAs,” he said. He added that supervisory duties may also be assigned through hospital bylaws.

“The physician is usually not paid anything extra for this work and may not be given extra time to perform it,” Dr. Sullivan said. But still, he said, that physician could be named in a lawsuit and wind up bearing some responsibility for an NP’s or PA’s mistake.

In addition to facing medical malpractice suits, Dr. Sullivan said, doctors are often sanctioned by state licensure boards for improperly supervising NPs and PAs. Licensure boards often require extensive protocols for supervision of NPs and PAs.
 

Yet more states are removing supervision requirements

With the addition of Kansas and New York in 2022 and California in 2023, 27 states no longer require supervision for all or most NPs. Sixteen of those states, including New York and California, have instituted progressive practice authority that requires temporary supervision of new NPs but then removes supervision after a period of 6 months to 4 years, depending on the state, for the rest of their career.

“When it comes to NP independence, the horse is already out of the barn,” Dr. Sullivan said. “It’s unlikely that states will repeal laws granting NPs independence, and in fact, more states are likely to pass them.”

*PAs, in contrast, are well behind NPs in achieving independence, but the American Academy of Physician Associates (AAPA) is calling to eliminate a mandated relationship with a specific physician. So far, Utah, North Dakota and Wyoming have ended physician supervision of PAs, while California and Hawaii have eliminated mandated chart review. Other states are considering eliminating physician supervision of PAs, according to the AAPA.

In states that have abolished oversight requirements for NPs, “liability can then shift to the NP when the NP is fully independent,” Cathy Klein, an advanced practice registered nurse who helped found the NP profession 50 years ago, told this news organization. “More NPs are starting their own practices, and in many cases, patients actually prefer to see an NP.”

As more NPs became more autonomous, the average payment that NPs incurred in professional liability lawsuits rose by 10.5% from 2017 to 2022, to $332,187, according to the Nurses Service Organization (NSO), a nursing malpractice insurer.

The number of malpractice judgments against autonomous NPs alone has also been rising. From 2012 to 2017, autonomous NPs’ share of all NP cases rose from 7% to 16.4%, the NSO reported.

The good news for physicians is that states’ removal of restrictions on NPs has reduced physicians’ liability to some extent. A 2017 study found that enacting less restrictive scope-of-practice laws for NPs decreased the number of payments made by physicians in NP cases by as much as 31%.

However, the top location for NP payouts remains the physician’s office, not the autonomous NP’s practice, according to the latter NSO report. Plaintiffs sue NPs’ and PAs’ supervising physicians on the basis of legal concepts, such as vicarious liability and respondeat superior. Even if the physician-employer never saw the patient, he or she can be held liable.

Court cases in which supervising physician was found liable

There are plenty of judgments against supervising or collaborating physicians when the NP or PA made the error. Typically, the doctor was faulted for paying little attention to the NP or PA he or she was supposed to supervise.

Dr. Sullivan points to a 2016 case in which a New York jury held a physician 40% liable for a $7 million judgment in a malpractice case involving a PA’s care of a patient in the emergency department. The case is Shajan v. South Nassau Community Hospital in New York.

“The patient presented with nontraumatic leg pain to his lower leg, was diagnosed by the PA with a muscle strain, and discharged without a physician evaluation,” Dr. Sullivan said. The next day, the patient visited an orthopedist who immediately diagnosed compartment syndrome, an emergent condition in which pressure builds up in an affected extremity, damaging the muscles and nerves. “The patient developed irreversible nerve damage and chronic regional pain syndrome,” he said.

A malpractice lawsuit named the PA and the emergency physician he was supposed to be reporting to. Even though the physician had never seen the patient, he had signed off on the PA’s note from a patient’s ED visit. “Testimony during the trial focused on hospital protocols that the supervising physician was supposed to take,” Dr. Sullivan said.

When doctors share fault, they frequently failed to follow the collaborative agreement with the NP or PA. In Collip v. Ratts, a 2015 Indiana case in which the patient died from a drug interaction, the doctor’s certified public accountant stated that the doctor was required to review at least 5% of the NP’s charts every week to evaluate her prescriptive practices.

The doctor admitted that he never reviewed the NP’s charts on a weekly basis. He did conduct some cursory reviews of some of the NP’s notes, and in them he noted concerns for her prescribing practices and suggested she attend a narcotics-prescribing seminar, but he did not follow up to make sure she had done this.

Sometimes the NP or PA who made the mistake may actually be dropped from the lawsuit, leaving the supervising physician fully liable. In these cases, courts reason that a fully engaged supervisor could have prevented the error. In the 2006 case of  Husak v. Siegal, the Florida Supreme Court dropped the NP from the case, ruling that the NP had provided the supervising doctor all the information he needed in order to tell her what to do for the patient.

The court noted the physician had failed to look at the chart, even though he was required to do so under his supervisory agreement with the NP. The doctor “could have made the correct diagnosis or referral had he been attentive,” the court said. Therefore, there was “no evidence of independent negligence” by the NP, even though she was the one who had made the incorrect diagnosis that harmed the patient.

When states require an autonomous NP to have a supervisory relationship with a doctor, the supervisor may be unavailable and may fail to designate a substitute. In Texas in January 2019, a 7-year-old girl died of pneumonia after being treated by an NP in an urgent care clinic. The NP had told the parents that the child could safely go home and only needed ibuprofen. The parents brought the girl back home, and she died 15 hours later. The Wattenbargers sued the NP, and the doctor’s supervision was a topic in the trial.

The supervising physician for the NP was out of the country at the time. He said that he had found a substitute, but the substitute doctor testified she had no idea she was designated to be the substitute, according to Niran Al-Agba, MD, a family physician in Silverdale, Wash., who has written on the Texas case. Dr. Al-Agba told this news organization the case appears to have been settled confidentially.
 

Different standards for expert witnesses

In many states, courts do not allow physicians to testify as expert witnesses in malpractice cases against NPs, arguing that nurses have a different set of standards than doctors have, Dr. Sullivan reported.

These states include Arkansas, Illinois, North Carolina, and New York, according to a report by SEAK Inc., an expert witness training program. The report said most other states allow physician experts in these cases, but they may still require that they have experience with the nursing standard of care.

Dr. Sullivan said some courts are whittling away at the ban on physician experts, and the ban may eventually disappear. He reported that in Oklahoma, which normally upholds the ban, a judge recently allowed a physician-expert to testify in a case involving the death of a 19-year-old woman, Alexus Ochoa, in an ED staffed by an NP. The judge reasoned that Ms. Ochoa’s parents assumed the ED was staffed by physicians and would adhere to medical standards.
 

Supervision pointers from a physician

Physicians who supervise NPs or PAs say it is important to keep track of their skills and help them sharpen their expertise. Their scope of practice and physicians’ supervisory responsibilities are included in the collaborative agreement.

Arthur Apolinario, MD, a family physician in Clinton, N.C., says his 10-physician practice, which employs six NPs and one PA, works under a collaborative agreement. “The agreement defines each person’s scope of practice. They can’t do certain procedures, such as surgery, and they need extra training before doing certain tasks alone, such as joint injection.

“You have to always figure that if there is a lawsuit against one of them, you as the supervising physician would be named,” said Dr. Apolinario, who is also president of the North Carolina Medical Society. “We try to avert mistakes by meeting regularly with our NPs and PAs and making sure they keep up to date.”
 

Collaborating with autonomous NPs

Even when NPs operate independently in states that have abolished supervision, physicians may still have some liability if they give NPs advice, Dr. Al-Agba said.

At her Washington state practice, Dr. Al-Agba shares an office with an autonomous NP. “We share overhead and a front desk, but we have separate patients,” Dr. Al-Agba said. “This arrangement works very well for both of us.”

The NP sometimes asks her for advice. When this occurs, Dr. Al-Agba said she always makes sure to see the patient first. “If you don’t actually see the patient, there could be a misunderstanding that could lead to an error,” she said.
 

Conclusion

Even though NPs now have autonomy in most states, supervising physicians may still be liable for NP malpractice by virtue of being their employers, and physicians in the remaining states are liable for NPs through state law and for PAs in virtually all the states. To determine the supervising physician’s fault, courts often study whether the physician has met the terms of the collaborative agreement.

Physicians can reduce collaborating NPs’ and PAs’ liability by properly training them, by verifying their scope of practice, by making themselves easily available for consultation, and by occasionally seeing their patients. If their NPs and PAs do commit malpractice, supervising physicians may be able to protect themselves from liability by adhering to all requirements of the collaborative agreement.

*Correction, 4/19/2023: An earlier version of this story misstated the name of the AAPA and the states that have ended physician supervision of PAs.

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

People who are physically active and on statins may have one less potential concern about the drugs. Despite their reputation for causing muscle injury, a study suggests statins won’t worsen the toll that sustained, moderately intensive exercise already takes on patients’ muscles.

Statin therapy in this prospective, controlled study wasn’t seen to aggravate normal muscle fatigue or pain from sustained exercise or adversely affect enzymes or other biomarkers associated with muscle injury.

The findings come from 100 individuals, of whom about two-thirds were on statins, participating in a public, 4-day, long-distance walking event held annually in the Netherlands. Results were published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology with Neeltje A.E. Allard, MD, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands, as lead author.

For all of statins’ common use in adults with cardiovascular (CV) risk factors, the drugs are often blamed for causing excessive muscle pain or injury as a side effect. Yet there is a predominance of evidence to the contrary based on meta-analyses and clinical trials, suggesting that the drugs are taking the rap for many entirely unrelated muscle symptoms.

The new findings, from people ranging widely in fitness levels, suggest that “exercise of moderate intensity is feasible and safe” in statin users, that the drugs won’t exacerbate normal muscle symptoms from exercise, Dr. Allard told this news organization.

And that exercise doesn’t have to be on an unusual scale. Regular exercise in statin users can simply be consistent with broader guidelines, say 30 minutes of walking per day, she noted.

The study has such broad applicability, Dr. Allard said, because participants represented the spectrum of the thousands who signed up for the walking event, who varied in age, level of physical fitness, and number of CV risk factors. They included CV patients, the physically fit, “recreational walkers who didn’t really exercise regularly,” and “habitual nonexercisers.”

It enrolled three groups of participants in the Four Days Marches in Nijmegen, which in a typical year attracts tens of thousands of participants who walk up to 30 km, 40 km, or 50 km per day for 4 consecutive days.

They included 35 statin users who walked the event despite muscle symptoms, 34 on statins but without such symptoms, and 31 non–statin-using controls. Their mean ages ranged from 65 to 68 years.

Statin users were overwhelmingly on simvastatin or atorvastatin. The average statin therapy durations were 60 months and 96 months for those with and without symptoms, respectively.

Assessments were performed several days before the event, at baseline, and after the end of walking on days 1, 2, and 3.

Scores for muscle pain on the Brief Pain Inventory were higher at baseline for the symptomatic-on-statins group (P < .001) compared with the other two groups, and went up (P < .001) similarly across the three groups during each of the 3 days, the report notes. Fatigue scores on the Brief Fatigue Inventory followed the same pattern.

All biomarkers of muscle injury or stress were at comparable levels at baseline in the three groups and went up similarly (P < .001) with no significant differences at the end of day 3. Biomarkers included lactate dehydrogenase, creatine kinase, myoglobin, cardiac troponin I, and N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide.

Statin-related reductions in levels of coenzyme Q 10 (CoQ10) have been thought to exacerbate muscle injury, the authors note. But levels of CoQ10 weren’t significantly different across the three groups at any point in the study, and they did not show any significant associations with measures of muscle injury, symptoms, or fatigue.

Patients with statin-associated muscle symptoms (SAMS) often limit physical activity because of muscle pain or weakness, but also “concerns that exercise will exacerbate muscle injury,” an accompanying editorial notes. “Therefore, exercise, a foundation of improving and maintaining cardiometabolic health, is often avoided or limited.”

But the current study, writes Robert S. Rosenson, MD, of Mount Sinai Heart, New York, indeed suggests that “many patients who develop SAMS may engage in a moderately intensive walking program without concern for worsened muscle biomarkers or performance.”

The exercise didn’t seem to improve muscle function in symptomatic statin users, compared with the other groups over the study’s very short follow-up, Dr. Rosenson observes. But “it remains uncertain from this study whether sustained exercise in SAMS patients will effectuate improved metabolic biomarkers or exercise capacity in the long term.”

Dr. Allard is supported by a grant from the Radboud Institute for Health Sciences; the other authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Rosenson disclosed receiving research funding to his institution from Amgen, Arrowhead, Lilly, Novartis, and Regeneron; consulting fees from Amgen, Arrowhead, Lilly, Lipigon, Novartis, CRISPR Therapeutics, Precision BioSciences, Verve, Ultragenyx Pharmaceutical, and Regeneron; speaking fees from Amgen, Kowa, and Regeneron; and royalties from Wolters Kluwer (UpToDate); and that he holds stock in MediMergent.

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

People who are physically active and on statins may have one less potential concern about the drugs. Despite their reputation for causing muscle injury, a study suggests statins won’t worsen the toll that sustained, moderately intensive exercise already takes on patients’ muscles.

Statin therapy in this prospective, controlled study wasn’t seen to aggravate normal muscle fatigue or pain from sustained exercise or adversely affect enzymes or other biomarkers associated with muscle injury.

The findings come from 100 individuals, of whom about two-thirds were on statins, participating in a public, 4-day, long-distance walking event held annually in the Netherlands. Results were published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology with Neeltje A.E. Allard, MD, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands, as lead author.

For all of statins’ common use in adults with cardiovascular (CV) risk factors, the drugs are often blamed for causing excessive muscle pain or injury as a side effect. Yet there is a predominance of evidence to the contrary based on meta-analyses and clinical trials, suggesting that the drugs are taking the rap for many entirely unrelated muscle symptoms.

The new findings, from people ranging widely in fitness levels, suggest that “exercise of moderate intensity is feasible and safe” in statin users, that the drugs won’t exacerbate normal muscle symptoms from exercise, Dr. Allard told this news organization.

And that exercise doesn’t have to be on an unusual scale. Regular exercise in statin users can simply be consistent with broader guidelines, say 30 minutes of walking per day, she noted.

The study has such broad applicability, Dr. Allard said, because participants represented the spectrum of the thousands who signed up for the walking event, who varied in age, level of physical fitness, and number of CV risk factors. They included CV patients, the physically fit, “recreational walkers who didn’t really exercise regularly,” and “habitual nonexercisers.”

It enrolled three groups of participants in the Four Days Marches in Nijmegen, which in a typical year attracts tens of thousands of participants who walk up to 30 km, 40 km, or 50 km per day for 4 consecutive days.

They included 35 statin users who walked the event despite muscle symptoms, 34 on statins but without such symptoms, and 31 non–statin-using controls. Their mean ages ranged from 65 to 68 years.

Statin users were overwhelmingly on simvastatin or atorvastatin. The average statin therapy durations were 60 months and 96 months for those with and without symptoms, respectively.

Assessments were performed several days before the event, at baseline, and after the end of walking on days 1, 2, and 3.

Scores for muscle pain on the Brief Pain Inventory were higher at baseline for the symptomatic-on-statins group (P < .001) compared with the other two groups, and went up (P < .001) similarly across the three groups during each of the 3 days, the report notes. Fatigue scores on the Brief Fatigue Inventory followed the same pattern.

All biomarkers of muscle injury or stress were at comparable levels at baseline in the three groups and went up similarly (P < .001) with no significant differences at the end of day 3. Biomarkers included lactate dehydrogenase, creatine kinase, myoglobin, cardiac troponin I, and N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide.

Statin-related reductions in levels of coenzyme Q 10 (CoQ10) have been thought to exacerbate muscle injury, the authors note. But levels of CoQ10 weren’t significantly different across the three groups at any point in the study, and they did not show any significant associations with measures of muscle injury, symptoms, or fatigue.

Patients with statin-associated muscle symptoms (SAMS) often limit physical activity because of muscle pain or weakness, but also “concerns that exercise will exacerbate muscle injury,” an accompanying editorial notes. “Therefore, exercise, a foundation of improving and maintaining cardiometabolic health, is often avoided or limited.”

But the current study, writes Robert S. Rosenson, MD, of Mount Sinai Heart, New York, indeed suggests that “many patients who develop SAMS may engage in a moderately intensive walking program without concern for worsened muscle biomarkers or performance.”

The exercise didn’t seem to improve muscle function in symptomatic statin users, compared with the other groups over the study’s very short follow-up, Dr. Rosenson observes. But “it remains uncertain from this study whether sustained exercise in SAMS patients will effectuate improved metabolic biomarkers or exercise capacity in the long term.”

Dr. Allard is supported by a grant from the Radboud Institute for Health Sciences; the other authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Rosenson disclosed receiving research funding to his institution from Amgen, Arrowhead, Lilly, Novartis, and Regeneron; consulting fees from Amgen, Arrowhead, Lilly, Lipigon, Novartis, CRISPR Therapeutics, Precision BioSciences, Verve, Ultragenyx Pharmaceutical, and Regeneron; speaking fees from Amgen, Kowa, and Regeneron; and royalties from Wolters Kluwer (UpToDate); and that he holds stock in MediMergent.

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

People who are physically active and on statins may have one less potential concern about the drugs. Despite their reputation for causing muscle injury, a study suggests statins won’t worsen the toll that sustained, moderately intensive exercise already takes on patients’ muscles.

Statin therapy in this prospective, controlled study wasn’t seen to aggravate normal muscle fatigue or pain from sustained exercise or adversely affect enzymes or other biomarkers associated with muscle injury.

The findings come from 100 individuals, of whom about two-thirds were on statins, participating in a public, 4-day, long-distance walking event held annually in the Netherlands. Results were published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology with Neeltje A.E. Allard, MD, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands, as lead author.

For all of statins’ common use in adults with cardiovascular (CV) risk factors, the drugs are often blamed for causing excessive muscle pain or injury as a side effect. Yet there is a predominance of evidence to the contrary based on meta-analyses and clinical trials, suggesting that the drugs are taking the rap for many entirely unrelated muscle symptoms.

The new findings, from people ranging widely in fitness levels, suggest that “exercise of moderate intensity is feasible and safe” in statin users, that the drugs won’t exacerbate normal muscle symptoms from exercise, Dr. Allard told this news organization.

And that exercise doesn’t have to be on an unusual scale. Regular exercise in statin users can simply be consistent with broader guidelines, say 30 minutes of walking per day, she noted.

The study has such broad applicability, Dr. Allard said, because participants represented the spectrum of the thousands who signed up for the walking event, who varied in age, level of physical fitness, and number of CV risk factors. They included CV patients, the physically fit, “recreational walkers who didn’t really exercise regularly,” and “habitual nonexercisers.”

It enrolled three groups of participants in the Four Days Marches in Nijmegen, which in a typical year attracts tens of thousands of participants who walk up to 30 km, 40 km, or 50 km per day for 4 consecutive days.

They included 35 statin users who walked the event despite muscle symptoms, 34 on statins but without such symptoms, and 31 non–statin-using controls. Their mean ages ranged from 65 to 68 years.

Statin users were overwhelmingly on simvastatin or atorvastatin. The average statin therapy durations were 60 months and 96 months for those with and without symptoms, respectively.

Assessments were performed several days before the event, at baseline, and after the end of walking on days 1, 2, and 3.

Scores for muscle pain on the Brief Pain Inventory were higher at baseline for the symptomatic-on-statins group (P < .001) compared with the other two groups, and went up (P < .001) similarly across the three groups during each of the 3 days, the report notes. Fatigue scores on the Brief Fatigue Inventory followed the same pattern.

All biomarkers of muscle injury or stress were at comparable levels at baseline in the three groups and went up similarly (P < .001) with no significant differences at the end of day 3. Biomarkers included lactate dehydrogenase, creatine kinase, myoglobin, cardiac troponin I, and N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide.

Statin-related reductions in levels of coenzyme Q 10 (CoQ10) have been thought to exacerbate muscle injury, the authors note. But levels of CoQ10 weren’t significantly different across the three groups at any point in the study, and they did not show any significant associations with measures of muscle injury, symptoms, or fatigue.

Patients with statin-associated muscle symptoms (SAMS) often limit physical activity because of muscle pain or weakness, but also “concerns that exercise will exacerbate muscle injury,” an accompanying editorial notes. “Therefore, exercise, a foundation of improving and maintaining cardiometabolic health, is often avoided or limited.”

But the current study, writes Robert S. Rosenson, MD, of Mount Sinai Heart, New York, indeed suggests that “many patients who develop SAMS may engage in a moderately intensive walking program without concern for worsened muscle biomarkers or performance.”

The exercise didn’t seem to improve muscle function in symptomatic statin users, compared with the other groups over the study’s very short follow-up, Dr. Rosenson observes. But “it remains uncertain from this study whether sustained exercise in SAMS patients will effectuate improved metabolic biomarkers or exercise capacity in the long term.”

Dr. Allard is supported by a grant from the Radboud Institute for Health Sciences; the other authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Rosenson disclosed receiving research funding to his institution from Amgen, Arrowhead, Lilly, Novartis, and Regeneron; consulting fees from Amgen, Arrowhead, Lilly, Lipigon, Novartis, CRISPR Therapeutics, Precision BioSciences, Verve, Ultragenyx Pharmaceutical, and Regeneron; speaking fees from Amgen, Kowa, and Regeneron; and royalties from Wolters Kluwer (UpToDate); and that he holds stock in MediMergent.

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

A high salt intake is an important risk factor for atherosclerosis, even in the absence of hypertension, a large study from Sweden concludes.

jirkaejc/Getty Images

The study, including more than 10,000 individuals between the ages of 50 and 64 years from the Swedish Cardiopulmonary bioImage Study, showed a significant link between dietary salt intake and the risk for atherosclerotic lesions in the coronary and carotid arteries, even in participants with normal blood pressure and without known cardiovascular disease.

The finding suggests that salt could be a damaging factor in its own right before the development of hypertension, the authors write. The results were published online in European Heart Journal Open.

It has been known for a long time that salt is linked to hypertension, but the role that salt plays in atherosclerosis has not been examined, first author Jonas Wuopio, MD, Karolinska Institutet, Huddinge, and Clinical Research Center, Falun, Uppsala University, both in Sweden, told this news organization.

“Hardly anyone looks at changes in the arteries’ calcification, the atherosclerotic plaques and the association with salt intake,” Dr. Wuopio said. “We had this exclusive data from our cohort, so we wanted to use it to close this knowledge gap.”

The analysis included 10,788 adults aged 50-64 years, (average age, 58 years; 52% women) who underwent a coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) scan. The estimated 24-hour sodium excretion was used to measure sodium intake.

CCTA was used to obtain 3-D images of the coronary arteries to measure the degree of coronary artery calcium as well as detect stenosis in the coronary arteries. Participants also had an ultrasound of the carotid arteries.

After adjusting for age, sex, and study site (the study was done at Uppsala and Malmö, Sweden), the researchers found that rising salt consumption was linked with increasing atherosclerosis in a linear fashion in both the coronary and carotid arteries.

Each 1,000 mg rise in sodium excretion was associated with a 9% increased occurrence of carotid plaque (odds ratio, 1.09; P < .001; confidence interval, 1.06-1.12), a higher coronary artery calcium score (OR, 1.16; P < .001; CI, 1.12-1.19), and a 17% increased occurrence of coronary artery stenosis (OR, 1.17; P < .001; CI, 1.13-1.20).

The association was abolished, though, after adjusting for blood pressure, they note. Their “interpretation is that the increase in blood pressure from sodium intake, even below the level that currently defines arterial hypertension, is an important factor that mediates the interplay between salt intake and the atherosclerotic process,” they write. “As we observed an association in individuals with normal blood pressure, one possible explanation for these findings is that the detrimental pathological processes begin already prior to the development of hypertension,” they note, although they caution that no causal relationships can be gleaned from this cross-sectional study.

They also reported no sign of a “J-curve”; participants with the lowest levels of sodium excretion had the lowest occurrence of both coronary and carotid atherosclerosis, which contradicts findings in some studies that found very low sodium linked to increased cardiovascular disease–related events.

“There have been some controversies among researchers regarding very low intake, where some say very low salt intake can increase the risk of cardiovascular disease, but we could not find this in this study,” Dr. Wuopio said.

“Our study is confirming that excess salt is not a good thing, but the fact that it is linked to atherosclerosis, even in the absence of hypertension, was a bit of a surprise,” he said.

“I will be telling my patients to follow the advice given by the World Health Organization and other medical societies, to limit your intake of salt to approximately 1 teaspoon, even if your blood pressure is normal.”


 

Time to scrutinize salt’s role in atherosclerosis

In an accompanying editorial, Maciej Banach, MD, Medical University of Lodz, and Stanislaw Surma, MD, Faculty of Medical Sciences in Katowice, both in Poland, write that excessive dietary salt intake is a well-documented cardiovascular risk factor, and that the association is explained in most studies by increased blood pressure.

“We should look more extensively on the role of dietary salt, as it affects many pathological mechanisms, by which, especially with the coexistence of other risk factors, atherosclerosis may progress very fast,” they write.

“The results of the study shed new light on the direct relationship between excessive dietary salt intake and the risk of ASCVD [atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease], indicating that salt intake might be a risk factor for atherosclerosis even prior to the development of hypertension,” they conclude.
 

Confirmatory and novel

“Nobody questions the fact that high blood pressure is a powerful risk factor for atherosclerotic disease, but not all studies have suggested that, at least at significantly higher levels of sodium intake, that high salt intake tracks with risk for atherosclerotic disease,” Alon Gitig, MD, assistant professor and director of cardiology, Mount Sinai Doctors-Westchester, Yonkers, New York, told this news organization.

Most of the studies of salt intake in the diet are based on patient self-reports via food frequency questionnaires, which can give a general idea of salt intake, but are often not totally accurate, Dr. Gitig said.

“Here, they measured sodium in the urine and estimated the 24-hour salt intake from that, which is slightly novel,” he said.

Everybody knows that high blood pressure is associated with future cardiovascular disease risk, but what many don’t realize is that that risk starts to increase slightly but significantly above a blood pressure that is already in the range of 115 mm Hg/75 mm Hg, he said.

“The lower you can get your blood pressure down, to around 115-120, the lower your risk for cardiovascular disease,” Dr. Gitig said.

It is possible for most people to lower blood pressure through attention to diet, restricting sodium, performing cardio and weight training exercises, and maintaining a healthy weight, he said.

An example of a cardiovascular health diet is the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) diet.

“The DASH diet, consisting of 9 servings of fruits and vegetables a day with few refined carbs, flour and sugar, has been shown in a randomized trial to dramatically reduce blood pressure. There are two reasons for that. One is that the fruits and vegetables have many phytonutrients that are good for arteries. The other is that a large proportion of U.S. adults have insulin resistance, which leads to high blood pressure.  

“The more fruits and vegetables and healthy animal products, and less sugar and flour, the more you are going to improve your insulin resistance, so you can bring your blood pressure down that way,” Dr. Gitig said.

The study was funded by the Swedish Heart-Lung Foundation, the Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation, the Swedish Research Council and Vinnova (Sweden’s Innovation agency), the University of Gothenburg and Sahlgrenska University Hospital, the Karolinska Institutet and Stockholm County Council, the Linköping University and University Hospital, the Lund University and Skane University Hospital, the Umea University and University Hospital, and the Uppsala University and University Hospital. Dr. Wuopio and Dr. Gitig report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Banach reports financial relationships with Adamed, Amgen, Daichii Sankyo, Esperion, KrKa, NewAmsterdam, Polpharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Teva, Viatris, and CMDO at Longevity Group (LU). Dr. Surma reports a financial relationship with Sanofi and Novartis.

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

A high salt intake is an important risk factor for atherosclerosis, even in the absence of hypertension, a large study from Sweden concludes.

jirkaejc/Getty Images

The study, including more than 10,000 individuals between the ages of 50 and 64 years from the Swedish Cardiopulmonary bioImage Study, showed a significant link between dietary salt intake and the risk for atherosclerotic lesions in the coronary and carotid arteries, even in participants with normal blood pressure and without known cardiovascular disease.

The finding suggests that salt could be a damaging factor in its own right before the development of hypertension, the authors write. The results were published online in European Heart Journal Open.

It has been known for a long time that salt is linked to hypertension, but the role that salt plays in atherosclerosis has not been examined, first author Jonas Wuopio, MD, Karolinska Institutet, Huddinge, and Clinical Research Center, Falun, Uppsala University, both in Sweden, told this news organization.

“Hardly anyone looks at changes in the arteries’ calcification, the atherosclerotic plaques and the association with salt intake,” Dr. Wuopio said. “We had this exclusive data from our cohort, so we wanted to use it to close this knowledge gap.”

The analysis included 10,788 adults aged 50-64 years, (average age, 58 years; 52% women) who underwent a coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) scan. The estimated 24-hour sodium excretion was used to measure sodium intake.

CCTA was used to obtain 3-D images of the coronary arteries to measure the degree of coronary artery calcium as well as detect stenosis in the coronary arteries. Participants also had an ultrasound of the carotid arteries.

After adjusting for age, sex, and study site (the study was done at Uppsala and Malmö, Sweden), the researchers found that rising salt consumption was linked with increasing atherosclerosis in a linear fashion in both the coronary and carotid arteries.

Each 1,000 mg rise in sodium excretion was associated with a 9% increased occurrence of carotid plaque (odds ratio, 1.09; P < .001; confidence interval, 1.06-1.12), a higher coronary artery calcium score (OR, 1.16; P < .001; CI, 1.12-1.19), and a 17% increased occurrence of coronary artery stenosis (OR, 1.17; P < .001; CI, 1.13-1.20).

The association was abolished, though, after adjusting for blood pressure, they note. Their “interpretation is that the increase in blood pressure from sodium intake, even below the level that currently defines arterial hypertension, is an important factor that mediates the interplay between salt intake and the atherosclerotic process,” they write. “As we observed an association in individuals with normal blood pressure, one possible explanation for these findings is that the detrimental pathological processes begin already prior to the development of hypertension,” they note, although they caution that no causal relationships can be gleaned from this cross-sectional study.

They also reported no sign of a “J-curve”; participants with the lowest levels of sodium excretion had the lowest occurrence of both coronary and carotid atherosclerosis, which contradicts findings in some studies that found very low sodium linked to increased cardiovascular disease–related events.

“There have been some controversies among researchers regarding very low intake, where some say very low salt intake can increase the risk of cardiovascular disease, but we could not find this in this study,” Dr. Wuopio said.

“Our study is confirming that excess salt is not a good thing, but the fact that it is linked to atherosclerosis, even in the absence of hypertension, was a bit of a surprise,” he said.

“I will be telling my patients to follow the advice given by the World Health Organization and other medical societies, to limit your intake of salt to approximately 1 teaspoon, even if your blood pressure is normal.”


 

Time to scrutinize salt’s role in atherosclerosis

In an accompanying editorial, Maciej Banach, MD, Medical University of Lodz, and Stanislaw Surma, MD, Faculty of Medical Sciences in Katowice, both in Poland, write that excessive dietary salt intake is a well-documented cardiovascular risk factor, and that the association is explained in most studies by increased blood pressure.

“We should look more extensively on the role of dietary salt, as it affects many pathological mechanisms, by which, especially with the coexistence of other risk factors, atherosclerosis may progress very fast,” they write.

“The results of the study shed new light on the direct relationship between excessive dietary salt intake and the risk of ASCVD [atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease], indicating that salt intake might be a risk factor for atherosclerosis even prior to the development of hypertension,” they conclude.
 

Confirmatory and novel

“Nobody questions the fact that high blood pressure is a powerful risk factor for atherosclerotic disease, but not all studies have suggested that, at least at significantly higher levels of sodium intake, that high salt intake tracks with risk for atherosclerotic disease,” Alon Gitig, MD, assistant professor and director of cardiology, Mount Sinai Doctors-Westchester, Yonkers, New York, told this news organization.

Most of the studies of salt intake in the diet are based on patient self-reports via food frequency questionnaires, which can give a general idea of salt intake, but are often not totally accurate, Dr. Gitig said.

“Here, they measured sodium in the urine and estimated the 24-hour salt intake from that, which is slightly novel,” he said.

Everybody knows that high blood pressure is associated with future cardiovascular disease risk, but what many don’t realize is that that risk starts to increase slightly but significantly above a blood pressure that is already in the range of 115 mm Hg/75 mm Hg, he said.

“The lower you can get your blood pressure down, to around 115-120, the lower your risk for cardiovascular disease,” Dr. Gitig said.

It is possible for most people to lower blood pressure through attention to diet, restricting sodium, performing cardio and weight training exercises, and maintaining a healthy weight, he said.

An example of a cardiovascular health diet is the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) diet.

“The DASH diet, consisting of 9 servings of fruits and vegetables a day with few refined carbs, flour and sugar, has been shown in a randomized trial to dramatically reduce blood pressure. There are two reasons for that. One is that the fruits and vegetables have many phytonutrients that are good for arteries. The other is that a large proportion of U.S. adults have insulin resistance, which leads to high blood pressure.  

“The more fruits and vegetables and healthy animal products, and less sugar and flour, the more you are going to improve your insulin resistance, so you can bring your blood pressure down that way,” Dr. Gitig said.

The study was funded by the Swedish Heart-Lung Foundation, the Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation, the Swedish Research Council and Vinnova (Sweden’s Innovation agency), the University of Gothenburg and Sahlgrenska University Hospital, the Karolinska Institutet and Stockholm County Council, the Linköping University and University Hospital, the Lund University and Skane University Hospital, the Umea University and University Hospital, and the Uppsala University and University Hospital. Dr. Wuopio and Dr. Gitig report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Banach reports financial relationships with Adamed, Amgen, Daichii Sankyo, Esperion, KrKa, NewAmsterdam, Polpharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Teva, Viatris, and CMDO at Longevity Group (LU). Dr. Surma reports a financial relationship with Sanofi and Novartis.

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

A high salt intake is an important risk factor for atherosclerosis, even in the absence of hypertension, a large study from Sweden concludes.

jirkaejc/Getty Images

The study, including more than 10,000 individuals between the ages of 50 and 64 years from the Swedish Cardiopulmonary bioImage Study, showed a significant link between dietary salt intake and the risk for atherosclerotic lesions in the coronary and carotid arteries, even in participants with normal blood pressure and without known cardiovascular disease.

The finding suggests that salt could be a damaging factor in its own right before the development of hypertension, the authors write. The results were published online in European Heart Journal Open.

It has been known for a long time that salt is linked to hypertension, but the role that salt plays in atherosclerosis has not been examined, first author Jonas Wuopio, MD, Karolinska Institutet, Huddinge, and Clinical Research Center, Falun, Uppsala University, both in Sweden, told this news organization.

“Hardly anyone looks at changes in the arteries’ calcification, the atherosclerotic plaques and the association with salt intake,” Dr. Wuopio said. “We had this exclusive data from our cohort, so we wanted to use it to close this knowledge gap.”

The analysis included 10,788 adults aged 50-64 years, (average age, 58 years; 52% women) who underwent a coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) scan. The estimated 24-hour sodium excretion was used to measure sodium intake.

CCTA was used to obtain 3-D images of the coronary arteries to measure the degree of coronary artery calcium as well as detect stenosis in the coronary arteries. Participants also had an ultrasound of the carotid arteries.

After adjusting for age, sex, and study site (the study was done at Uppsala and Malmö, Sweden), the researchers found that rising salt consumption was linked with increasing atherosclerosis in a linear fashion in both the coronary and carotid arteries.

Each 1,000 mg rise in sodium excretion was associated with a 9% increased occurrence of carotid plaque (odds ratio, 1.09; P < .001; confidence interval, 1.06-1.12), a higher coronary artery calcium score (OR, 1.16; P < .001; CI, 1.12-1.19), and a 17% increased occurrence of coronary artery stenosis (OR, 1.17; P < .001; CI, 1.13-1.20).

The association was abolished, though, after adjusting for blood pressure, they note. Their “interpretation is that the increase in blood pressure from sodium intake, even below the level that currently defines arterial hypertension, is an important factor that mediates the interplay between salt intake and the atherosclerotic process,” they write. “As we observed an association in individuals with normal blood pressure, one possible explanation for these findings is that the detrimental pathological processes begin already prior to the development of hypertension,” they note, although they caution that no causal relationships can be gleaned from this cross-sectional study.

They also reported no sign of a “J-curve”; participants with the lowest levels of sodium excretion had the lowest occurrence of both coronary and carotid atherosclerosis, which contradicts findings in some studies that found very low sodium linked to increased cardiovascular disease–related events.

“There have been some controversies among researchers regarding very low intake, where some say very low salt intake can increase the risk of cardiovascular disease, but we could not find this in this study,” Dr. Wuopio said.

“Our study is confirming that excess salt is not a good thing, but the fact that it is linked to atherosclerosis, even in the absence of hypertension, was a bit of a surprise,” he said.

“I will be telling my patients to follow the advice given by the World Health Organization and other medical societies, to limit your intake of salt to approximately 1 teaspoon, even if your blood pressure is normal.”


 

Time to scrutinize salt’s role in atherosclerosis

In an accompanying editorial, Maciej Banach, MD, Medical University of Lodz, and Stanislaw Surma, MD, Faculty of Medical Sciences in Katowice, both in Poland, write that excessive dietary salt intake is a well-documented cardiovascular risk factor, and that the association is explained in most studies by increased blood pressure.

“We should look more extensively on the role of dietary salt, as it affects many pathological mechanisms, by which, especially with the coexistence of other risk factors, atherosclerosis may progress very fast,” they write.

“The results of the study shed new light on the direct relationship between excessive dietary salt intake and the risk of ASCVD [atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease], indicating that salt intake might be a risk factor for atherosclerosis even prior to the development of hypertension,” they conclude.
 

Confirmatory and novel

“Nobody questions the fact that high blood pressure is a powerful risk factor for atherosclerotic disease, but not all studies have suggested that, at least at significantly higher levels of sodium intake, that high salt intake tracks with risk for atherosclerotic disease,” Alon Gitig, MD, assistant professor and director of cardiology, Mount Sinai Doctors-Westchester, Yonkers, New York, told this news organization.

Most of the studies of salt intake in the diet are based on patient self-reports via food frequency questionnaires, which can give a general idea of salt intake, but are often not totally accurate, Dr. Gitig said.

“Here, they measured sodium in the urine and estimated the 24-hour salt intake from that, which is slightly novel,” he said.

Everybody knows that high blood pressure is associated with future cardiovascular disease risk, but what many don’t realize is that that risk starts to increase slightly but significantly above a blood pressure that is already in the range of 115 mm Hg/75 mm Hg, he said.

“The lower you can get your blood pressure down, to around 115-120, the lower your risk for cardiovascular disease,” Dr. Gitig said.

It is possible for most people to lower blood pressure through attention to diet, restricting sodium, performing cardio and weight training exercises, and maintaining a healthy weight, he said.

An example of a cardiovascular health diet is the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) diet.

“The DASH diet, consisting of 9 servings of fruits and vegetables a day with few refined carbs, flour and sugar, has been shown in a randomized trial to dramatically reduce blood pressure. There are two reasons for that. One is that the fruits and vegetables have many phytonutrients that are good for arteries. The other is that a large proportion of U.S. adults have insulin resistance, which leads to high blood pressure.  

“The more fruits and vegetables and healthy animal products, and less sugar and flour, the more you are going to improve your insulin resistance, so you can bring your blood pressure down that way,” Dr. Gitig said.

The study was funded by the Swedish Heart-Lung Foundation, the Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation, the Swedish Research Council and Vinnova (Sweden’s Innovation agency), the University of Gothenburg and Sahlgrenska University Hospital, the Karolinska Institutet and Stockholm County Council, the Linköping University and University Hospital, the Lund University and Skane University Hospital, the Umea University and University Hospital, and the Uppsala University and University Hospital. Dr. Wuopio and Dr. Gitig report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Banach reports financial relationships with Adamed, Amgen, Daichii Sankyo, Esperion, KrKa, NewAmsterdam, Polpharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Teva, Viatris, and CMDO at Longevity Group (LU). Dr. Surma reports a financial relationship with Sanofi and Novartis.

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

Incubators save the lives of many babies, but new data suggest that the ambient noise associated with the incubator experience could put babies’ hearing and language development skills at risk.

Previous studies have shown that the neonatal intensive care unit is a noisy environment, but specific data on levels of sound inside and outside incubators are limited, wrote Christoph Reuter, MA, a musicology professor at the University of Vienna, and colleagues.

“By the age of 3 years, deficits in language acquisition are detectable in nearly 50% of very preterm infants,” and high levels of NICU noise have been cited as possible contributors to this increased risk, the researchers say.

In a study published in Frontiers in Pediatrics, the researchers aimed to compare real-life NICU noise with previously reported levels to describe the sound characteristics and to identify resonance characteristics inside an incubator.

The study was conducted at the Pediatric Simulation Center at the Medical University of Vienna. The researchers placed a simulation mannequin with an ear microphone inside an incubator. They also placed microphones outside the incubator to collect measures of outside noise and activity involved in NICU care.

Data regarding sound were collected for 11 environmental noises and 12 incubator handlings using weighted and unweighted decibel levels. Specific environmental noises included starting the incubator engine; environmental noise with incubator off; environmental noise with incubator on; normal conversation; light conversation; laughter; telephone sounds; the infusion pump alarm; the monitor alarm (anomaly); the monitor alarm (emergency); and blood pressure measurement.

The 12 incubator handling noises included those associated with water flap, water pouring into the incubator, incubator doors opening properly, incubators doors closing properly, incubator doors closing improperly, hatch closing, hatch opening, incubator drawer, neighbor incubator doors closing (1.82 m distance), taking a stethoscope from the incubator wall, putting a stethoscope on the incubator, and suctioning tube. Noise from six levels of respiratory support was also measured.

The researchers reported that the incubator tended to dampen most sounds but also that some sounds resonated inside the incubator, which raised the interior noise level by as much as 28 decibels.

Most of the measures using both A-weighted decibels (dBA) and sound pressure level decibels (dBSPL) were above the 45-decibel level for neonatal sound exposure recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics. The measurements (dBA) versus unweighted (dBSPL) are limited in that they are designed to measure low levels of sound and therefore might underestimate proportions of high and low frequencies at stronger levels, the researchers acknowledge.

Overall, most measures were clustered in the 55-75 decibel range, although some sound levels for incubator handling, while below levels previously reported in the literature, reached approximately 100 decibels.

The noise involved inside the incubator was not perceived as loud by those working with the incubator, the researchers note.

As for resonance inside the incubator, the researchers measured a low-frequency main resonance of 97 Hz, but they write that this resonance can be hard to capture in weighted measurements. However, the resonance means that “noises from the outside sound more tonal inside the incubator, booming and muffled as well as less rough or noisy,” and sounds inside the incubator are similarly affected, the researchers say.

“Most of the noise situations described in this manuscript far exceed not only the recommendation of the AAP but also international guidelines provided by the World Health Organization and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,” which recommend, respectively, maximum dBA levels of 35 dBA and 45 dBA for daytime and 30 dBA and 35 dBA for night, the researchers indicate.

Potential long-term implications are that babies who spend time in the NICU are at risk for hearing impairment, which could lead to delays in language acquisition, they say.

The findings were limited by several factors, including the variance among the incubators, which prevents generalizability, the researchers note. Other limitations include the use of a simulation room rather than everyday conditions, in which the environmental sounds would likely be even louder.

However, the results provide insights into the specifics of incubator and NICU noise and suggest that sound be a consideration in the development and promotion of incubators to help protect the hearing of the infants inside them, the researchers conclude.
 

A generalist’s take

“This is an interesting study looking at the level and character of the sound experienced by preterm infants inside an incubator and how it may compare to sounds experienced within the mother’s womb,” said Tim Joos, MD, a Seattle-based clinician with a combination internal medicine/pediatrics practice, in an interview.

In society at large, “there has been more focus lately on the general environment and its effect on health, and this study is a unique take on this concept,” he said. “Although in general the incubators work to dampen external sounds, low-frequency sounds may actually resonate more inside the incubators, and taps on the outside or inside of the incubator itself are amplified within the incubator,” he noted. “It is sad but not surprising that the decibel levels experienced by the infants in the incubators exceed the recommended levels recommended by AAP.”

As for additional research, “it would be interesting to see the results of trials looking at various short- or long-term outcomes experienced by infants exposed to a lower-level noise compared to the current levels,” Dr. Joos told this news organization.
 

A neonatologist’s perspective

“As the field of neonatology advances, we are caring for an ever-growing number of extremely preterm infants,” said Caitlin M. Drumm, MD, of Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, Md., in an interview.

“These infants will spend the first few months of their lives within an incubator in the neonatal intensive care unit, so it is important to understand the potential long-term implications of environmental effects on these vulnerable patients,” she said.

“As in prior studies, it was not surprising that essentially every environmental, handling, or respiratory intervention led to noise levels higher than the limit recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics,” Dr. Drumm said. “What was surprising was just how high above the 45-dB recommended noise limit many environmental stimuli are. For example, the authors cite respiratory flow rates of 8 L/min or higher as risky for hearing health at 84.72 dBSPL, “ she said.

The key message for clinicians is to be aware of noise levels in the NICU, Dr. Drumm said. “Environmental stimuli as simple as putting a stethoscope on the incubator lead to noise levels well above the limit recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics. The entire NICU care team has a role to play in minimizing environmental sound hazards for our most critically ill patients.”

Looking ahead, “future research should focus on providing more information correlating neonatal environmental sound exposure to long-term hearing and neurodevelopmental outcomes,” she said.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Joos serves on the editorial advisory board of Pediatric News. Dr. Drumm has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Incubators save the lives of many babies, but new data suggest that the ambient noise associated with the incubator experience could put babies’ hearing and language development skills at risk.

Previous studies have shown that the neonatal intensive care unit is a noisy environment, but specific data on levels of sound inside and outside incubators are limited, wrote Christoph Reuter, MA, a musicology professor at the University of Vienna, and colleagues.

“By the age of 3 years, deficits in language acquisition are detectable in nearly 50% of very preterm infants,” and high levels of NICU noise have been cited as possible contributors to this increased risk, the researchers say.

In a study published in Frontiers in Pediatrics, the researchers aimed to compare real-life NICU noise with previously reported levels to describe the sound characteristics and to identify resonance characteristics inside an incubator.

The study was conducted at the Pediatric Simulation Center at the Medical University of Vienna. The researchers placed a simulation mannequin with an ear microphone inside an incubator. They also placed microphones outside the incubator to collect measures of outside noise and activity involved in NICU care.

Data regarding sound were collected for 11 environmental noises and 12 incubator handlings using weighted and unweighted decibel levels. Specific environmental noises included starting the incubator engine; environmental noise with incubator off; environmental noise with incubator on; normal conversation; light conversation; laughter; telephone sounds; the infusion pump alarm; the monitor alarm (anomaly); the monitor alarm (emergency); and blood pressure measurement.

The 12 incubator handling noises included those associated with water flap, water pouring into the incubator, incubator doors opening properly, incubators doors closing properly, incubator doors closing improperly, hatch closing, hatch opening, incubator drawer, neighbor incubator doors closing (1.82 m distance), taking a stethoscope from the incubator wall, putting a stethoscope on the incubator, and suctioning tube. Noise from six levels of respiratory support was also measured.

The researchers reported that the incubator tended to dampen most sounds but also that some sounds resonated inside the incubator, which raised the interior noise level by as much as 28 decibels.

Most of the measures using both A-weighted decibels (dBA) and sound pressure level decibels (dBSPL) were above the 45-decibel level for neonatal sound exposure recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics. The measurements (dBA) versus unweighted (dBSPL) are limited in that they are designed to measure low levels of sound and therefore might underestimate proportions of high and low frequencies at stronger levels, the researchers acknowledge.

Overall, most measures were clustered in the 55-75 decibel range, although some sound levels for incubator handling, while below levels previously reported in the literature, reached approximately 100 decibels.

The noise involved inside the incubator was not perceived as loud by those working with the incubator, the researchers note.

As for resonance inside the incubator, the researchers measured a low-frequency main resonance of 97 Hz, but they write that this resonance can be hard to capture in weighted measurements. However, the resonance means that “noises from the outside sound more tonal inside the incubator, booming and muffled as well as less rough or noisy,” and sounds inside the incubator are similarly affected, the researchers say.

“Most of the noise situations described in this manuscript far exceed not only the recommendation of the AAP but also international guidelines provided by the World Health Organization and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,” which recommend, respectively, maximum dBA levels of 35 dBA and 45 dBA for daytime and 30 dBA and 35 dBA for night, the researchers indicate.

Potential long-term implications are that babies who spend time in the NICU are at risk for hearing impairment, which could lead to delays in language acquisition, they say.

The findings were limited by several factors, including the variance among the incubators, which prevents generalizability, the researchers note. Other limitations include the use of a simulation room rather than everyday conditions, in which the environmental sounds would likely be even louder.

However, the results provide insights into the specifics of incubator and NICU noise and suggest that sound be a consideration in the development and promotion of incubators to help protect the hearing of the infants inside them, the researchers conclude.
 

A generalist’s take

“This is an interesting study looking at the level and character of the sound experienced by preterm infants inside an incubator and how it may compare to sounds experienced within the mother’s womb,” said Tim Joos, MD, a Seattle-based clinician with a combination internal medicine/pediatrics practice, in an interview.

In society at large, “there has been more focus lately on the general environment and its effect on health, and this study is a unique take on this concept,” he said. “Although in general the incubators work to dampen external sounds, low-frequency sounds may actually resonate more inside the incubators, and taps on the outside or inside of the incubator itself are amplified within the incubator,” he noted. “It is sad but not surprising that the decibel levels experienced by the infants in the incubators exceed the recommended levels recommended by AAP.”

As for additional research, “it would be interesting to see the results of trials looking at various short- or long-term outcomes experienced by infants exposed to a lower-level noise compared to the current levels,” Dr. Joos told this news organization.
 

A neonatologist’s perspective

“As the field of neonatology advances, we are caring for an ever-growing number of extremely preterm infants,” said Caitlin M. Drumm, MD, of Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, Md., in an interview.

“These infants will spend the first few months of their lives within an incubator in the neonatal intensive care unit, so it is important to understand the potential long-term implications of environmental effects on these vulnerable patients,” she said.

“As in prior studies, it was not surprising that essentially every environmental, handling, or respiratory intervention led to noise levels higher than the limit recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics,” Dr. Drumm said. “What was surprising was just how high above the 45-dB recommended noise limit many environmental stimuli are. For example, the authors cite respiratory flow rates of 8 L/min or higher as risky for hearing health at 84.72 dBSPL, “ she said.

The key message for clinicians is to be aware of noise levels in the NICU, Dr. Drumm said. “Environmental stimuli as simple as putting a stethoscope on the incubator lead to noise levels well above the limit recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics. The entire NICU care team has a role to play in minimizing environmental sound hazards for our most critically ill patients.”

Looking ahead, “future research should focus on providing more information correlating neonatal environmental sound exposure to long-term hearing and neurodevelopmental outcomes,” she said.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Joos serves on the editorial advisory board of Pediatric News. Dr. Drumm has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Incubators save the lives of many babies, but new data suggest that the ambient noise associated with the incubator experience could put babies’ hearing and language development skills at risk.

Previous studies have shown that the neonatal intensive care unit is a noisy environment, but specific data on levels of sound inside and outside incubators are limited, wrote Christoph Reuter, MA, a musicology professor at the University of Vienna, and colleagues.

“By the age of 3 years, deficits in language acquisition are detectable in nearly 50% of very preterm infants,” and high levels of NICU noise have been cited as possible contributors to this increased risk, the researchers say.

In a study published in Frontiers in Pediatrics, the researchers aimed to compare real-life NICU noise with previously reported levels to describe the sound characteristics and to identify resonance characteristics inside an incubator.

The study was conducted at the Pediatric Simulation Center at the Medical University of Vienna. The researchers placed a simulation mannequin with an ear microphone inside an incubator. They also placed microphones outside the incubator to collect measures of outside noise and activity involved in NICU care.

Data regarding sound were collected for 11 environmental noises and 12 incubator handlings using weighted and unweighted decibel levels. Specific environmental noises included starting the incubator engine; environmental noise with incubator off; environmental noise with incubator on; normal conversation; light conversation; laughter; telephone sounds; the infusion pump alarm; the monitor alarm (anomaly); the monitor alarm (emergency); and blood pressure measurement.

The 12 incubator handling noises included those associated with water flap, water pouring into the incubator, incubator doors opening properly, incubators doors closing properly, incubator doors closing improperly, hatch closing, hatch opening, incubator drawer, neighbor incubator doors closing (1.82 m distance), taking a stethoscope from the incubator wall, putting a stethoscope on the incubator, and suctioning tube. Noise from six levels of respiratory support was also measured.

The researchers reported that the incubator tended to dampen most sounds but also that some sounds resonated inside the incubator, which raised the interior noise level by as much as 28 decibels.

Most of the measures using both A-weighted decibels (dBA) and sound pressure level decibels (dBSPL) were above the 45-decibel level for neonatal sound exposure recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics. The measurements (dBA) versus unweighted (dBSPL) are limited in that they are designed to measure low levels of sound and therefore might underestimate proportions of high and low frequencies at stronger levels, the researchers acknowledge.

Overall, most measures were clustered in the 55-75 decibel range, although some sound levels for incubator handling, while below levels previously reported in the literature, reached approximately 100 decibels.

The noise involved inside the incubator was not perceived as loud by those working with the incubator, the researchers note.

As for resonance inside the incubator, the researchers measured a low-frequency main resonance of 97 Hz, but they write that this resonance can be hard to capture in weighted measurements. However, the resonance means that “noises from the outside sound more tonal inside the incubator, booming and muffled as well as less rough or noisy,” and sounds inside the incubator are similarly affected, the researchers say.

“Most of the noise situations described in this manuscript far exceed not only the recommendation of the AAP but also international guidelines provided by the World Health Organization and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,” which recommend, respectively, maximum dBA levels of 35 dBA and 45 dBA for daytime and 30 dBA and 35 dBA for night, the researchers indicate.

Potential long-term implications are that babies who spend time in the NICU are at risk for hearing impairment, which could lead to delays in language acquisition, they say.

The findings were limited by several factors, including the variance among the incubators, which prevents generalizability, the researchers note. Other limitations include the use of a simulation room rather than everyday conditions, in which the environmental sounds would likely be even louder.

However, the results provide insights into the specifics of incubator and NICU noise and suggest that sound be a consideration in the development and promotion of incubators to help protect the hearing of the infants inside them, the researchers conclude.
 

A generalist’s take

“This is an interesting study looking at the level and character of the sound experienced by preterm infants inside an incubator and how it may compare to sounds experienced within the mother’s womb,” said Tim Joos, MD, a Seattle-based clinician with a combination internal medicine/pediatrics practice, in an interview.

In society at large, “there has been more focus lately on the general environment and its effect on health, and this study is a unique take on this concept,” he said. “Although in general the incubators work to dampen external sounds, low-frequency sounds may actually resonate more inside the incubators, and taps on the outside or inside of the incubator itself are amplified within the incubator,” he noted. “It is sad but not surprising that the decibel levels experienced by the infants in the incubators exceed the recommended levels recommended by AAP.”

As for additional research, “it would be interesting to see the results of trials looking at various short- or long-term outcomes experienced by infants exposed to a lower-level noise compared to the current levels,” Dr. Joos told this news organization.
 

A neonatologist’s perspective

“As the field of neonatology advances, we are caring for an ever-growing number of extremely preterm infants,” said Caitlin M. Drumm, MD, of Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, Md., in an interview.

“These infants will spend the first few months of their lives within an incubator in the neonatal intensive care unit, so it is important to understand the potential long-term implications of environmental effects on these vulnerable patients,” she said.

“As in prior studies, it was not surprising that essentially every environmental, handling, or respiratory intervention led to noise levels higher than the limit recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics,” Dr. Drumm said. “What was surprising was just how high above the 45-dB recommended noise limit many environmental stimuli are. For example, the authors cite respiratory flow rates of 8 L/min or higher as risky for hearing health at 84.72 dBSPL, “ she said.

The key message for clinicians is to be aware of noise levels in the NICU, Dr. Drumm said. “Environmental stimuli as simple as putting a stethoscope on the incubator lead to noise levels well above the limit recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics. The entire NICU care team has a role to play in minimizing environmental sound hazards for our most critically ill patients.”

Looking ahead, “future research should focus on providing more information correlating neonatal environmental sound exposure to long-term hearing and neurodevelopmental outcomes,” she said.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Joos serves on the editorial advisory board of Pediatric News. Dr. Drumm has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Alpha-gal syndrome is an increasingly common cause of gastrointestinal issues that remains underrecognized by the medical community, according to an American Gastroenterological Association clinical practice update.

Although the allergic response is best known for a combination of anaphylaxis, skin changes, and gastrointestinal symptoms that occurs within hours of consuming mammalian-derived food products, health care providers should know that many patients experience gastrointestinal distress in the absence of other clinical signs, lead author Sarah K. McGill, MD, MSc, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and colleagues reported.

“It is important for gastroenterologists to be aware of this condition and to be capable of diagnosing and treating it in a timely manner,” the investigators wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

To this end, Dr. McGill and colleagues drafted the present clinical practice update, covering pathogenesis, clinical manifestations, diagnosis, and management.

“The allergy in alpha-gal syndrome is to galactose alpha-1,3-galactose, an oligosaccharide on the cells of all nonprimate mammals,” the investigators wrote. “Surprisingly, sensitization to alpha-gal, that is, the process by which human beings develop IgE antibodies to the sugar, is understood to occur after the bite of a tick or parasitic infection. In the United States, the Lone Star tick, an ectoparasite whose principal host is deer, is strongly implicated.”

Gastrointestinal focused clinical research is scarce, the investigators noted, citing two observational studies involving 375 patients positive for alpha-gal IgE. Almost half of these patients (40.7%) had gastrointestinal symptoms alone. Across the entire population, the most common gastrointestinal symptoms were abdominal pain (71%) and vomiting (22%). About three out of four patients reported improvement on an alpha-gal avoidance diet.

“Clinicians should consider alpha-gal syndrome in the differential diagnosis of patients with unexplained gastrointestinal symptoms of abdominal pain, diarrhea, nausea, and vomiting, particularly those who live or have lived in an alpha-gal–prevalent area,” the investigators wrote.

In the United States, these areas span the domain of the Lone Star tick, including most of the East Coast, the central Midwest, the South, and all of Texas. Overseas, alpha-gal syndrome has been reported in Japan, Australia, Western Europe, and South Africa.

Clinical suspicion should be increased in patients with a history of tick bite, engagement in outdoor activities, and awakening in the night with gastrointestinal distress (because of the delay between allergen ingestion and symptom onset). Workup should include serum testing for alpha-gal IgE antibodies, according to the update. Serum positivity alone, however, is not sufficient for diagnosis. Alpha-gal syndrome must be confirmed by symptom resolution or improvement upon adherence to an alpha-gal avoidance diet for at least a month.

“During this time, patients may want to avoid eating at restaurants, which can easily cross-contaminate food, and processed food, which may contain alpha-gal in additives,” Dr. McGill and colleagues wrote.

Patients with alpha-gal syndrome who accidentally consume alpha-gal should take 25-50 mg of diphenhydramine and ensure access to a self-injectable epinephrine if symptoms progress, particularly if respiratory compromise occurs, they added.

The coauthors are Jana G. Hasash, MD, and Thomas A. Platts-Mills, MD, PhD.

The investigators disclosed relationships with Olympus America, Exact Sciences, Guardant Health, Finch Therapeutics, and others.

Alpha-gal syndrome is an increasingly common cause of gastrointestinal issues that remains underrecognized by the medical community, according to an American Gastroenterological Association clinical practice update.

Although the allergic response is best known for a combination of anaphylaxis, skin changes, and gastrointestinal symptoms that occurs within hours of consuming mammalian-derived food products, health care providers should know that many patients experience gastrointestinal distress in the absence of other clinical signs, lead author Sarah K. McGill, MD, MSc, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and colleagues reported.

“It is important for gastroenterologists to be aware of this condition and to be capable of diagnosing and treating it in a timely manner,” the investigators wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

To this end, Dr. McGill and colleagues drafted the present clinical practice update, covering pathogenesis, clinical manifestations, diagnosis, and management.

“The allergy in alpha-gal syndrome is to galactose alpha-1,3-galactose, an oligosaccharide on the cells of all nonprimate mammals,” the investigators wrote. “Surprisingly, sensitization to alpha-gal, that is, the process by which human beings develop IgE antibodies to the sugar, is understood to occur after the bite of a tick or parasitic infection. In the United States, the Lone Star tick, an ectoparasite whose principal host is deer, is strongly implicated.”

Gastrointestinal focused clinical research is scarce, the investigators noted, citing two observational studies involving 375 patients positive for alpha-gal IgE. Almost half of these patients (40.7%) had gastrointestinal symptoms alone. Across the entire population, the most common gastrointestinal symptoms were abdominal pain (71%) and vomiting (22%). About three out of four patients reported improvement on an alpha-gal avoidance diet.

“Clinicians should consider alpha-gal syndrome in the differential diagnosis of patients with unexplained gastrointestinal symptoms of abdominal pain, diarrhea, nausea, and vomiting, particularly those who live or have lived in an alpha-gal–prevalent area,” the investigators wrote.

In the United States, these areas span the domain of the Lone Star tick, including most of the East Coast, the central Midwest, the South, and all of Texas. Overseas, alpha-gal syndrome has been reported in Japan, Australia, Western Europe, and South Africa.

Clinical suspicion should be increased in patients with a history of tick bite, engagement in outdoor activities, and awakening in the night with gastrointestinal distress (because of the delay between allergen ingestion and symptom onset). Workup should include serum testing for alpha-gal IgE antibodies, according to the update. Serum positivity alone, however, is not sufficient for diagnosis. Alpha-gal syndrome must be confirmed by symptom resolution or improvement upon adherence to an alpha-gal avoidance diet for at least a month.

“During this time, patients may want to avoid eating at restaurants, which can easily cross-contaminate food, and processed food, which may contain alpha-gal in additives,” Dr. McGill and colleagues wrote.

Patients with alpha-gal syndrome who accidentally consume alpha-gal should take 25-50 mg of diphenhydramine and ensure access to a self-injectable epinephrine if symptoms progress, particularly if respiratory compromise occurs, they added.

The coauthors are Jana G. Hasash, MD, and Thomas A. Platts-Mills, MD, PhD.

The investigators disclosed relationships with Olympus America, Exact Sciences, Guardant Health, Finch Therapeutics, and others.

Alpha-gal syndrome is an increasingly common cause of gastrointestinal issues that remains underrecognized by the medical community, according to an American Gastroenterological Association clinical practice update.

Although the allergic response is best known for a combination of anaphylaxis, skin changes, and gastrointestinal symptoms that occurs within hours of consuming mammalian-derived food products, health care providers should know that many patients experience gastrointestinal distress in the absence of other clinical signs, lead author Sarah K. McGill, MD, MSc, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and colleagues reported.

“It is important for gastroenterologists to be aware of this condition and to be capable of diagnosing and treating it in a timely manner,” the investigators wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

To this end, Dr. McGill and colleagues drafted the present clinical practice update, covering pathogenesis, clinical manifestations, diagnosis, and management.

“The allergy in alpha-gal syndrome is to galactose alpha-1,3-galactose, an oligosaccharide on the cells of all nonprimate mammals,” the investigators wrote. “Surprisingly, sensitization to alpha-gal, that is, the process by which human beings develop IgE antibodies to the sugar, is understood to occur after the bite of a tick or parasitic infection. In the United States, the Lone Star tick, an ectoparasite whose principal host is deer, is strongly implicated.”

Gastrointestinal focused clinical research is scarce, the investigators noted, citing two observational studies involving 375 patients positive for alpha-gal IgE. Almost half of these patients (40.7%) had gastrointestinal symptoms alone. Across the entire population, the most common gastrointestinal symptoms were abdominal pain (71%) and vomiting (22%). About three out of four patients reported improvement on an alpha-gal avoidance diet.

“Clinicians should consider alpha-gal syndrome in the differential diagnosis of patients with unexplained gastrointestinal symptoms of abdominal pain, diarrhea, nausea, and vomiting, particularly those who live or have lived in an alpha-gal–prevalent area,” the investigators wrote.

In the United States, these areas span the domain of the Lone Star tick, including most of the East Coast, the central Midwest, the South, and all of Texas. Overseas, alpha-gal syndrome has been reported in Japan, Australia, Western Europe, and South Africa.

Clinical suspicion should be increased in patients with a history of tick bite, engagement in outdoor activities, and awakening in the night with gastrointestinal distress (because of the delay between allergen ingestion and symptom onset). Workup should include serum testing for alpha-gal IgE antibodies, according to the update. Serum positivity alone, however, is not sufficient for diagnosis. Alpha-gal syndrome must be confirmed by symptom resolution or improvement upon adherence to an alpha-gal avoidance diet for at least a month.

“During this time, patients may want to avoid eating at restaurants, which can easily cross-contaminate food, and processed food, which may contain alpha-gal in additives,” Dr. McGill and colleagues wrote.

Patients with alpha-gal syndrome who accidentally consume alpha-gal should take 25-50 mg of diphenhydramine and ensure access to a self-injectable epinephrine if symptoms progress, particularly if respiratory compromise occurs, they added.

The coauthors are Jana G. Hasash, MD, and Thomas A. Platts-Mills, MD, PhD.

The investigators disclosed relationships with Olympus America, Exact Sciences, Guardant Health, Finch Therapeutics, and others.