Federal Practitioner

Welcome to Impact Factor, your weekly dose of commentary on a new medical study. I’m Dr F. Perry Wilson of the Yale School of Medicine.

As soon as the pandemic started, the search was on for a medication that could stave off infection, or at least the worst consequences of infection.

One that would be cheap to make, safe, easy to distribute, and, ideally, was already available. The search had a quest-like quality, like something from a fairy tale. Society, poisoned by COVID, would find the antidote out there, somewhere, if we looked hard enough.

You know the story. There were some pretty dramatic failures: hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin. There were some successes, like dexamethasone.

I’m not here today to tell you that the antidote has been found – no, it takes large randomized trials to figure that out. But I do want to tell you about a paper that, unlike so many that came before, lays out the argument for a potential COVID preventive so thoroughly and so rigorously, that it has convinced me that this little drug, ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) – you may know it as Actigall, used for an uncommon form of liver disease – may actually be useful to prevent COVID infection.

How do you make a case that an existing drug – UDCA, in this case – might be useful to prevent or treat COVID? In contrast to prior basic-science studies, like the original ivermectin study, which essentially took a bunch of cells and virus in a tube filled with varying concentrations of the antiparasitic agent, the authors of this paper appearing in Nature give us multiple, complementary lines of evidence. Let me walk you through it.

All good science starts with a biologically plausible hypothesis. In this case, the authors recognized that SARS-CoV-2, in all its variants, requires the presence of the ACE2 receptor on the surface of cells to bind.

Courtesy Innovative Genomics

Courtesy Nature

Courtesy Nature

Courtesy Nature

Courtesy Nature

Courtesy Dr. F. Perry Wilson

courtesy Nature

Courtesy Nature

F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE, is an associate professor of medicine and director of Yale’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator. He disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this video transcript first appeared on Medscape.com.

Welcome to Impact Factor, your weekly dose of commentary on a new medical study. I’m Dr F. Perry Wilson of the Yale School of Medicine.

As soon as the pandemic started, the search was on for a medication that could stave off infection, or at least the worst consequences of infection.

One that would be cheap to make, safe, easy to distribute, and, ideally, was already available. The search had a quest-like quality, like something from a fairy tale. Society, poisoned by COVID, would find the antidote out there, somewhere, if we looked hard enough.

You know the story. There were some pretty dramatic failures: hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin. There were some successes, like dexamethasone.

I’m not here today to tell you that the antidote has been found – no, it takes large randomized trials to figure that out. But I do want to tell you about a paper that, unlike so many that came before, lays out the argument for a potential COVID preventive so thoroughly and so rigorously, that it has convinced me that this little drug, ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) – you may know it as Actigall, used for an uncommon form of liver disease – may actually be useful to prevent COVID infection.

How do you make a case that an existing drug – UDCA, in this case – might be useful to prevent or treat COVID? In contrast to prior basic-science studies, like the original ivermectin study, which essentially took a bunch of cells and virus in a tube filled with varying concentrations of the antiparasitic agent, the authors of this paper appearing in Nature give us multiple, complementary lines of evidence. Let me walk you through it.

All good science starts with a biologically plausible hypothesis. In this case, the authors recognized that SARS-CoV-2, in all its variants, requires the presence of the ACE2 receptor on the surface of cells to bind.

Courtesy Innovative Genomics

Courtesy Nature

Courtesy Nature

Courtesy Nature

Courtesy Nature

Courtesy Dr. F. Perry Wilson

courtesy Nature

Courtesy Nature

F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE, is an associate professor of medicine and director of Yale’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator. He disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this video transcript first appeared on Medscape.com.

Welcome to Impact Factor, your weekly dose of commentary on a new medical study. I’m Dr F. Perry Wilson of the Yale School of Medicine.

As soon as the pandemic started, the search was on for a medication that could stave off infection, or at least the worst consequences of infection.

One that would be cheap to make, safe, easy to distribute, and, ideally, was already available. The search had a quest-like quality, like something from a fairy tale. Society, poisoned by COVID, would find the antidote out there, somewhere, if we looked hard enough.

You know the story. There were some pretty dramatic failures: hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin. There were some successes, like dexamethasone.

I’m not here today to tell you that the antidote has been found – no, it takes large randomized trials to figure that out. But I do want to tell you about a paper that, unlike so many that came before, lays out the argument for a potential COVID preventive so thoroughly and so rigorously, that it has convinced me that this little drug, ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) – you may know it as Actigall, used for an uncommon form of liver disease – may actually be useful to prevent COVID infection.

How do you make a case that an existing drug – UDCA, in this case – might be useful to prevent or treat COVID? In contrast to prior basic-science studies, like the original ivermectin study, which essentially took a bunch of cells and virus in a tube filled with varying concentrations of the antiparasitic agent, the authors of this paper appearing in Nature give us multiple, complementary lines of evidence. Let me walk you through it.

All good science starts with a biologically plausible hypothesis. In this case, the authors recognized that SARS-CoV-2, in all its variants, requires the presence of the ACE2 receptor on the surface of cells to bind.

Courtesy Innovative Genomics

Courtesy Nature

Courtesy Nature

Courtesy Nature

Courtesy Nature

Courtesy Dr. F. Perry Wilson

courtesy Nature

Courtesy Nature

F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE, is an associate professor of medicine and director of Yale’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator. He disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this video transcript first appeared on Medscape.com.

It’s time for my once-a-decade (more or less) list of resolutions. As long as you are pledging to turn over a new leaf at home, why not do it at the office as well?

I can’t presume to know what issues need addressing in your practice, but I do know the ones I get asked about most often, so I can offer some suggestions that might provide inspiration:

1. Keep your website up to date. Check it now, then make a note to check it regularly. Most people find their physicians online these days, and you don’t want them finding a year-old presentation with outdated photos, personnel, services, and rates. Keep your site current, or hire someone to do it for you.

2. Be an authoritative presence on social media. Like it or not, you should be on Facebook, Twitter (at least for now), Instagram, TikTok – wherever your patients congregate. Medical topics are popular search categories, and they are searching for expert advice. You are the expert. There is a ton of medical misinformation online, and it needs to be countered with accurate, factual data from bona fide experts.

8. Back up your data. Now is an excellent time to verify that the information on your office and personal computers is being backed up – locally and online – on a regular schedule. Don’t wait until something crashes.

9. Keep a closer eye on your office finances. Most physicians delegate the bookkeeping, and that’s fine. But ignoring the financial side completely creates an atmosphere that facilitates embezzlement. Set aside a couple of hours each month to review the books personally. And make sure your employees know you’re doing it.

10. Make sure your long-range financial planning is on track. I’ve said this before, but it can’t be repeated too often. Economic conditions change all the time. Once a year, you should sit down with your accountant and lawyer and make sure your investments are well-diversified and all other aspects of your finances – budgets, credit ratings, insurance coverage, tax situations, college savings, estate plans, retirement accounts – are in the best shape possible.

11. Pay down your debt. Another oldie but goodie. Debt can destroy the best laid retirement plans. If you carry significant debt, set up a plan to pay it off as soon as you can.

12. Take more vacations. Remember Eastern’s First Law: Your last words will NOT be, “I wish I had spent more time in the office.” If you’ve been working too much, this is the year to start spending more time enjoying your life, your friends and family, and the world. As John Lennon said, “Life is what happens to you while you’re busy making other plans.”

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

It’s time for my once-a-decade (more or less) list of resolutions. As long as you are pledging to turn over a new leaf at home, why not do it at the office as well?

I can’t presume to know what issues need addressing in your practice, but I do know the ones I get asked about most often, so I can offer some suggestions that might provide inspiration:

1. Keep your website up to date. Check it now, then make a note to check it regularly. Most people find their physicians online these days, and you don’t want them finding a year-old presentation with outdated photos, personnel, services, and rates. Keep your site current, or hire someone to do it for you.

2. Be an authoritative presence on social media. Like it or not, you should be on Facebook, Twitter (at least for now), Instagram, TikTok – wherever your patients congregate. Medical topics are popular search categories, and they are searching for expert advice. You are the expert. There is a ton of medical misinformation online, and it needs to be countered with accurate, factual data from bona fide experts.

8. Back up your data. Now is an excellent time to verify that the information on your office and personal computers is being backed up – locally and online – on a regular schedule. Don’t wait until something crashes.

9. Keep a closer eye on your office finances. Most physicians delegate the bookkeeping, and that’s fine. But ignoring the financial side completely creates an atmosphere that facilitates embezzlement. Set aside a couple of hours each month to review the books personally. And make sure your employees know you’re doing it.

10. Make sure your long-range financial planning is on track. I’ve said this before, but it can’t be repeated too often. Economic conditions change all the time. Once a year, you should sit down with your accountant and lawyer and make sure your investments are well-diversified and all other aspects of your finances – budgets, credit ratings, insurance coverage, tax situations, college savings, estate plans, retirement accounts – are in the best shape possible.

11. Pay down your debt. Another oldie but goodie. Debt can destroy the best laid retirement plans. If you carry significant debt, set up a plan to pay it off as soon as you can.

12. Take more vacations. Remember Eastern’s First Law: Your last words will NOT be, “I wish I had spent more time in the office.” If you’ve been working too much, this is the year to start spending more time enjoying your life, your friends and family, and the world. As John Lennon said, “Life is what happens to you while you’re busy making other plans.”

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

It’s time for my once-a-decade (more or less) list of resolutions. As long as you are pledging to turn over a new leaf at home, why not do it at the office as well?

I can’t presume to know what issues need addressing in your practice, but I do know the ones I get asked about most often, so I can offer some suggestions that might provide inspiration:

1. Keep your website up to date. Check it now, then make a note to check it regularly. Most people find their physicians online these days, and you don’t want them finding a year-old presentation with outdated photos, personnel, services, and rates. Keep your site current, or hire someone to do it for you.

2. Be an authoritative presence on social media. Like it or not, you should be on Facebook, Twitter (at least for now), Instagram, TikTok – wherever your patients congregate. Medical topics are popular search categories, and they are searching for expert advice. You are the expert. There is a ton of medical misinformation online, and it needs to be countered with accurate, factual data from bona fide experts.

8. Back up your data. Now is an excellent time to verify that the information on your office and personal computers is being backed up – locally and online – on a regular schedule. Don’t wait until something crashes.

9. Keep a closer eye on your office finances. Most physicians delegate the bookkeeping, and that’s fine. But ignoring the financial side completely creates an atmosphere that facilitates embezzlement. Set aside a couple of hours each month to review the books personally. And make sure your employees know you’re doing it.

10. Make sure your long-range financial planning is on track. I’ve said this before, but it can’t be repeated too often. Economic conditions change all the time. Once a year, you should sit down with your accountant and lawyer and make sure your investments are well-diversified and all other aspects of your finances – budgets, credit ratings, insurance coverage, tax situations, college savings, estate plans, retirement accounts – are in the best shape possible.

11. Pay down your debt. Another oldie but goodie. Debt can destroy the best laid retirement plans. If you carry significant debt, set up a plan to pay it off as soon as you can.

12. Take more vacations. Remember Eastern’s First Law: Your last words will NOT be, “I wish I had spent more time in the office.” If you’ve been working too much, this is the year to start spending more time enjoying your life, your friends and family, and the world. As John Lennon said, “Life is what happens to you while you’re busy making other plans.”

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

A new meta-analysis of 884 studies evaluating 27 different types of antioxidant supplements has suggested that some of these micronutrients – including omega-3 fatty acids, folic acid, and coenzyme Q10 – may produce significant cardiovascular benefits.

Other antioxidant supplements that showed some evidence of reducing cardiovascular risk were omega-6 fatty acids, L-arginine, L-citrulline, magnesium, zinc, alpha-lipoic acid, melatonin, catechin, curcumin, flavanol, genistein, and quercetin.

No effect was seen with vitamin C, vitamin D, vitamin E, or selenium, and beta-carotene supplementation was linked to an increase in all-cause mortality in the analysis.

The study is published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology and was also published online.

“Our systematic assessment and quantification of multiple differential effects of a wide variety of micronutrients and phytochemicals on cardiometabolic health indicate that an optimal nutritional strategy to promote cardiometabolic health will likely involve personalized combinations of these nutrients,” the authors, led by Peng An, PhD, China Agricultural University, Beijing, conclude.

“Identifying the optimal mixture of micronutrients is important, as not all are beneficial, and some may even have harmful effects,” senior author Simin Liu, MD, professor of epidemiology and medicine at Brown University, Providence, R.I., said in an American College of Cardiology press release.

“The micronutrients identified require further validation in large, high-quality interventional trials to establish clinical efficacy to determine their long-term balance of risks and benefits,” the authors add.
 

Experts cautious

Experts in the field of cardiovascular risk and preventative medicine have urged caution in interpreting these results.

JoAnn Manson, MD, chief of the division of preventive medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, told this news organization that she has concerns that some of the results in the meta-analysis may be inflated by publication bias and some are chance findings that haven’t been well replicated.

“Although this meta-analysis of micronutrients and cardiometabolic health was based on randomized clinical trials, the quality of randomized trials on this subject varies widely,” she noted.

“The study is informative, but the conclusions are only as good as the quality of the evidence. Some of the trials are limited by short duration, and included trials have a wide range of quality, dosing, inclusion criteria, imperfect blinding, and few of them focus on hard clinical events,” Dr. Manson said. “Also, with trials of this nature, the potential for publication bias warrants consideration, because many of the smaller trials with unfavorable or neutral results may remain unpublished or not even be submitted for publication.”   

However, she added, “despite these limitations, this is an important contribution to the literature on micronutrients and health – and goes a long way in separating the wheat from the chaff.”

Steve Nissen, MD, chief academic officer of the Heart Vascular and Thoracic Institute at the Cleveland Clinic, was more critical of the meta-analysis.

“This study does not make sense. Some of the ‘micronutrients’ in this meta-analysis have undergone thorough testing in large randomized clinical trials that showed different results. I am skeptical whether any of the purported benefits of these supplements would be confirmed in a high-quality randomized controlled trial,” he said.

Dr. Nissen added that many of the included studies are low in quality. “I must quote [renowned cardiologist, Dr.] Franz Messerli: ‘A meta-analysis is like making bouillabaisse. ... One rotten fish can spoil the broth.’ This type of analysis does not override high-quality large, randomized trials.”

In the JACC paper, the study investigators note that the American Heart Association now recommends dietary patterns, including the Mediterranean diet and DASH (the Dietary Approach to Stop Hypertension), as preventive or treatment approaches for cardiovascular disease. A common feature of these dietary patterns is that they are low in saturated fat and sodium and rich in micronutrients such as phytochemicals, unsaturated fatty acids, antioxidant vitamins, and minerals.

“To personalize cardiometabolic preventive and therapeutic dietary practices, it is of critical importance to have a comprehensive and in-depth understanding of the balance of benefits and risks associated with constituent micronutrients in diverse dietary patterns,” they note.

They therefore conducted the current systematic review and meta-analyses of all available randomized controlled trials investigating the effect of micronutrients with antioxidant properties on cardiovascular risk factors and events in diverse populations.

The meta-analysis included a total of 884 randomized trials evaluating 27 types of micronutrients among 883,627 participants.

Results showed that supplementation with n-3 fatty acids, n-6 fatty acids, L-arginine, L-citrulline, folic acid, magnesium, zinc, alpha-lipoic acid, coenzyme Q10, melatonin, catechin, curcumin, flavanol, genistein, and quercetin had “moderate-to high-quality evidence” for reducing cardiovascular risk factors.

Specifically, n-3 fatty acid supplementation was linked to reduced rates of cardiovascular mortality (relative risk, 0.93), myocardial infarction (RR, 0.85), and coronary heart disease events (RR, 0.86). Folic acid supplementation was linked to a decreased stroke risk (RR, 0.84) and coenzyme Q10 was associated with a lower rate of all-cause mortality (RR, 0.68).

“The current study represents the first attempt in providing a comprehensive and most up-to-date evidence map that systematically assessed the quality and quantity of all randomized trials linking the effects of a wide variety of micronutrients on cardiovascular risk factors,” the authors say.

“The comprehensive evidence map presented here highlights the importance of micronutrient diversity and the balance of benefits and risks in the design of whole food–based dietary patterns to promote cardiometabolic health, which may require cultural adaptations to apply globally,” they conclude.

Commenting on some of the specific beneficial findings, Dr. Manson said: “I do believe that the marine omega-3s confer heart benefits, but results are not consistent and vary by dose and formulation.”

However, she pointed out that, regarding folic acid, a previous meta-analysis including eight large randomized trials in more than 37,000 participants found no reduction in coronary events, stroke, or major cardiovascular events with folic acid supplementation, compared with placebo, “so the reported stroke benefit would need further confirmation.”

In an accompanying editorial, Juan Gormaz, PhD, University of Chile, and Rodrigo Carrasco, MD, Chilean Society of Cardiology and Cardiovascular Surgery, both in Santiago, state: “Given that the compounds with more pleiotropic properties produced the better outcomes, the antioxidant paradigm on cardiovascular prevention can be challenged. For example, inasmuch as n-3 fatty acids have antiplatelet and anti-inflammatory properties, they are too complex to enable attribution of the observed benefits solely to their antioxidant capacity.”

The editorialists note that from a research point of view, “although the current information opens interesting perspectives for future consolidation of some antioxidants in preventive cardiology, there is still a long way to go in terms of generating evidence.”

They add that the challenge now for some compounds is to begin establishing consensus in definitions of dose and combinations, as well as continue strengthening the evidence of effectiveness.

“Regarding routine clinical practice, these results begin to open spaces for the integration of new tools into the therapeutic arsenal aimed at cardiovascular prevention in selected populations, which could be easily accessible and, with specific exceptions, would present a low frequency of adverse effects,” they conclude.

This work was partly supported by the United States’ Fulbright Program and by the Beijing Advanced Innovation Center for Food Nutrition and Human Health, the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the Chinese Universities Scientific Fund, and the Beijing Municipal Natural Science Foundation.

Dr. Liu has received honoraria for scientific presentations or reviews at Johns Hopkins University, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Harvard University, University of Buffalo, Guangdong General Hospital, Fuwai Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, and the National Institutes of Health; he is a member of the Data Safety and Monitoring Board for several trials, including the SELECT (Semaglutide Effects on Cardiovascular Outcomes in People with Overweight or Obesity) trial sponsored by Novo Nordisk and a trial of pulmonary hypertension in diabetes patients sponsored by Massachusetts General Hospital; he has received royalties from UpToDate and has received an honorarium from the American Society for Nutrition for his duties as Associate Editor. Co-author Jeffrey Mechanick, MD, has received honoraria from Abbott Nutrition for lectures and serves on the advisory boards of Aveta.Life, L-Nutra, and Twin Health. The other authors report no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new meta-analysis of 884 studies evaluating 27 different types of antioxidant supplements has suggested that some of these micronutrients – including omega-3 fatty acids, folic acid, and coenzyme Q10 – may produce significant cardiovascular benefits.

Other antioxidant supplements that showed some evidence of reducing cardiovascular risk were omega-6 fatty acids, L-arginine, L-citrulline, magnesium, zinc, alpha-lipoic acid, melatonin, catechin, curcumin, flavanol, genistein, and quercetin.

No effect was seen with vitamin C, vitamin D, vitamin E, or selenium, and beta-carotene supplementation was linked to an increase in all-cause mortality in the analysis.

The study is published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology and was also published online.

“Our systematic assessment and quantification of multiple differential effects of a wide variety of micronutrients and phytochemicals on cardiometabolic health indicate that an optimal nutritional strategy to promote cardiometabolic health will likely involve personalized combinations of these nutrients,” the authors, led by Peng An, PhD, China Agricultural University, Beijing, conclude.

“Identifying the optimal mixture of micronutrients is important, as not all are beneficial, and some may even have harmful effects,” senior author Simin Liu, MD, professor of epidemiology and medicine at Brown University, Providence, R.I., said in an American College of Cardiology press release.

“The micronutrients identified require further validation in large, high-quality interventional trials to establish clinical efficacy to determine their long-term balance of risks and benefits,” the authors add.
 

Experts cautious

Experts in the field of cardiovascular risk and preventative medicine have urged caution in interpreting these results.

JoAnn Manson, MD, chief of the division of preventive medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, told this news organization that she has concerns that some of the results in the meta-analysis may be inflated by publication bias and some are chance findings that haven’t been well replicated.

“Although this meta-analysis of micronutrients and cardiometabolic health was based on randomized clinical trials, the quality of randomized trials on this subject varies widely,” she noted.

“The study is informative, but the conclusions are only as good as the quality of the evidence. Some of the trials are limited by short duration, and included trials have a wide range of quality, dosing, inclusion criteria, imperfect blinding, and few of them focus on hard clinical events,” Dr. Manson said. “Also, with trials of this nature, the potential for publication bias warrants consideration, because many of the smaller trials with unfavorable or neutral results may remain unpublished or not even be submitted for publication.”   

However, she added, “despite these limitations, this is an important contribution to the literature on micronutrients and health – and goes a long way in separating the wheat from the chaff.”

Steve Nissen, MD, chief academic officer of the Heart Vascular and Thoracic Institute at the Cleveland Clinic, was more critical of the meta-analysis.

“This study does not make sense. Some of the ‘micronutrients’ in this meta-analysis have undergone thorough testing in large randomized clinical trials that showed different results. I am skeptical whether any of the purported benefits of these supplements would be confirmed in a high-quality randomized controlled trial,” he said.

Dr. Nissen added that many of the included studies are low in quality. “I must quote [renowned cardiologist, Dr.] Franz Messerli: ‘A meta-analysis is like making bouillabaisse. ... One rotten fish can spoil the broth.’ This type of analysis does not override high-quality large, randomized trials.”

In the JACC paper, the study investigators note that the American Heart Association now recommends dietary patterns, including the Mediterranean diet and DASH (the Dietary Approach to Stop Hypertension), as preventive or treatment approaches for cardiovascular disease. A common feature of these dietary patterns is that they are low in saturated fat and sodium and rich in micronutrients such as phytochemicals, unsaturated fatty acids, antioxidant vitamins, and minerals.

“To personalize cardiometabolic preventive and therapeutic dietary practices, it is of critical importance to have a comprehensive and in-depth understanding of the balance of benefits and risks associated with constituent micronutrients in diverse dietary patterns,” they note.

They therefore conducted the current systematic review and meta-analyses of all available randomized controlled trials investigating the effect of micronutrients with antioxidant properties on cardiovascular risk factors and events in diverse populations.

The meta-analysis included a total of 884 randomized trials evaluating 27 types of micronutrients among 883,627 participants.

Results showed that supplementation with n-3 fatty acids, n-6 fatty acids, L-arginine, L-citrulline, folic acid, magnesium, zinc, alpha-lipoic acid, coenzyme Q10, melatonin, catechin, curcumin, flavanol, genistein, and quercetin had “moderate-to high-quality evidence” for reducing cardiovascular risk factors.

Specifically, n-3 fatty acid supplementation was linked to reduced rates of cardiovascular mortality (relative risk, 0.93), myocardial infarction (RR, 0.85), and coronary heart disease events (RR, 0.86). Folic acid supplementation was linked to a decreased stroke risk (RR, 0.84) and coenzyme Q10 was associated with a lower rate of all-cause mortality (RR, 0.68).

“The current study represents the first attempt in providing a comprehensive and most up-to-date evidence map that systematically assessed the quality and quantity of all randomized trials linking the effects of a wide variety of micronutrients on cardiovascular risk factors,” the authors say.

“The comprehensive evidence map presented here highlights the importance of micronutrient diversity and the balance of benefits and risks in the design of whole food–based dietary patterns to promote cardiometabolic health, which may require cultural adaptations to apply globally,” they conclude.

Commenting on some of the specific beneficial findings, Dr. Manson said: “I do believe that the marine omega-3s confer heart benefits, but results are not consistent and vary by dose and formulation.”

However, she pointed out that, regarding folic acid, a previous meta-analysis including eight large randomized trials in more than 37,000 participants found no reduction in coronary events, stroke, or major cardiovascular events with folic acid supplementation, compared with placebo, “so the reported stroke benefit would need further confirmation.”

In an accompanying editorial, Juan Gormaz, PhD, University of Chile, and Rodrigo Carrasco, MD, Chilean Society of Cardiology and Cardiovascular Surgery, both in Santiago, state: “Given that the compounds with more pleiotropic properties produced the better outcomes, the antioxidant paradigm on cardiovascular prevention can be challenged. For example, inasmuch as n-3 fatty acids have antiplatelet and anti-inflammatory properties, they are too complex to enable attribution of the observed benefits solely to their antioxidant capacity.”

The editorialists note that from a research point of view, “although the current information opens interesting perspectives for future consolidation of some antioxidants in preventive cardiology, there is still a long way to go in terms of generating evidence.”

They add that the challenge now for some compounds is to begin establishing consensus in definitions of dose and combinations, as well as continue strengthening the evidence of effectiveness.

“Regarding routine clinical practice, these results begin to open spaces for the integration of new tools into the therapeutic arsenal aimed at cardiovascular prevention in selected populations, which could be easily accessible and, with specific exceptions, would present a low frequency of adverse effects,” they conclude.

This work was partly supported by the United States’ Fulbright Program and by the Beijing Advanced Innovation Center for Food Nutrition and Human Health, the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the Chinese Universities Scientific Fund, and the Beijing Municipal Natural Science Foundation.

Dr. Liu has received honoraria for scientific presentations or reviews at Johns Hopkins University, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Harvard University, University of Buffalo, Guangdong General Hospital, Fuwai Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, and the National Institutes of Health; he is a member of the Data Safety and Monitoring Board for several trials, including the SELECT (Semaglutide Effects on Cardiovascular Outcomes in People with Overweight or Obesity) trial sponsored by Novo Nordisk and a trial of pulmonary hypertension in diabetes patients sponsored by Massachusetts General Hospital; he has received royalties from UpToDate and has received an honorarium from the American Society for Nutrition for his duties as Associate Editor. Co-author Jeffrey Mechanick, MD, has received honoraria from Abbott Nutrition for lectures and serves on the advisory boards of Aveta.Life, L-Nutra, and Twin Health. The other authors report no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new meta-analysis of 884 studies evaluating 27 different types of antioxidant supplements has suggested that some of these micronutrients – including omega-3 fatty acids, folic acid, and coenzyme Q10 – may produce significant cardiovascular benefits.

Other antioxidant supplements that showed some evidence of reducing cardiovascular risk were omega-6 fatty acids, L-arginine, L-citrulline, magnesium, zinc, alpha-lipoic acid, melatonin, catechin, curcumin, flavanol, genistein, and quercetin.

No effect was seen with vitamin C, vitamin D, vitamin E, or selenium, and beta-carotene supplementation was linked to an increase in all-cause mortality in the analysis.

The study is published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology and was also published online.

“Our systematic assessment and quantification of multiple differential effects of a wide variety of micronutrients and phytochemicals on cardiometabolic health indicate that an optimal nutritional strategy to promote cardiometabolic health will likely involve personalized combinations of these nutrients,” the authors, led by Peng An, PhD, China Agricultural University, Beijing, conclude.

“Identifying the optimal mixture of micronutrients is important, as not all are beneficial, and some may even have harmful effects,” senior author Simin Liu, MD, professor of epidemiology and medicine at Brown University, Providence, R.I., said in an American College of Cardiology press release.

“The micronutrients identified require further validation in large, high-quality interventional trials to establish clinical efficacy to determine their long-term balance of risks and benefits,” the authors add.
 

Experts cautious

Experts in the field of cardiovascular risk and preventative medicine have urged caution in interpreting these results.

JoAnn Manson, MD, chief of the division of preventive medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, told this news organization that she has concerns that some of the results in the meta-analysis may be inflated by publication bias and some are chance findings that haven’t been well replicated.

“Although this meta-analysis of micronutrients and cardiometabolic health was based on randomized clinical trials, the quality of randomized trials on this subject varies widely,” she noted.

“The study is informative, but the conclusions are only as good as the quality of the evidence. Some of the trials are limited by short duration, and included trials have a wide range of quality, dosing, inclusion criteria, imperfect blinding, and few of them focus on hard clinical events,” Dr. Manson said. “Also, with trials of this nature, the potential for publication bias warrants consideration, because many of the smaller trials with unfavorable or neutral results may remain unpublished or not even be submitted for publication.”   

However, she added, “despite these limitations, this is an important contribution to the literature on micronutrients and health – and goes a long way in separating the wheat from the chaff.”

Steve Nissen, MD, chief academic officer of the Heart Vascular and Thoracic Institute at the Cleveland Clinic, was more critical of the meta-analysis.

“This study does not make sense. Some of the ‘micronutrients’ in this meta-analysis have undergone thorough testing in large randomized clinical trials that showed different results. I am skeptical whether any of the purported benefits of these supplements would be confirmed in a high-quality randomized controlled trial,” he said.

Dr. Nissen added that many of the included studies are low in quality. “I must quote [renowned cardiologist, Dr.] Franz Messerli: ‘A meta-analysis is like making bouillabaisse. ... One rotten fish can spoil the broth.’ This type of analysis does not override high-quality large, randomized trials.”

In the JACC paper, the study investigators note that the American Heart Association now recommends dietary patterns, including the Mediterranean diet and DASH (the Dietary Approach to Stop Hypertension), as preventive or treatment approaches for cardiovascular disease. A common feature of these dietary patterns is that they are low in saturated fat and sodium and rich in micronutrients such as phytochemicals, unsaturated fatty acids, antioxidant vitamins, and minerals.

“To personalize cardiometabolic preventive and therapeutic dietary practices, it is of critical importance to have a comprehensive and in-depth understanding of the balance of benefits and risks associated with constituent micronutrients in diverse dietary patterns,” they note.

They therefore conducted the current systematic review and meta-analyses of all available randomized controlled trials investigating the effect of micronutrients with antioxidant properties on cardiovascular risk factors and events in diverse populations.

The meta-analysis included a total of 884 randomized trials evaluating 27 types of micronutrients among 883,627 participants.

Results showed that supplementation with n-3 fatty acids, n-6 fatty acids, L-arginine, L-citrulline, folic acid, magnesium, zinc, alpha-lipoic acid, coenzyme Q10, melatonin, catechin, curcumin, flavanol, genistein, and quercetin had “moderate-to high-quality evidence” for reducing cardiovascular risk factors.

Specifically, n-3 fatty acid supplementation was linked to reduced rates of cardiovascular mortality (relative risk, 0.93), myocardial infarction (RR, 0.85), and coronary heart disease events (RR, 0.86). Folic acid supplementation was linked to a decreased stroke risk (RR, 0.84) and coenzyme Q10 was associated with a lower rate of all-cause mortality (RR, 0.68).

“The current study represents the first attempt in providing a comprehensive and most up-to-date evidence map that systematically assessed the quality and quantity of all randomized trials linking the effects of a wide variety of micronutrients on cardiovascular risk factors,” the authors say.

“The comprehensive evidence map presented here highlights the importance of micronutrient diversity and the balance of benefits and risks in the design of whole food–based dietary patterns to promote cardiometabolic health, which may require cultural adaptations to apply globally,” they conclude.

Commenting on some of the specific beneficial findings, Dr. Manson said: “I do believe that the marine omega-3s confer heart benefits, but results are not consistent and vary by dose and formulation.”

However, she pointed out that, regarding folic acid, a previous meta-analysis including eight large randomized trials in more than 37,000 participants found no reduction in coronary events, stroke, or major cardiovascular events with folic acid supplementation, compared with placebo, “so the reported stroke benefit would need further confirmation.”

In an accompanying editorial, Juan Gormaz, PhD, University of Chile, and Rodrigo Carrasco, MD, Chilean Society of Cardiology and Cardiovascular Surgery, both in Santiago, state: “Given that the compounds with more pleiotropic properties produced the better outcomes, the antioxidant paradigm on cardiovascular prevention can be challenged. For example, inasmuch as n-3 fatty acids have antiplatelet and anti-inflammatory properties, they are too complex to enable attribution of the observed benefits solely to their antioxidant capacity.”

The editorialists note that from a research point of view, “although the current information opens interesting perspectives for future consolidation of some antioxidants in preventive cardiology, there is still a long way to go in terms of generating evidence.”

They add that the challenge now for some compounds is to begin establishing consensus in definitions of dose and combinations, as well as continue strengthening the evidence of effectiveness.

“Regarding routine clinical practice, these results begin to open spaces for the integration of new tools into the therapeutic arsenal aimed at cardiovascular prevention in selected populations, which could be easily accessible and, with specific exceptions, would present a low frequency of adverse effects,” they conclude.

This work was partly supported by the United States’ Fulbright Program and by the Beijing Advanced Innovation Center for Food Nutrition and Human Health, the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the Chinese Universities Scientific Fund, and the Beijing Municipal Natural Science Foundation.

Dr. Liu has received honoraria for scientific presentations or reviews at Johns Hopkins University, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Harvard University, University of Buffalo, Guangdong General Hospital, Fuwai Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, and the National Institutes of Health; he is a member of the Data Safety and Monitoring Board for several trials, including the SELECT (Semaglutide Effects on Cardiovascular Outcomes in People with Overweight or Obesity) trial sponsored by Novo Nordisk and a trial of pulmonary hypertension in diabetes patients sponsored by Massachusetts General Hospital; he has received royalties from UpToDate and has received an honorarium from the American Society for Nutrition for his duties as Associate Editor. Co-author Jeffrey Mechanick, MD, has received honoraria from Abbott Nutrition for lectures and serves on the advisory boards of Aveta.Life, L-Nutra, and Twin Health. The other authors report no relevant financial relationships.

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

New research supports the benefit of maintaining a diet low in ultraprocessed foods (UPFs) to protect the aging brain.

Results from the Brazilian Longitudinal Study of Adult Health (ELSA-Brasil), which included more than 10,000 people aged 35 and older, showed that higher intake of UPF was significantly associated with a faster rate of decline in executive and global cognitive function.

“These findings show that lifestyle choices, particularly high intake of ultraprocessed foods, can influence our cognitive health many years later,” coinvestigator Natalia Goncalves, PhD, University of São Paulo, Brazil, said in an interview.

The study was published online in JAMA Neurology.

The study’s findings were presented in August at the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference (AAIC) 2022 and were reported by this news organization at that time.
 

High sugar, salt, fat

The new results align with another recent study linking a diet high in UPFs to an increased risk for dementia.

UPFs are highly manipulated, are packed with added ingredients, including sugar, fat, and salt, and are low in protein and fiber. Examples of UPFs are soft drinks, chips, chocolate, candy, ice cream, sweetened breakfast cereals, packaged soups, chicken nuggets, hot dogs, and fries.

The ELSA-Brasil study comprised 10,775 adults (mean age, 50.6 years at baseline; 55% women; 53% White) who were evaluated in three waves approximately 4 years apart from 2008 to 2017.

Information on diet was obtained via food frequency questionnaires and included details regarding consumption of unprocessed foods, minimally processed foods, and UPFs.

Participants were grouped according to UPF consumption quartiles (lowest to highest). Cognitive performance was evaluated by use of a standardized battery of tests.

During median follow-up of 8 years, people who consumed more than 20% of daily calories from UPFs (quartiles 2-4) experienced a 28% faster rate of decline in global cognition (beta = –0.004; 95% confidence interval [CI], –0.006 to –0.001; P = .003) and a 25% faster rate of decline in executive function (beta = –0.003, 95% CI, –0.005 to 0.000; P = .01) compared to peers in quartile 1 who consumed less than 20% of daily calories from UPFs.

The researchers did not investigate individual groups of UPFs.

However, Dr. Goncalves noted that some studies have linked the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages with lower cognitive performance, lower brain volume, and poorer memory performance. Another group of ultraprocessed foods, processed meats, has been associated with increased all-cause dementia and Alzheimer’s disease.

Other limitations include the fact that self-reported diet habits were assessed only at baseline using a food frequency questionnaire that was not designed to assess the degree of processing.

While analyses were adjusted for several sociodemographic and clinical confounders, the researchers said they could not exclude the possibility of residual confounding.

Also, since neuroimaging is not available in the ELSA-Brasil study, they were not able to investigate potential mechanisms that could explain the association between higher UPF consumption and cognitive decline.

Despite these limitations, the researchers said their findings suggest that “limiting UPF consumption, particularly in middle-aged adults, may be an efficient form to prevent cognitive decline.”
 

Weighing the evidence

Several experts weighed in on the results in a statement from the UK nonprofit organization, Science Media Centre.

Kevin McConway, PhD, with Open University, Milton Keynes, England, said it’s important to note that the study suggests “an association, a correlation, and that doesn’t necessarily mean that the cognitive decline was caused by eating more ultra-processed foods.”

He also noted that some types of cognitive decline that are associated with aging occurred in participants in all four quartiles, which were defined by the percentage of their daily energy that came from consuming UPFs.

“That’s hardly surprising – it’s a sad fact of life that pretty well all of us gradually lose some of our cognitive functions as we go through middle and older age,” Dr. McConway said.

“The study doesn’t establish that differences in speed of cognitive decline are caused by ultra-processed food consumption anyway. That’s because it’s an observational study. If the consumption of ultra-processed food causes the differences in rate of cognitive decline, then eating less of it might slow cognitive decline, but if the cause is something else, then that won’t happen,” Dr. McConway added.

Gunter Kuhnle, PhD, professor of nutrition and food science, University of Reading, England, noted that UPFs have become a “fashionable term to explain associations between diet and ill health, and many studies have attempted to show associations.

“Most studies have been observational and had a key limitation: It is very difficult to determine ultra-processed food intake using methods that are not designed to do so, and so authors need to make a lot of assumptions. Bread and meat products are often classed as ‘ultra-processed,’ even though this is often wrong,” Dr. Kuhnle noted.

“The same applies to this study – the method used to measure ultra-processed food intake was not designed for that task and relied on assumptions. This makes it virtually impossible to draw any conclusions,” Dr. Kuhnle said.

Duane Mellor, PhD, RD, RNutr, registered dietitian and senior teaching fellow, Aston University, Birmingham, England, said the study does not change how we should try to eat to maintain good brain function and cognition.

“We should try to eat less foods which are high in added sugar, salt, and fat, which would include many of the foods classified as being ultra-processed, while eating more in terms of both quantity and variety of vegetables, fruit, nuts, seeds, and pulses, which are known to be beneficial for both our cognitive and overall health,” Dr. Mellor said.

The ELSA-Brasil study was supported by the Brazilian Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation, and the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development. The authors as well as Dr. McConway, Dr. Mellor, and Dr. Kuhnle have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

New research supports the benefit of maintaining a diet low in ultraprocessed foods (UPFs) to protect the aging brain.

Results from the Brazilian Longitudinal Study of Adult Health (ELSA-Brasil), which included more than 10,000 people aged 35 and older, showed that higher intake of UPF was significantly associated with a faster rate of decline in executive and global cognitive function.

“These findings show that lifestyle choices, particularly high intake of ultraprocessed foods, can influence our cognitive health many years later,” coinvestigator Natalia Goncalves, PhD, University of São Paulo, Brazil, said in an interview.

The study was published online in JAMA Neurology.

The study’s findings were presented in August at the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference (AAIC) 2022 and were reported by this news organization at that time.
 

High sugar, salt, fat

The new results align with another recent study linking a diet high in UPFs to an increased risk for dementia.

UPFs are highly manipulated, are packed with added ingredients, including sugar, fat, and salt, and are low in protein and fiber. Examples of UPFs are soft drinks, chips, chocolate, candy, ice cream, sweetened breakfast cereals, packaged soups, chicken nuggets, hot dogs, and fries.

The ELSA-Brasil study comprised 10,775 adults (mean age, 50.6 years at baseline; 55% women; 53% White) who were evaluated in three waves approximately 4 years apart from 2008 to 2017.

Information on diet was obtained via food frequency questionnaires and included details regarding consumption of unprocessed foods, minimally processed foods, and UPFs.

Participants were grouped according to UPF consumption quartiles (lowest to highest). Cognitive performance was evaluated by use of a standardized battery of tests.

During median follow-up of 8 years, people who consumed more than 20% of daily calories from UPFs (quartiles 2-4) experienced a 28% faster rate of decline in global cognition (beta = –0.004; 95% confidence interval [CI], –0.006 to –0.001; P = .003) and a 25% faster rate of decline in executive function (beta = –0.003, 95% CI, –0.005 to 0.000; P = .01) compared to peers in quartile 1 who consumed less than 20% of daily calories from UPFs.

The researchers did not investigate individual groups of UPFs.

However, Dr. Goncalves noted that some studies have linked the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages with lower cognitive performance, lower brain volume, and poorer memory performance. Another group of ultraprocessed foods, processed meats, has been associated with increased all-cause dementia and Alzheimer’s disease.

Other limitations include the fact that self-reported diet habits were assessed only at baseline using a food frequency questionnaire that was not designed to assess the degree of processing.

While analyses were adjusted for several sociodemographic and clinical confounders, the researchers said they could not exclude the possibility of residual confounding.

Also, since neuroimaging is not available in the ELSA-Brasil study, they were not able to investigate potential mechanisms that could explain the association between higher UPF consumption and cognitive decline.

Despite these limitations, the researchers said their findings suggest that “limiting UPF consumption, particularly in middle-aged adults, may be an efficient form to prevent cognitive decline.”
 

Weighing the evidence

Several experts weighed in on the results in a statement from the UK nonprofit organization, Science Media Centre.

Kevin McConway, PhD, with Open University, Milton Keynes, England, said it’s important to note that the study suggests “an association, a correlation, and that doesn’t necessarily mean that the cognitive decline was caused by eating more ultra-processed foods.”

He also noted that some types of cognitive decline that are associated with aging occurred in participants in all four quartiles, which were defined by the percentage of their daily energy that came from consuming UPFs.

“That’s hardly surprising – it’s a sad fact of life that pretty well all of us gradually lose some of our cognitive functions as we go through middle and older age,” Dr. McConway said.

“The study doesn’t establish that differences in speed of cognitive decline are caused by ultra-processed food consumption anyway. That’s because it’s an observational study. If the consumption of ultra-processed food causes the differences in rate of cognitive decline, then eating less of it might slow cognitive decline, but if the cause is something else, then that won’t happen,” Dr. McConway added.

Gunter Kuhnle, PhD, professor of nutrition and food science, University of Reading, England, noted that UPFs have become a “fashionable term to explain associations between diet and ill health, and many studies have attempted to show associations.

“Most studies have been observational and had a key limitation: It is very difficult to determine ultra-processed food intake using methods that are not designed to do so, and so authors need to make a lot of assumptions. Bread and meat products are often classed as ‘ultra-processed,’ even though this is often wrong,” Dr. Kuhnle noted.

“The same applies to this study – the method used to measure ultra-processed food intake was not designed for that task and relied on assumptions. This makes it virtually impossible to draw any conclusions,” Dr. Kuhnle said.

Duane Mellor, PhD, RD, RNutr, registered dietitian and senior teaching fellow, Aston University, Birmingham, England, said the study does not change how we should try to eat to maintain good brain function and cognition.

“We should try to eat less foods which are high in added sugar, salt, and fat, which would include many of the foods classified as being ultra-processed, while eating more in terms of both quantity and variety of vegetables, fruit, nuts, seeds, and pulses, which are known to be beneficial for both our cognitive and overall health,” Dr. Mellor said.

The ELSA-Brasil study was supported by the Brazilian Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation, and the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development. The authors as well as Dr. McConway, Dr. Mellor, and Dr. Kuhnle have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

New research supports the benefit of maintaining a diet low in ultraprocessed foods (UPFs) to protect the aging brain.

Results from the Brazilian Longitudinal Study of Adult Health (ELSA-Brasil), which included more than 10,000 people aged 35 and older, showed that higher intake of UPF was significantly associated with a faster rate of decline in executive and global cognitive function.

“These findings show that lifestyle choices, particularly high intake of ultraprocessed foods, can influence our cognitive health many years later,” coinvestigator Natalia Goncalves, PhD, University of São Paulo, Brazil, said in an interview.

The study was published online in JAMA Neurology.

The study’s findings were presented in August at the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference (AAIC) 2022 and were reported by this news organization at that time.
 

High sugar, salt, fat

The new results align with another recent study linking a diet high in UPFs to an increased risk for dementia.

UPFs are highly manipulated, are packed with added ingredients, including sugar, fat, and salt, and are low in protein and fiber. Examples of UPFs are soft drinks, chips, chocolate, candy, ice cream, sweetened breakfast cereals, packaged soups, chicken nuggets, hot dogs, and fries.

The ELSA-Brasil study comprised 10,775 adults (mean age, 50.6 years at baseline; 55% women; 53% White) who were evaluated in three waves approximately 4 years apart from 2008 to 2017.

Information on diet was obtained via food frequency questionnaires and included details regarding consumption of unprocessed foods, minimally processed foods, and UPFs.

Participants were grouped according to UPF consumption quartiles (lowest to highest). Cognitive performance was evaluated by use of a standardized battery of tests.

During median follow-up of 8 years, people who consumed more than 20% of daily calories from UPFs (quartiles 2-4) experienced a 28% faster rate of decline in global cognition (beta = –0.004; 95% confidence interval [CI], –0.006 to –0.001; P = .003) and a 25% faster rate of decline in executive function (beta = –0.003, 95% CI, –0.005 to 0.000; P = .01) compared to peers in quartile 1 who consumed less than 20% of daily calories from UPFs.

The researchers did not investigate individual groups of UPFs.

However, Dr. Goncalves noted that some studies have linked the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages with lower cognitive performance, lower brain volume, and poorer memory performance. Another group of ultraprocessed foods, processed meats, has been associated with increased all-cause dementia and Alzheimer’s disease.

Other limitations include the fact that self-reported diet habits were assessed only at baseline using a food frequency questionnaire that was not designed to assess the degree of processing.

While analyses were adjusted for several sociodemographic and clinical confounders, the researchers said they could not exclude the possibility of residual confounding.

Also, since neuroimaging is not available in the ELSA-Brasil study, they were not able to investigate potential mechanisms that could explain the association between higher UPF consumption and cognitive decline.

Despite these limitations, the researchers said their findings suggest that “limiting UPF consumption, particularly in middle-aged adults, may be an efficient form to prevent cognitive decline.”
 

Weighing the evidence

Several experts weighed in on the results in a statement from the UK nonprofit organization, Science Media Centre.

Kevin McConway, PhD, with Open University, Milton Keynes, England, said it’s important to note that the study suggests “an association, a correlation, and that doesn’t necessarily mean that the cognitive decline was caused by eating more ultra-processed foods.”

He also noted that some types of cognitive decline that are associated with aging occurred in participants in all four quartiles, which were defined by the percentage of their daily energy that came from consuming UPFs.

“That’s hardly surprising – it’s a sad fact of life that pretty well all of us gradually lose some of our cognitive functions as we go through middle and older age,” Dr. McConway said.

“The study doesn’t establish that differences in speed of cognitive decline are caused by ultra-processed food consumption anyway. That’s because it’s an observational study. If the consumption of ultra-processed food causes the differences in rate of cognitive decline, then eating less of it might slow cognitive decline, but if the cause is something else, then that won’t happen,” Dr. McConway added.

Gunter Kuhnle, PhD, professor of nutrition and food science, University of Reading, England, noted that UPFs have become a “fashionable term to explain associations between diet and ill health, and many studies have attempted to show associations.

“Most studies have been observational and had a key limitation: It is very difficult to determine ultra-processed food intake using methods that are not designed to do so, and so authors need to make a lot of assumptions. Bread and meat products are often classed as ‘ultra-processed,’ even though this is often wrong,” Dr. Kuhnle noted.

“The same applies to this study – the method used to measure ultra-processed food intake was not designed for that task and relied on assumptions. This makes it virtually impossible to draw any conclusions,” Dr. Kuhnle said.

Duane Mellor, PhD, RD, RNutr, registered dietitian and senior teaching fellow, Aston University, Birmingham, England, said the study does not change how we should try to eat to maintain good brain function and cognition.

“We should try to eat less foods which are high in added sugar, salt, and fat, which would include many of the foods classified as being ultra-processed, while eating more in terms of both quantity and variety of vegetables, fruit, nuts, seeds, and pulses, which are known to be beneficial for both our cognitive and overall health,” Dr. Mellor said.

The ELSA-Brasil study was supported by the Brazilian Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation, and the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development. The authors as well as Dr. McConway, Dr. Mellor, and Dr. Kuhnle have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new type of wound dressing might change burn care for the better with one amazing property: dissolvability. Surgically debriding burn wounds can be tedious for doctors and excruciating for patients. To change that, bioengineers have created a new hydrogel formula that dissolves rapidly from wound sites, melting off in 6 minutes or less.

“The removal of dressings, with the current standard of care, is very hard and time-consuming. It becomes very painful for the patient. People are screaming, or they’re given a lot of opioids,” said senior author O. Berk Usta, PhD, of the Center for Engineering in Medicine and Surgery at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. “Those are the things we wanted to minimize: the pain and the time.”

Although beneficial for all patients, a short, painless bandage change would be a particular boon for younger patients. At the pediatric burns care center at Shriners Hospitals for Children (an MGH partner), researchers “observe a lot of children who go through therapy or treatment after burns,” said Dr. Usta. The team at MGH collaborated with scientists at Tufts University, Boston, with those patients in mind, setting out to create a new hydrogel that would transform burn wound care.
 

A better bandage

Hydrogels provide cooling relief to burn wounds and maintain a moist environment that can speed healing. There are currently hydrogel sheets and hydrogel-infused dressings, as well as gel that is applied directly to burn wounds before being covered with protective material. These dressings must be replaced frequently to prevent infections, but that can be unbearably painful and drawn out, as dressings often stick to wounds.

Mechanical debridement can be especially difficult for second-degree burn patients, whose wounds may still retain nerve endings. Debridement tends to also remove some healthy tissue and can damage newly formed tissue, slowing down healing.

“It can take up to 2, 3 hours, and it requires multiple people working on it,” said Dr. Usta.

The new hydrogel treatment can be applied directly to a wound and it forms a protective barrier around the site in 15 seconds. The hydrogel is then covered by a protective dressing until it needs to be changed.

“After you take off the protective covering, you add another solution, which dissolves the [hydrogel] dressing, so that it can be easily removed from the burn site,” Dr. Usta said.

The solution dissolves the hydrogel in 4-6 minutes.
 

Hybrid gels

Many hydrogels currently used for burn wounds feature physically cross-linked molecules. This makes them strong and capable of retaining moisture, but also difficult to dissolve. The researchers used a different approach.

“This is not physical cross-linking like the traditional approaches, but rather, softer covalent bonds between the different molecules. And that’s why, when you bring in another solution, the hydrogel dissolves away,” Dr. Usta said.

The new hydrogels rely on a supramolecular assembly: a network of synthetic polymers whose connections can be reversed more easily, meaning they can be dissolved quickly. Another standout feature of the new hydrogels is their hybrid composition, displaying characteristics of both liquids and solids. The polymers are knitted together into a mesh-like network that enables water retention, with the goal of maintaining the moist environment needed for wound healing.

The supramolecular assembly is also greener, Dr. Usta explained; traditional cross-linking approaches produce a lot of toxic by-products that could harm the environment.

And whereas traditional hydrogels can require a dozen chemistry steps to produce, the new hydrogels are ready after mixing two solutions, Dr. Usta explained. This makes them easy to prepare at bedside, ideal for treating large wounds in the ER or even on battlefields.

When tested in vitro, using skin cells, and in vivo, on mice, the new hydrogels were shown to be safe to use on wounds. Additional studies on mice, as well as large animals, will focus on safety and efficacy, and may be followed by human clinical trials, said Dr. Usta.

“The next phase of the project will be to look at whether these dressings will help wound healing by creating a moist environment,” said Dr. Usta.

The researchers are also exploring how to manufacture individual prewrapped hydrogels that could be applied in a clinical setting – or even in people’s homes. The consumer market is “another possibility,” said Dr. Usta, particularly among patients with “smaller, more superficial burns” or patients whose large burn wounds are still healing once they leave the hospital.

This research was supported by the National Institutes of Health, National Science Foundation, Massachusetts General Hospital Executive Committee on Research Interim Support Fund, and Shriners Hospitals.

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

A new type of wound dressing might change burn care for the better with one amazing property: dissolvability. Surgically debriding burn wounds can be tedious for doctors and excruciating for patients. To change that, bioengineers have created a new hydrogel formula that dissolves rapidly from wound sites, melting off in 6 minutes or less.

“The removal of dressings, with the current standard of care, is very hard and time-consuming. It becomes very painful for the patient. People are screaming, or they’re given a lot of opioids,” said senior author O. Berk Usta, PhD, of the Center for Engineering in Medicine and Surgery at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. “Those are the things we wanted to minimize: the pain and the time.”

Although beneficial for all patients, a short, painless bandage change would be a particular boon for younger patients. At the pediatric burns care center at Shriners Hospitals for Children (an MGH partner), researchers “observe a lot of children who go through therapy or treatment after burns,” said Dr. Usta. The team at MGH collaborated with scientists at Tufts University, Boston, with those patients in mind, setting out to create a new hydrogel that would transform burn wound care.
 

A better bandage

Hydrogels provide cooling relief to burn wounds and maintain a moist environment that can speed healing. There are currently hydrogel sheets and hydrogel-infused dressings, as well as gel that is applied directly to burn wounds before being covered with protective material. These dressings must be replaced frequently to prevent infections, but that can be unbearably painful and drawn out, as dressings often stick to wounds.

Mechanical debridement can be especially difficult for second-degree burn patients, whose wounds may still retain nerve endings. Debridement tends to also remove some healthy tissue and can damage newly formed tissue, slowing down healing.

“It can take up to 2, 3 hours, and it requires multiple people working on it,” said Dr. Usta.

The new hydrogel treatment can be applied directly to a wound and it forms a protective barrier around the site in 15 seconds. The hydrogel is then covered by a protective dressing until it needs to be changed.

“After you take off the protective covering, you add another solution, which dissolves the [hydrogel] dressing, so that it can be easily removed from the burn site,” Dr. Usta said.

The solution dissolves the hydrogel in 4-6 minutes.
 

Hybrid gels

Many hydrogels currently used for burn wounds feature physically cross-linked molecules. This makes them strong and capable of retaining moisture, but also difficult to dissolve. The researchers used a different approach.

“This is not physical cross-linking like the traditional approaches, but rather, softer covalent bonds between the different molecules. And that’s why, when you bring in another solution, the hydrogel dissolves away,” Dr. Usta said.

The new hydrogels rely on a supramolecular assembly: a network of synthetic polymers whose connections can be reversed more easily, meaning they can be dissolved quickly. Another standout feature of the new hydrogels is their hybrid composition, displaying characteristics of both liquids and solids. The polymers are knitted together into a mesh-like network that enables water retention, with the goal of maintaining the moist environment needed for wound healing.

The supramolecular assembly is also greener, Dr. Usta explained; traditional cross-linking approaches produce a lot of toxic by-products that could harm the environment.

And whereas traditional hydrogels can require a dozen chemistry steps to produce, the new hydrogels are ready after mixing two solutions, Dr. Usta explained. This makes them easy to prepare at bedside, ideal for treating large wounds in the ER or even on battlefields.

When tested in vitro, using skin cells, and in vivo, on mice, the new hydrogels were shown to be safe to use on wounds. Additional studies on mice, as well as large animals, will focus on safety and efficacy, and may be followed by human clinical trials, said Dr. Usta.

“The next phase of the project will be to look at whether these dressings will help wound healing by creating a moist environment,” said Dr. Usta.

The researchers are also exploring how to manufacture individual prewrapped hydrogels that could be applied in a clinical setting – or even in people’s homes. The consumer market is “another possibility,” said Dr. Usta, particularly among patients with “smaller, more superficial burns” or patients whose large burn wounds are still healing once they leave the hospital.

This research was supported by the National Institutes of Health, National Science Foundation, Massachusetts General Hospital Executive Committee on Research Interim Support Fund, and Shriners Hospitals.

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

A new type of wound dressing might change burn care for the better with one amazing property: dissolvability. Surgically debriding burn wounds can be tedious for doctors and excruciating for patients. To change that, bioengineers have created a new hydrogel formula that dissolves rapidly from wound sites, melting off in 6 minutes or less.

“The removal of dressings, with the current standard of care, is very hard and time-consuming. It becomes very painful for the patient. People are screaming, or they’re given a lot of opioids,” said senior author O. Berk Usta, PhD, of the Center for Engineering in Medicine and Surgery at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. “Those are the things we wanted to minimize: the pain and the time.”

Although beneficial for all patients, a short, painless bandage change would be a particular boon for younger patients. At the pediatric burns care center at Shriners Hospitals for Children (an MGH partner), researchers “observe a lot of children who go through therapy or treatment after burns,” said Dr. Usta. The team at MGH collaborated with scientists at Tufts University, Boston, with those patients in mind, setting out to create a new hydrogel that would transform burn wound care.
 

A better bandage

Hydrogels provide cooling relief to burn wounds and maintain a moist environment that can speed healing. There are currently hydrogel sheets and hydrogel-infused dressings, as well as gel that is applied directly to burn wounds before being covered with protective material. These dressings must be replaced frequently to prevent infections, but that can be unbearably painful and drawn out, as dressings often stick to wounds.

Mechanical debridement can be especially difficult for second-degree burn patients, whose wounds may still retain nerve endings. Debridement tends to also remove some healthy tissue and can damage newly formed tissue, slowing down healing.

“It can take up to 2, 3 hours, and it requires multiple people working on it,” said Dr. Usta.

The new hydrogel treatment can be applied directly to a wound and it forms a protective barrier around the site in 15 seconds. The hydrogel is then covered by a protective dressing until it needs to be changed.

“After you take off the protective covering, you add another solution, which dissolves the [hydrogel] dressing, so that it can be easily removed from the burn site,” Dr. Usta said.

The solution dissolves the hydrogel in 4-6 minutes.
 

Hybrid gels

Many hydrogels currently used for burn wounds feature physically cross-linked molecules. This makes them strong and capable of retaining moisture, but also difficult to dissolve. The researchers used a different approach.

“This is not physical cross-linking like the traditional approaches, but rather, softer covalent bonds between the different molecules. And that’s why, when you bring in another solution, the hydrogel dissolves away,” Dr. Usta said.

The new hydrogels rely on a supramolecular assembly: a network of synthetic polymers whose connections can be reversed more easily, meaning they can be dissolved quickly. Another standout feature of the new hydrogels is their hybrid composition, displaying characteristics of both liquids and solids. The polymers are knitted together into a mesh-like network that enables water retention, with the goal of maintaining the moist environment needed for wound healing.

The supramolecular assembly is also greener, Dr. Usta explained; traditional cross-linking approaches produce a lot of toxic by-products that could harm the environment.

And whereas traditional hydrogels can require a dozen chemistry steps to produce, the new hydrogels are ready after mixing two solutions, Dr. Usta explained. This makes them easy to prepare at bedside, ideal for treating large wounds in the ER or even on battlefields.

When tested in vitro, using skin cells, and in vivo, on mice, the new hydrogels were shown to be safe to use on wounds. Additional studies on mice, as well as large animals, will focus on safety and efficacy, and may be followed by human clinical trials, said Dr. Usta.

“The next phase of the project will be to look at whether these dressings will help wound healing by creating a moist environment,” said Dr. Usta.

The researchers are also exploring how to manufacture individual prewrapped hydrogels that could be applied in a clinical setting – or even in people’s homes. The consumer market is “another possibility,” said Dr. Usta, particularly among patients with “smaller, more superficial burns” or patients whose large burn wounds are still healing once they leave the hospital.

This research was supported by the National Institutes of Health, National Science Foundation, Massachusetts General Hospital Executive Committee on Research Interim Support Fund, and Shriners Hospitals.

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

Patients with rheumatic disease are at least half as likely to develop long COVID after a SARS-CoV-2 infection if they have been fully vaccinated against COVID-19, according to research published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases (2022 Nov 28. doi: 10.1136/ard-2022-223439).

“Moreover, those who were vaccinated prior to getting COVID-19 had less pain and fatigue after their infection,” Zachary S. Wallace, MD, MSc, an assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and a study author, said in an interview. “These findings reinforce the importance of vaccination in this population.”

Messaging around the value of COVID vaccination has been confusing for some with rheumatic disease “because our concern regarding a blunted response to vaccination has led many patients to think that they do not provide much benefit if they are on immunosuppression,” Dr. Wallace said. “In our cohort, which included many patients on immunosuppression of varying degrees, being vaccinated was quite beneficial.”

Leonard H. Calabrese, DO, director of the R.J. Fasenmyer Center for Clinical Immunology and a professor of medicine at the Cleveland Clinic, said in an interview that the study is an “extremely important contribution to our understanding of COVID-19 and its pattern of recovery in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases [IMIDs].” Remaining unanswered questions are “whether patients with IMIDs develop more frequent PASC [post–acute sequelae of COVID-19] from COVID-19 and, if so, is it milder or more severe, and does it differ in its clinical phenotype?”
 

Long COVID risk assessed at 4 weeks and 3 months after infection

The researchers prospectively tracked 280 adult patients in the Mass General Brigham health care system in the greater Boston area who had systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases and had an acute COVID-19 infection between March 2020 and July 2022. Patients were an average 53 years old, and most were White (82%) and female (80%). More than half (59%) had inflammatory arthritis, a quarter (24%) had connective tissue disease, and most others had a vasculitis condition or multiple conditions.

filadendron/E+/Getty Images

A total of 11% of patients were unvaccinated, 28% were partially vaccinated with one mRNA COVID-19 vaccine dose, and 41% were fully vaccinated with two mRNA vaccine doses or one Johnson & Johnson dose. The 116 fully vaccinated patients were considered to have a breakthrough infection while the other 164 were considered to have a nonbreakthrough infection. The breakthrough and nonbreakthrough groups were similar in terms of age, sex, race, ethnicity, smoking status, and type of rheumatic disease. Comorbidities were also similar, except obesity, which was more common in the non–breakthrough infection group (25%) than the breakthrough infection group (10%).

The researchers queried patients on their COVID-19 symptoms, how long symptoms lasted, treatments they received, and hospitalization details. COVID-19 symptoms assessed included fever, sore throat, new cough, nasal congestion/rhinorrhea, dyspnea, chest pain, rash, myalgia, fatigue/malaise, headache, nausea/vomiting, diarrhea, anosmia, dysgeusia, and joint pain.

Patients completed surveys about symptoms at 4 weeks and 3 months after infection. Long COVID, or PASC, was defined as any persistent symptom at the times assessed.
 

Vaccinated patients fared better across outcomes

At 4 weeks after infection, 41% of fully vaccinated patients had at least one persistent symptom, compared with 54% of unvaccinated or partially vaccinated patients (P = .04). At 3 months after infection, 21% of fully vaccinated patients had at least one persistent symptom, compared with 41% of unvaccinated or partially vaccinated patients (P < .0001).

Vaccinated patients were half as likely to have long COVID at 4 weeks after infection (adjusted odds ratio, 0.49) and 90% less likely to have long COVID 3 months after infection (aOR, 0.1), after adjustment for age, sex, race, comorbidities, and use of any of four immune-suppressing medications (anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies, methotrexate, mycophenolate, or glucocorticoids).

Fully vaccinated patients with breakthrough infections had an average 21 additional days without symptoms during follow-up, compared with unvaccinated and partially vaccinated patients (P = .04).

Reduced risk of long COVID did not change for vaccinated patients after sensitivity analyses for those who did not receive nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid) or monoclonal antibodies, those who didn’t receive any COVID-19-related treatment, those who completed their questionnaires within 6 months after infection, and those who were not hospitalized.

“One important message is that among those who did get PASC, the severity appears similar among those with and without a breakthrough infection,” Dr. Wallace said. “This highlights the need for ongoing research to improve recognition, diagnosis, and treatment of PASC.”

Many more breakthrough infections (72%) than nonbreakthrough infections (2%) occurred during Omicron. The authors acknowledged that different variants might play a role in different long COVID risks but said such potential confounding is unlikely to fully explain the results.

“Even with data suggesting that the Omicron variants may be intrinsically less severe, vaccination still has an impact on severity of infection, rates of hospitalization, and other outcomes and thus may play a role in the risk of PASC,” lead author Naomi Patel, MD, an instructor at Harvard Medical School and a rheumatologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, said in an interview. “A study evaluating the proportions with PASC by vaccination status during the time in which a single variant is predominant, such as the early Omicron era, could help to better assess the more isolated impact of vaccination on PASC.”

Dr. Calabrese said he is convinced that Omicron infections are less likely to result in more severe forms of acute COVID than pre-Omicron infections, and he suspects Omicron infections are also less likely to result in long COVID, although less evidence currently supports this hypothesis.

Hospitalization was more common in unvaccinated/partly vaccinated patients than in vaccinated patients (27% vs. 5%; P = .001). Although pain and fatigue were lower in those with breakthrough infections, functional scores and health-related quality of life were similar in both groups.

Some symptoms significantly differed between vaccinated and unvaccinated/partly vaccinated groups, possibly caused partly by different variants. Nasal congestion was more common (73%) in those with breakthrough infections than in those with nonbreakthrough infections (46%; P < .0001). Those who were unvaccinated/partly vaccinated were significantly more likely to have loss of smell (46% vs. 22%) or taste (45% vs. 28%) or to have joint pain (11% vs. 4%).

Treatment with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir was also more common in vaccinated patients (12%) than in unvaccinated/partly vaccinated patients (1%; P < .0001), as was treatment with monoclonal antibodies (34% vs. 8%; P < .0001).

The study was limited by its low diversity and being at a single health care system, the authors said. Study coauthor Jeffrey A. Sparks, MD, MMSc, an assistant professor of medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, said in an interview that the group is planning additional studies as their cohort grows, including “investigating the relationships between COVID-19 and specific rheumatic diseases and immunomodulating medications, expansion of autoimmunity and systemic inflammation, and lung damage among specific patient populations.”

Dr. Calabrese said it will be important for follow-up study of the symptomatic patients to “determine how many of these patients will fit the clinical picture of long COVID or long-haul phenotypes over the months and years ahead, including documenting exertional malaise and quality of life.

This study only assessed patients who received zero, one, or two doses of a vaccine, but many patients with rheumatic disease today will likely have received booster doses. However, Dr. Calabrese said it would be difficult to quantify whether a third, fourth, or fifth dose offers additional protection from long-term COVID complications after full vaccination or hybrid vaccination.

The research was funded by the Rheumatology Research Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, the R. Bruce and Joan M. Mickey Research Scholar Fund, and the Llura Gund Award for Rheumatoid Arthritis Research and Care. Dr. Wallace has received research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Principia/Sanofi and consulting fees from Zenas BioPharma, Horizon, Sanofi, Shionogi, Viela Bio, and Medpace. Dr. Sparks has received research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb and consulting fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead, Inova Diagnostics, Janssen, Optum, and Pfizer. Dr. Patel has received consulting fees from FVC Health. Calabrese has consulted for Genentech, Sanofi-Regeneron, AstraZeneca, and GlaxoSmithKline.

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

Patients with rheumatic disease are at least half as likely to develop long COVID after a SARS-CoV-2 infection if they have been fully vaccinated against COVID-19, according to research published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases (2022 Nov 28. doi: 10.1136/ard-2022-223439).

“Moreover, those who were vaccinated prior to getting COVID-19 had less pain and fatigue after their infection,” Zachary S. Wallace, MD, MSc, an assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and a study author, said in an interview. “These findings reinforce the importance of vaccination in this population.”

Messaging around the value of COVID vaccination has been confusing for some with rheumatic disease “because our concern regarding a blunted response to vaccination has led many patients to think that they do not provide much benefit if they are on immunosuppression,” Dr. Wallace said. “In our cohort, which included many patients on immunosuppression of varying degrees, being vaccinated was quite beneficial.”

Leonard H. Calabrese, DO, director of the R.J. Fasenmyer Center for Clinical Immunology and a professor of medicine at the Cleveland Clinic, said in an interview that the study is an “extremely important contribution to our understanding of COVID-19 and its pattern of recovery in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases [IMIDs].” Remaining unanswered questions are “whether patients with IMIDs develop more frequent PASC [post–acute sequelae of COVID-19] from COVID-19 and, if so, is it milder or more severe, and does it differ in its clinical phenotype?”
 

Long COVID risk assessed at 4 weeks and 3 months after infection

The researchers prospectively tracked 280 adult patients in the Mass General Brigham health care system in the greater Boston area who had systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases and had an acute COVID-19 infection between March 2020 and July 2022. Patients were an average 53 years old, and most were White (82%) and female (80%). More than half (59%) had inflammatory arthritis, a quarter (24%) had connective tissue disease, and most others had a vasculitis condition or multiple conditions.

filadendron/E+/Getty Images

A total of 11% of patients were unvaccinated, 28% were partially vaccinated with one mRNA COVID-19 vaccine dose, and 41% were fully vaccinated with two mRNA vaccine doses or one Johnson & Johnson dose. The 116 fully vaccinated patients were considered to have a breakthrough infection while the other 164 were considered to have a nonbreakthrough infection. The breakthrough and nonbreakthrough groups were similar in terms of age, sex, race, ethnicity, smoking status, and type of rheumatic disease. Comorbidities were also similar, except obesity, which was more common in the non–breakthrough infection group (25%) than the breakthrough infection group (10%).

The researchers queried patients on their COVID-19 symptoms, how long symptoms lasted, treatments they received, and hospitalization details. COVID-19 symptoms assessed included fever, sore throat, new cough, nasal congestion/rhinorrhea, dyspnea, chest pain, rash, myalgia, fatigue/malaise, headache, nausea/vomiting, diarrhea, anosmia, dysgeusia, and joint pain.

Patients completed surveys about symptoms at 4 weeks and 3 months after infection. Long COVID, or PASC, was defined as any persistent symptom at the times assessed.
 

Vaccinated patients fared better across outcomes

At 4 weeks after infection, 41% of fully vaccinated patients had at least one persistent symptom, compared with 54% of unvaccinated or partially vaccinated patients (P = .04). At 3 months after infection, 21% of fully vaccinated patients had at least one persistent symptom, compared with 41% of unvaccinated or partially vaccinated patients (P < .0001).

Vaccinated patients were half as likely to have long COVID at 4 weeks after infection (adjusted odds ratio, 0.49) and 90% less likely to have long COVID 3 months after infection (aOR, 0.1), after adjustment for age, sex, race, comorbidities, and use of any of four immune-suppressing medications (anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies, methotrexate, mycophenolate, or glucocorticoids).

Fully vaccinated patients with breakthrough infections had an average 21 additional days without symptoms during follow-up, compared with unvaccinated and partially vaccinated patients (P = .04).

Reduced risk of long COVID did not change for vaccinated patients after sensitivity analyses for those who did not receive nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid) or monoclonal antibodies, those who didn’t receive any COVID-19-related treatment, those who completed their questionnaires within 6 months after infection, and those who were not hospitalized.

“One important message is that among those who did get PASC, the severity appears similar among those with and without a breakthrough infection,” Dr. Wallace said. “This highlights the need for ongoing research to improve recognition, diagnosis, and treatment of PASC.”

Many more breakthrough infections (72%) than nonbreakthrough infections (2%) occurred during Omicron. The authors acknowledged that different variants might play a role in different long COVID risks but said such potential confounding is unlikely to fully explain the results.

“Even with data suggesting that the Omicron variants may be intrinsically less severe, vaccination still has an impact on severity of infection, rates of hospitalization, and other outcomes and thus may play a role in the risk of PASC,” lead author Naomi Patel, MD, an instructor at Harvard Medical School and a rheumatologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, said in an interview. “A study evaluating the proportions with PASC by vaccination status during the time in which a single variant is predominant, such as the early Omicron era, could help to better assess the more isolated impact of vaccination on PASC.”

Dr. Calabrese said he is convinced that Omicron infections are less likely to result in more severe forms of acute COVID than pre-Omicron infections, and he suspects Omicron infections are also less likely to result in long COVID, although less evidence currently supports this hypothesis.

Hospitalization was more common in unvaccinated/partly vaccinated patients than in vaccinated patients (27% vs. 5%; P = .001). Although pain and fatigue were lower in those with breakthrough infections, functional scores and health-related quality of life were similar in both groups.

Some symptoms significantly differed between vaccinated and unvaccinated/partly vaccinated groups, possibly caused partly by different variants. Nasal congestion was more common (73%) in those with breakthrough infections than in those with nonbreakthrough infections (46%; P < .0001). Those who were unvaccinated/partly vaccinated were significantly more likely to have loss of smell (46% vs. 22%) or taste (45% vs. 28%) or to have joint pain (11% vs. 4%).

Treatment with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir was also more common in vaccinated patients (12%) than in unvaccinated/partly vaccinated patients (1%; P < .0001), as was treatment with monoclonal antibodies (34% vs. 8%; P < .0001).

The study was limited by its low diversity and being at a single health care system, the authors said. Study coauthor Jeffrey A. Sparks, MD, MMSc, an assistant professor of medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, said in an interview that the group is planning additional studies as their cohort grows, including “investigating the relationships between COVID-19 and specific rheumatic diseases and immunomodulating medications, expansion of autoimmunity and systemic inflammation, and lung damage among specific patient populations.”

Dr. Calabrese said it will be important for follow-up study of the symptomatic patients to “determine how many of these patients will fit the clinical picture of long COVID or long-haul phenotypes over the months and years ahead, including documenting exertional malaise and quality of life.

This study only assessed patients who received zero, one, or two doses of a vaccine, but many patients with rheumatic disease today will likely have received booster doses. However, Dr. Calabrese said it would be difficult to quantify whether a third, fourth, or fifth dose offers additional protection from long-term COVID complications after full vaccination or hybrid vaccination.

The research was funded by the Rheumatology Research Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, the R. Bruce and Joan M. Mickey Research Scholar Fund, and the Llura Gund Award for Rheumatoid Arthritis Research and Care. Dr. Wallace has received research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Principia/Sanofi and consulting fees from Zenas BioPharma, Horizon, Sanofi, Shionogi, Viela Bio, and Medpace. Dr. Sparks has received research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb and consulting fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead, Inova Diagnostics, Janssen, Optum, and Pfizer. Dr. Patel has received consulting fees from FVC Health. Calabrese has consulted for Genentech, Sanofi-Regeneron, AstraZeneca, and GlaxoSmithKline.

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

Patients with rheumatic disease are at least half as likely to develop long COVID after a SARS-CoV-2 infection if they have been fully vaccinated against COVID-19, according to research published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases (2022 Nov 28. doi: 10.1136/ard-2022-223439).

“Moreover, those who were vaccinated prior to getting COVID-19 had less pain and fatigue after their infection,” Zachary S. Wallace, MD, MSc, an assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and a study author, said in an interview. “These findings reinforce the importance of vaccination in this population.”

Messaging around the value of COVID vaccination has been confusing for some with rheumatic disease “because our concern regarding a blunted response to vaccination has led many patients to think that they do not provide much benefit if they are on immunosuppression,” Dr. Wallace said. “In our cohort, which included many patients on immunosuppression of varying degrees, being vaccinated was quite beneficial.”

Leonard H. Calabrese, DO, director of the R.J. Fasenmyer Center for Clinical Immunology and a professor of medicine at the Cleveland Clinic, said in an interview that the study is an “extremely important contribution to our understanding of COVID-19 and its pattern of recovery in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases [IMIDs].” Remaining unanswered questions are “whether patients with IMIDs develop more frequent PASC [post–acute sequelae of COVID-19] from COVID-19 and, if so, is it milder or more severe, and does it differ in its clinical phenotype?”
 

Long COVID risk assessed at 4 weeks and 3 months after infection

The researchers prospectively tracked 280 adult patients in the Mass General Brigham health care system in the greater Boston area who had systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases and had an acute COVID-19 infection between March 2020 and July 2022. Patients were an average 53 years old, and most were White (82%) and female (80%). More than half (59%) had inflammatory arthritis, a quarter (24%) had connective tissue disease, and most others had a vasculitis condition or multiple conditions.

filadendron/E+/Getty Images

A total of 11% of patients were unvaccinated, 28% were partially vaccinated with one mRNA COVID-19 vaccine dose, and 41% were fully vaccinated with two mRNA vaccine doses or one Johnson & Johnson dose. The 116 fully vaccinated patients were considered to have a breakthrough infection while the other 164 were considered to have a nonbreakthrough infection. The breakthrough and nonbreakthrough groups were similar in terms of age, sex, race, ethnicity, smoking status, and type of rheumatic disease. Comorbidities were also similar, except obesity, which was more common in the non–breakthrough infection group (25%) than the breakthrough infection group (10%).

The researchers queried patients on their COVID-19 symptoms, how long symptoms lasted, treatments they received, and hospitalization details. COVID-19 symptoms assessed included fever, sore throat, new cough, nasal congestion/rhinorrhea, dyspnea, chest pain, rash, myalgia, fatigue/malaise, headache, nausea/vomiting, diarrhea, anosmia, dysgeusia, and joint pain.

Patients completed surveys about symptoms at 4 weeks and 3 months after infection. Long COVID, or PASC, was defined as any persistent symptom at the times assessed.
 

Vaccinated patients fared better across outcomes

At 4 weeks after infection, 41% of fully vaccinated patients had at least one persistent symptom, compared with 54% of unvaccinated or partially vaccinated patients (P = .04). At 3 months after infection, 21% of fully vaccinated patients had at least one persistent symptom, compared with 41% of unvaccinated or partially vaccinated patients (P < .0001).

Vaccinated patients were half as likely to have long COVID at 4 weeks after infection (adjusted odds ratio, 0.49) and 90% less likely to have long COVID 3 months after infection (aOR, 0.1), after adjustment for age, sex, race, comorbidities, and use of any of four immune-suppressing medications (anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies, methotrexate, mycophenolate, or glucocorticoids).

Fully vaccinated patients with breakthrough infections had an average 21 additional days without symptoms during follow-up, compared with unvaccinated and partially vaccinated patients (P = .04).

Reduced risk of long COVID did not change for vaccinated patients after sensitivity analyses for those who did not receive nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid) or monoclonal antibodies, those who didn’t receive any COVID-19-related treatment, those who completed their questionnaires within 6 months after infection, and those who were not hospitalized.

“One important message is that among those who did get PASC, the severity appears similar among those with and without a breakthrough infection,” Dr. Wallace said. “This highlights the need for ongoing research to improve recognition, diagnosis, and treatment of PASC.”

Many more breakthrough infections (72%) than nonbreakthrough infections (2%) occurred during Omicron. The authors acknowledged that different variants might play a role in different long COVID risks but said such potential confounding is unlikely to fully explain the results.

“Even with data suggesting that the Omicron variants may be intrinsically less severe, vaccination still has an impact on severity of infection, rates of hospitalization, and other outcomes and thus may play a role in the risk of PASC,” lead author Naomi Patel, MD, an instructor at Harvard Medical School and a rheumatologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, said in an interview. “A study evaluating the proportions with PASC by vaccination status during the time in which a single variant is predominant, such as the early Omicron era, could help to better assess the more isolated impact of vaccination on PASC.”

Dr. Calabrese said he is convinced that Omicron infections are less likely to result in more severe forms of acute COVID than pre-Omicron infections, and he suspects Omicron infections are also less likely to result in long COVID, although less evidence currently supports this hypothesis.

Hospitalization was more common in unvaccinated/partly vaccinated patients than in vaccinated patients (27% vs. 5%; P = .001). Although pain and fatigue were lower in those with breakthrough infections, functional scores and health-related quality of life were similar in both groups.

Some symptoms significantly differed between vaccinated and unvaccinated/partly vaccinated groups, possibly caused partly by different variants. Nasal congestion was more common (73%) in those with breakthrough infections than in those with nonbreakthrough infections (46%; P < .0001). Those who were unvaccinated/partly vaccinated were significantly more likely to have loss of smell (46% vs. 22%) or taste (45% vs. 28%) or to have joint pain (11% vs. 4%).

Treatment with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir was also more common in vaccinated patients (12%) than in unvaccinated/partly vaccinated patients (1%; P < .0001), as was treatment with monoclonal antibodies (34% vs. 8%; P < .0001).

The study was limited by its low diversity and being at a single health care system, the authors said. Study coauthor Jeffrey A. Sparks, MD, MMSc, an assistant professor of medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, said in an interview that the group is planning additional studies as their cohort grows, including “investigating the relationships between COVID-19 and specific rheumatic diseases and immunomodulating medications, expansion of autoimmunity and systemic inflammation, and lung damage among specific patient populations.”

Dr. Calabrese said it will be important for follow-up study of the symptomatic patients to “determine how many of these patients will fit the clinical picture of long COVID or long-haul phenotypes over the months and years ahead, including documenting exertional malaise and quality of life.

This study only assessed patients who received zero, one, or two doses of a vaccine, but many patients with rheumatic disease today will likely have received booster doses. However, Dr. Calabrese said it would be difficult to quantify whether a third, fourth, or fifth dose offers additional protection from long-term COVID complications after full vaccination or hybrid vaccination.

The research was funded by the Rheumatology Research Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, the R. Bruce and Joan M. Mickey Research Scholar Fund, and the Llura Gund Award for Rheumatoid Arthritis Research and Care. Dr. Wallace has received research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Principia/Sanofi and consulting fees from Zenas BioPharma, Horizon, Sanofi, Shionogi, Viela Bio, and Medpace. Dr. Sparks has received research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb and consulting fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead, Inova Diagnostics, Janssen, Optum, and Pfizer. Dr. Patel has received consulting fees from FVC Health. Calabrese has consulted for Genentech, Sanofi-Regeneron, AstraZeneca, and GlaxoSmithKline.

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

Another survey has shown that Americans are largely unaware of the link between alcohol consumption and cancer.

The new findings, from a nationally representative survey that included responses from 3,865 adults, show a low awareness of the cancer risk from alcohol, and also that the risk varies by type of drink. Just under a third (31.2%) of respondents thought that consuming liquor/spirits was associated with a risk of cancer, but this fell to 24.9% for drinking beer and even further, to 20.3%, for drinking wine.

In fact, some respondents though the opposite – that drinking alcohol has health benefits; 10.3% of respondents thought that drinking wine was associated with a decreased cancer risk, while 2.25% thought the same for drinking beer, and 1.7% thought that for drinking liquor.

Most U.S. adults (> 50%) reported not knowing how these beverages affected cancer risk, the authors report.

“This study’s findings underscore the need to develop interventions for educating the public about the cancer risks of alcohol use, particularly in the prevailing context of national dialogue about the purported heart health benefits of wine,” commented senior author William M. P. Klein, PhD, associate director of the National Cancer Institute’s Behavioral Research Program, in a statement.

“All types of alcoholic beverages, including wine, increase cancer risk,” Dr. Klein said.

The findings were published online in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention.

The results echo the findings of a previous national survey that also found that the majority of Americans are not aware that alcohol consumption is associated with an increased risk of developing a variety of cancers.

In contrast, within the scientific community, there is long-standing and increasing awareness of alcohol consumption as a leading modifiable risk factor for cancer, and there is a growing movement calling for more public health awareness of the link.

Recently, there has been some public support for adding written warnings about the cancer risk from alcohol. A Citizen Petition was filed in 2021, and in August 2022, The New England Journal of Medicine issued a call for new labeling.

Several cancer organizations are petitioning for warnings to be added to alcoholic beverages. The petition is supported by the American Society of Clinical Oncology, the American Institute for Cancer Research, and Breast Cancer Prevention Partners, all in collaboration with several public health organizations. Proposed labeling would read: “WARNING: According to the Surgeon General, consumption of alcoholic beverages can cause cancer, including breast and colon cancers.”

Dr. Klein and colleagues suggest that public health interventions, including mass media campaigns, cancer warning labels, and patient-provider communications, could help disseminate information about cancer and alcohol. “Educating the public about how alcohol increases cancer risk will not only empower consumers to make more informed decisions but may also prevent and reduce excessive alcohol use, as well as cancer morbidity and mortality,” Dr. Klein said.

The study was supported by the Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences at the National Cancer Institute. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Another survey has shown that Americans are largely unaware of the link between alcohol consumption and cancer.

The new findings, from a nationally representative survey that included responses from 3,865 adults, show a low awareness of the cancer risk from alcohol, and also that the risk varies by type of drink. Just under a third (31.2%) of respondents thought that consuming liquor/spirits was associated with a risk of cancer, but this fell to 24.9% for drinking beer and even further, to 20.3%, for drinking wine.

In fact, some respondents though the opposite – that drinking alcohol has health benefits; 10.3% of respondents thought that drinking wine was associated with a decreased cancer risk, while 2.25% thought the same for drinking beer, and 1.7% thought that for drinking liquor.

Most U.S. adults (> 50%) reported not knowing how these beverages affected cancer risk, the authors report.

“This study’s findings underscore the need to develop interventions for educating the public about the cancer risks of alcohol use, particularly in the prevailing context of national dialogue about the purported heart health benefits of wine,” commented senior author William M. P. Klein, PhD, associate director of the National Cancer Institute’s Behavioral Research Program, in a statement.

“All types of alcoholic beverages, including wine, increase cancer risk,” Dr. Klein said.

The findings were published online in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention.

The results echo the findings of a previous national survey that also found that the majority of Americans are not aware that alcohol consumption is associated with an increased risk of developing a variety of cancers.

In contrast, within the scientific community, there is long-standing and increasing awareness of alcohol consumption as a leading modifiable risk factor for cancer, and there is a growing movement calling for more public health awareness of the link.

Recently, there has been some public support for adding written warnings about the cancer risk from alcohol. A Citizen Petition was filed in 2021, and in August 2022, The New England Journal of Medicine issued a call for new labeling.

Several cancer organizations are petitioning for warnings to be added to alcoholic beverages. The petition is supported by the American Society of Clinical Oncology, the American Institute for Cancer Research, and Breast Cancer Prevention Partners, all in collaboration with several public health organizations. Proposed labeling would read: “WARNING: According to the Surgeon General, consumption of alcoholic beverages can cause cancer, including breast and colon cancers.”

Dr. Klein and colleagues suggest that public health interventions, including mass media campaigns, cancer warning labels, and patient-provider communications, could help disseminate information about cancer and alcohol. “Educating the public about how alcohol increases cancer risk will not only empower consumers to make more informed decisions but may also prevent and reduce excessive alcohol use, as well as cancer morbidity and mortality,” Dr. Klein said.

The study was supported by the Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences at the National Cancer Institute. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Another survey has shown that Americans are largely unaware of the link between alcohol consumption and cancer.

The new findings, from a nationally representative survey that included responses from 3,865 adults, show a low awareness of the cancer risk from alcohol, and also that the risk varies by type of drink. Just under a third (31.2%) of respondents thought that consuming liquor/spirits was associated with a risk of cancer, but this fell to 24.9% for drinking beer and even further, to 20.3%, for drinking wine.

In fact, some respondents though the opposite – that drinking alcohol has health benefits; 10.3% of respondents thought that drinking wine was associated with a decreased cancer risk, while 2.25% thought the same for drinking beer, and 1.7% thought that for drinking liquor.

Most U.S. adults (> 50%) reported not knowing how these beverages affected cancer risk, the authors report.

“This study’s findings underscore the need to develop interventions for educating the public about the cancer risks of alcohol use, particularly in the prevailing context of national dialogue about the purported heart health benefits of wine,” commented senior author William M. P. Klein, PhD, associate director of the National Cancer Institute’s Behavioral Research Program, in a statement.

“All types of alcoholic beverages, including wine, increase cancer risk,” Dr. Klein said.

The findings were published online in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention.

The results echo the findings of a previous national survey that also found that the majority of Americans are not aware that alcohol consumption is associated with an increased risk of developing a variety of cancers.

In contrast, within the scientific community, there is long-standing and increasing awareness of alcohol consumption as a leading modifiable risk factor for cancer, and there is a growing movement calling for more public health awareness of the link.

Recently, there has been some public support for adding written warnings about the cancer risk from alcohol. A Citizen Petition was filed in 2021, and in August 2022, The New England Journal of Medicine issued a call for new labeling.

Several cancer organizations are petitioning for warnings to be added to alcoholic beverages. The petition is supported by the American Society of Clinical Oncology, the American Institute for Cancer Research, and Breast Cancer Prevention Partners, all in collaboration with several public health organizations. Proposed labeling would read: “WARNING: According to the Surgeon General, consumption of alcoholic beverages can cause cancer, including breast and colon cancers.”

Dr. Klein and colleagues suggest that public health interventions, including mass media campaigns, cancer warning labels, and patient-provider communications, could help disseminate information about cancer and alcohol. “Educating the public about how alcohol increases cancer risk will not only empower consumers to make more informed decisions but may also prevent and reduce excessive alcohol use, as well as cancer morbidity and mortality,” Dr. Klein said.

The study was supported by the Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences at the National Cancer Institute. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Eric Andrew Salata, MD, a 54-year-old internist based in Naples, Florida, made headlines 2 weeks ago when he was arrested by local police and charged with sexual battery on two of his patients, according to a police statement.

A week later, a Collier County Sheriff’s deputy found Dr. Salata’s body near his Naples home with a gunshot wound to the head, according to police. The medical examiner later ruled it a suicide.

Dr. Salata co-owned Pura Vida Medical Spa in Naples with his wife Jill Salata, a certified family nurse practitioner. They specialized in cosmetic treatment and surgery.

Naples police said that they arrested Dr. Salata after two female patients accused the doctor of allegedly drugging and raping them while they were still unconscious.

Both victims described being given nitrous oxide, also called laughing gas, for sedation and pain from the cosmetic procedure. The first victim, age 51, said Dr. Salata prescribed alprazolam (Xanax) to take before the procedure and then also gave her nitrous oxide and tequila, causing her to black out, according to NBC2 News.

The second victim, age 72, told police that as the nitrous oxide was wearing off, she found Dr. Salata performing sexual intercourse. The victim felt shocked after the sedation subsided about what had taken place, contacted police, and submitted to a sexual assault examination, according to the police statement.

At Dr. Salata’s November 22 hearing before Judge Michael Provost, a prosecutor asked the judge whether Dr. Salata should surrender his firearms; Provost reportedly dismissed the idea.

“It is disappointing and frustrating that Dr. Salata has escaped justice,” said one victim’s attorney, Adam Horowitz, in a blog post. “Yet, we are relieved that no other women will be assaulted by Dr. Salata again. It took tremendous courage for my client to tell her truth. She was ready to hold him accountable in court.”

Horowitz says he plans to file a civil lawsuit on behalf of his client against Dr. Salata’s estate. The Naples police are continuing their investigation into the victims’ cases, which now includes a third woman, said spokesman Lt. Bryan McGinn.

Meanwhile, the Pura Vida Medical Spa has closed permanently and its website has been deleted. One reviewer named Soul F. wrote on the spa’s Yelp page: “And now may God have mercy on this rapist’s soul. Amen.”

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

Eric Andrew Salata, MD, a 54-year-old internist based in Naples, Florida, made headlines 2 weeks ago when he was arrested by local police and charged with sexual battery on two of his patients, according to a police statement.

A week later, a Collier County Sheriff’s deputy found Dr. Salata’s body near his Naples home with a gunshot wound to the head, according to police. The medical examiner later ruled it a suicide.

Dr. Salata co-owned Pura Vida Medical Spa in Naples with his wife Jill Salata, a certified family nurse practitioner. They specialized in cosmetic treatment and surgery.

Naples police said that they arrested Dr. Salata after two female patients accused the doctor of allegedly drugging and raping them while they were still unconscious.

Both victims described being given nitrous oxide, also called laughing gas, for sedation and pain from the cosmetic procedure. The first victim, age 51, said Dr. Salata prescribed alprazolam (Xanax) to take before the procedure and then also gave her nitrous oxide and tequila, causing her to black out, according to NBC2 News.

The second victim, age 72, told police that as the nitrous oxide was wearing off, she found Dr. Salata performing sexual intercourse. The victim felt shocked after the sedation subsided about what had taken place, contacted police, and submitted to a sexual assault examination, according to the police statement.

At Dr. Salata’s November 22 hearing before Judge Michael Provost, a prosecutor asked the judge whether Dr. Salata should surrender his firearms; Provost reportedly dismissed the idea.

“It is disappointing and frustrating that Dr. Salata has escaped justice,” said one victim’s attorney, Adam Horowitz, in a blog post. “Yet, we are relieved that no other women will be assaulted by Dr. Salata again. It took tremendous courage for my client to tell her truth. She was ready to hold him accountable in court.”

Horowitz says he plans to file a civil lawsuit on behalf of his client against Dr. Salata’s estate. The Naples police are continuing their investigation into the victims’ cases, which now includes a third woman, said spokesman Lt. Bryan McGinn.

Meanwhile, the Pura Vida Medical Spa has closed permanently and its website has been deleted. One reviewer named Soul F. wrote on the spa’s Yelp page: “And now may God have mercy on this rapist’s soul. Amen.”

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

Eric Andrew Salata, MD, a 54-year-old internist based in Naples, Florida, made headlines 2 weeks ago when he was arrested by local police and charged with sexual battery on two of his patients, according to a police statement.

A week later, a Collier County Sheriff’s deputy found Dr. Salata’s body near his Naples home with a gunshot wound to the head, according to police. The medical examiner later ruled it a suicide.

Dr. Salata co-owned Pura Vida Medical Spa in Naples with his wife Jill Salata, a certified family nurse practitioner. They specialized in cosmetic treatment and surgery.

Naples police said that they arrested Dr. Salata after two female patients accused the doctor of allegedly drugging and raping them while they were still unconscious.

Both victims described being given nitrous oxide, also called laughing gas, for sedation and pain from the cosmetic procedure. The first victim, age 51, said Dr. Salata prescribed alprazolam (Xanax) to take before the procedure and then also gave her nitrous oxide and tequila, causing her to black out, according to NBC2 News.

The second victim, age 72, told police that as the nitrous oxide was wearing off, she found Dr. Salata performing sexual intercourse. The victim felt shocked after the sedation subsided about what had taken place, contacted police, and submitted to a sexual assault examination, according to the police statement.

At Dr. Salata’s November 22 hearing before Judge Michael Provost, a prosecutor asked the judge whether Dr. Salata should surrender his firearms; Provost reportedly dismissed the idea.

“It is disappointing and frustrating that Dr. Salata has escaped justice,” said one victim’s attorney, Adam Horowitz, in a blog post. “Yet, we are relieved that no other women will be assaulted by Dr. Salata again. It took tremendous courage for my client to tell her truth. She was ready to hold him accountable in court.”

Horowitz says he plans to file a civil lawsuit on behalf of his client against Dr. Salata’s estate. The Naples police are continuing their investigation into the victims’ cases, which now includes a third woman, said spokesman Lt. Bryan McGinn.

Meanwhile, the Pura Vida Medical Spa has closed permanently and its website has been deleted. One reviewer named Soul F. wrote on the spa’s Yelp page: “And now may God have mercy on this rapist’s soul. Amen.”