Clinical Endocrinology News

Less than half of women in the United States enter pregnancy in favorable cardiovascular health, new research suggests.

In 2019, among women aged 20 to 44 years with live births in the United States, only 40.2% were in favorable cardiovascular health prior to pregnancy, defined as normal weight, no diabetes, and no hypertension.

Although all regions and states showed a decline in prepregnancy favorable cardiometabolic health, there were significant differences among geographic regions in the country, the authors report. “These data reveal critical deficiencies and geographic disparities in prepregnancy cardiometabolic health,” they conclude.

“One of the things that we know in the U.S. is that the maternal mortality rate has been increasing, and there are significant differences at the state level in both adverse maternal outcomes, such as maternal mortality, as well as adverse pregnancy outcomes,” corresponding author Sadiya S. Khan, MD, MS, FACC, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, told this news organization.

“These outcomes are often related to health factors that predate pregnancy,” Dr. Khan explained, “and the processes that begin at the very, very beginning of conception are informed by health factors prior to pregnancy, in particular cardiometabolic factors like body mass index or obesity, high blood pressure, and diabetes.”

The results were published online on Feb. 14 in a special “Go Red for Women” spotlight issue of Circulation.
 

Cardiometabolic health factors

Using maternal birth records from live births in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Natality Database between 2016 and 2019, the authors analyzed data on 14,174,625 women with live births aged 20 to 44 years. The majority (81.4%) were 20 to 34 years of age, 22.7% were Hispanic or Latina, and 52.7% were non-Hispanic White.

Favorable cardiometabolic health was defined as a BMI of 18 to 24.9 kg/m2, absence of diabetes, and absence of hypertension.

Although all regions and states experienced a decline in favorable cardiometabolic health during the study period of 2016 to 2019, with a drop overall of 3.2% – from 43.5 to 40.2 per 100 live births – it was especially true of the South and Midwest regions.

In 2019, favorable prepregnancy cardiometabolic health was lowest in the South (38.1%) and Midwest (38.8%) and highest in the West (42.2%) and Northeast (43.6%).

State by state, the lowest prevalence of favorable cardiometabolic health was found in Mississippi, at 31.2%, and highest in Utah, at 47.2%.

They also found a correlation between favorable cardiometabolic health and state-level percentages of high-school education or less and enrollment in Medicaid in 2019.

Similar to what has been seen with cardiovascular disease, “we observe that the states with the lowest prevalence of favorable cardiometabolic health were in the Southeast United States,” said Dr. Khan, “and similar geographic variation was observed with some more patterns in education and Medicaid coverage for birth, and these were used as proxies for socioeconomic status in those areas.”

Although Dr. Khan notes that the relationships cannot be determined to be causal from this analysis, she said that “it does suggest that upstream social determinants of health are important determinants of cardiometabolic health.”
 

Socioeconomic intervention

Dr. Khan noted that policies at the federal and state level can identify ways to “ensure that individuals who are thinking about pregnancy have access to health care and have access to resources, too, from a broad range of health determinants, including housing stability, food security, as well as access to health care be optimized prior to pregnancy.”

The authors note that this analysis may actually overestimate the prevalence of favorable cardiometabolic health, and data on cholesterol, diet, a distinction between type 1 and type 2 diabetes, and physical activity were not available.

Only individuals with live births were included, which could result in the elimination of a potentially high-risk group; however, late pregnancy losses represent less than 0.3% of all pregnancies, they say.

The authors conclude that “future research is needed to equitably improve health prior to pregnancy and quantify the potential benefits in cardiovascular disease outcomes for birthing individuals and their offspring.”

This work was supported by grants from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and American Heart Association Transformational Project Award awarded to Sadiya S. Khan.

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

Less than half of women in the United States enter pregnancy in favorable cardiovascular health, new research suggests.

In 2019, among women aged 20 to 44 years with live births in the United States, only 40.2% were in favorable cardiovascular health prior to pregnancy, defined as normal weight, no diabetes, and no hypertension.

Although all regions and states showed a decline in prepregnancy favorable cardiometabolic health, there were significant differences among geographic regions in the country, the authors report. “These data reveal critical deficiencies and geographic disparities in prepregnancy cardiometabolic health,” they conclude.

“One of the things that we know in the U.S. is that the maternal mortality rate has been increasing, and there are significant differences at the state level in both adverse maternal outcomes, such as maternal mortality, as well as adverse pregnancy outcomes,” corresponding author Sadiya S. Khan, MD, MS, FACC, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, told this news organization.

“These outcomes are often related to health factors that predate pregnancy,” Dr. Khan explained, “and the processes that begin at the very, very beginning of conception are informed by health factors prior to pregnancy, in particular cardiometabolic factors like body mass index or obesity, high blood pressure, and diabetes.”

The results were published online on Feb. 14 in a special “Go Red for Women” spotlight issue of Circulation.
 

Cardiometabolic health factors

Using maternal birth records from live births in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Natality Database between 2016 and 2019, the authors analyzed data on 14,174,625 women with live births aged 20 to 44 years. The majority (81.4%) were 20 to 34 years of age, 22.7% were Hispanic or Latina, and 52.7% were non-Hispanic White.

Favorable cardiometabolic health was defined as a BMI of 18 to 24.9 kg/m2, absence of diabetes, and absence of hypertension.

Although all regions and states experienced a decline in favorable cardiometabolic health during the study period of 2016 to 2019, with a drop overall of 3.2% – from 43.5 to 40.2 per 100 live births – it was especially true of the South and Midwest regions.

In 2019, favorable prepregnancy cardiometabolic health was lowest in the South (38.1%) and Midwest (38.8%) and highest in the West (42.2%) and Northeast (43.6%).

State by state, the lowest prevalence of favorable cardiometabolic health was found in Mississippi, at 31.2%, and highest in Utah, at 47.2%.

They also found a correlation between favorable cardiometabolic health and state-level percentages of high-school education or less and enrollment in Medicaid in 2019.

Similar to what has been seen with cardiovascular disease, “we observe that the states with the lowest prevalence of favorable cardiometabolic health were in the Southeast United States,” said Dr. Khan, “and similar geographic variation was observed with some more patterns in education and Medicaid coverage for birth, and these were used as proxies for socioeconomic status in those areas.”

Although Dr. Khan notes that the relationships cannot be determined to be causal from this analysis, she said that “it does suggest that upstream social determinants of health are important determinants of cardiometabolic health.”
 

Socioeconomic intervention

Dr. Khan noted that policies at the federal and state level can identify ways to “ensure that individuals who are thinking about pregnancy have access to health care and have access to resources, too, from a broad range of health determinants, including housing stability, food security, as well as access to health care be optimized prior to pregnancy.”

The authors note that this analysis may actually overestimate the prevalence of favorable cardiometabolic health, and data on cholesterol, diet, a distinction between type 1 and type 2 diabetes, and physical activity were not available.

Only individuals with live births were included, which could result in the elimination of a potentially high-risk group; however, late pregnancy losses represent less than 0.3% of all pregnancies, they say.

The authors conclude that “future research is needed to equitably improve health prior to pregnancy and quantify the potential benefits in cardiovascular disease outcomes for birthing individuals and their offspring.”

This work was supported by grants from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and American Heart Association Transformational Project Award awarded to Sadiya S. Khan.

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

Less than half of women in the United States enter pregnancy in favorable cardiovascular health, new research suggests.

In 2019, among women aged 20 to 44 years with live births in the United States, only 40.2% were in favorable cardiovascular health prior to pregnancy, defined as normal weight, no diabetes, and no hypertension.

Although all regions and states showed a decline in prepregnancy favorable cardiometabolic health, there were significant differences among geographic regions in the country, the authors report. “These data reveal critical deficiencies and geographic disparities in prepregnancy cardiometabolic health,” they conclude.

“One of the things that we know in the U.S. is that the maternal mortality rate has been increasing, and there are significant differences at the state level in both adverse maternal outcomes, such as maternal mortality, as well as adverse pregnancy outcomes,” corresponding author Sadiya S. Khan, MD, MS, FACC, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, told this news organization.

“These outcomes are often related to health factors that predate pregnancy,” Dr. Khan explained, “and the processes that begin at the very, very beginning of conception are informed by health factors prior to pregnancy, in particular cardiometabolic factors like body mass index or obesity, high blood pressure, and diabetes.”

The results were published online on Feb. 14 in a special “Go Red for Women” spotlight issue of Circulation.
 

Cardiometabolic health factors

Using maternal birth records from live births in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Natality Database between 2016 and 2019, the authors analyzed data on 14,174,625 women with live births aged 20 to 44 years. The majority (81.4%) were 20 to 34 years of age, 22.7% were Hispanic or Latina, and 52.7% were non-Hispanic White.

Favorable cardiometabolic health was defined as a BMI of 18 to 24.9 kg/m2, absence of diabetes, and absence of hypertension.

Although all regions and states experienced a decline in favorable cardiometabolic health during the study period of 2016 to 2019, with a drop overall of 3.2% – from 43.5 to 40.2 per 100 live births – it was especially true of the South and Midwest regions.

In 2019, favorable prepregnancy cardiometabolic health was lowest in the South (38.1%) and Midwest (38.8%) and highest in the West (42.2%) and Northeast (43.6%).

State by state, the lowest prevalence of favorable cardiometabolic health was found in Mississippi, at 31.2%, and highest in Utah, at 47.2%.

They also found a correlation between favorable cardiometabolic health and state-level percentages of high-school education or less and enrollment in Medicaid in 2019.

Similar to what has been seen with cardiovascular disease, “we observe that the states with the lowest prevalence of favorable cardiometabolic health were in the Southeast United States,” said Dr. Khan, “and similar geographic variation was observed with some more patterns in education and Medicaid coverage for birth, and these were used as proxies for socioeconomic status in those areas.”

Although Dr. Khan notes that the relationships cannot be determined to be causal from this analysis, she said that “it does suggest that upstream social determinants of health are important determinants of cardiometabolic health.”
 

Socioeconomic intervention

Dr. Khan noted that policies at the federal and state level can identify ways to “ensure that individuals who are thinking about pregnancy have access to health care and have access to resources, too, from a broad range of health determinants, including housing stability, food security, as well as access to health care be optimized prior to pregnancy.”

The authors note that this analysis may actually overestimate the prevalence of favorable cardiometabolic health, and data on cholesterol, diet, a distinction between type 1 and type 2 diabetes, and physical activity were not available.

Only individuals with live births were included, which could result in the elimination of a potentially high-risk group; however, late pregnancy losses represent less than 0.3% of all pregnancies, they say.

The authors conclude that “future research is needed to equitably improve health prior to pregnancy and quantify the potential benefits in cardiovascular disease outcomes for birthing individuals and their offspring.”

This work was supported by grants from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and American Heart Association Transformational Project Award awarded to Sadiya S. Khan.

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

Have you experienced malpractice?

No, I’m not asking whether you have experienced litigation. I’m asking whether you, as a physician, have actually experienced substandard care from a colleague. I have heard many such experiences over the years, and mistreatment doesn’t seem to be getting any less frequent.

It seems to me that physicians may be especially prone to receiving substandard care. If true, there could be several explanations. The first is that, unlike the Pope, who has a dedicated confessor trained to minister to his spiritual needs, no one formally trains physicians to treat physicians. As a result, most of us feel slightly uneasy at treating other physicians. We naturally wish to keep our colleagues well, but at the same time realize that our clinical skills are being very closely scrutinized. What if they are found to be wanting? This discomfiture can make a physician treating a physician overly compulsive, or worse, overtly dismissive.

Second, we physicians are famously poor patients. We pretend we don’t need the advice we give others, to monitor our health and promptly seek care when something feels amiss. And, for the period during which we delay a medical encounter, we often attempt to diagnose and treat ourselves.

Sometimes we are successful, which reinforces this approach. Other times, we fail at being our own caregiver and present to someone else either too late, or with avoidable complications. In the former instance, we congratulate ourselves and learn nothing from the experience. In the latter, we may heap shame upon ourselves for our folly, and we may learn; but it could be a lethal lesson. In the worst scenario, our colleague gives in to frustration (or angst), and heaps even more shame onto their late-presenting physician patient.

Third, when we do submit to being a patient, we often demand VIP treatment. This is probably in response to our anxiety that some of the worst things we have seen happen to patients might happen to us if we are not vigilant to ensure we receive a higher level of care. But of course, such hypervigilance can lead to excessive care and testing, with all the attendant hazards, or alternatively to dilution of care if our caregivers decide we are just too much trouble.

Fourth, as a fifth-generation physician myself, I am convinced that physicians and physician family members are either prone to unusual manifestations of common diseases or unusual diseases, or that rare disease entities and complications are actually more common than literature suggests, and they simply aren’t pursued or diagnosed in nonphysician families.

No matter how we may have arrived in a position to need medical care, how often is such care substandard? And how do we respond when we suspect, or know, this to be the case? Are physicians more, or less, likely to take legal action in the face of it?

I certainly don’t know any statistics. Physicians are in an excellent position to take such action, because judges and juries will likely believe that a doctor can recognize negligence when we fall victim to it. But we may also be reluctant to publicly admit the way (or ways) in which we may have contributed to substandard care or outcome.

Based on decades of working with physician clients who have been sued, and having been sued myself (thus witnessing and also experiencing the effects of litigation), I am probably more reluctant than normal patients or physicians to consider taking legal action. This, despite the fact that I am also a lawyer and (through organized medicine) know many colleagues in all specialties who might serve as expert witnesses.

I have experienced serial substandard care, which has left me highly conflicted about the efficacy of my chosen profession. As a resident, I had my first odd pain condition and consulted an “elder statesperson” from my institution, whom I assumed to be a “doctor’s doctor” because he was a superb teacher (wrong!)

He completely missed the diagnosis and further belittled (indeed, libeled) me in the medical record. (Some years later, I learned that, during that period, he was increasingly demented and tended to view all female patients as having “wandering uterus” equivalents.) Fortunately, I found a better diagnostician, or at least one more willing to lend credence to my complaints, who successfully removed the first of several “zebra” lesions I have experienced.

As a young faculty member, I had an odd presentation of a recurring gynecologic condition, which was treated surgically, successfully, except that my fertility was cut in half – a possibility about which I had not been informed when giving operative consent. Would I have sued this fellow faculty member for that? Never, because she invariably treated me with respect as a colleague.

Later in my career after leaving academia, the same condition recurred in a new location. My old-school gynecologist desired to do an extensive procedure, to which I demurred unless specific pathology was found intraoperatively. Affronted, he subjected me to laparoscopy, did nothing but look, and then left the hospital leaving me and the PACU nurse to try to decipher his instructions (which said, basically, “I didn’t find anything; don’t bother me again.”). Several years of pain later, a younger gynecologist performed the correct procedure to address my problem, which has never recurred. Would I have sued him? No, because I believe he had a disability.

At age 59, I developed a new mole. My beloved general practitioner, in the waning years of his practice, forgot to consult a colleague to remove it for several months. When I forced the issue, the mole was removed and turned out to be a rare pediatric condition considered a precursor to melanoma. The same general practitioner had told me I needn’t worry about my “mild hypercalcemia.”

Ten years later I diagnosed my own parathyroid adenoma, in the interim losing 10% of my bone density. Would I have sued him? No, for he always showed he cared. (Though maybe, if I had fractured my spine or hip.)

If you have been the victim of physician malpractice, how did you respond?

Do we serve our profession well by how we handle substandard care – upon ourselves (or our loved ones)?

Dr. Andrew is a former assistant professor in the department of emergency medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and founder and principal of MDMentor, Victoria, B.C.

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

Have you experienced malpractice?

No, I’m not asking whether you have experienced litigation. I’m asking whether you, as a physician, have actually experienced substandard care from a colleague. I have heard many such experiences over the years, and mistreatment doesn’t seem to be getting any less frequent.

It seems to me that physicians may be especially prone to receiving substandard care. If true, there could be several explanations. The first is that, unlike the Pope, who has a dedicated confessor trained to minister to his spiritual needs, no one formally trains physicians to treat physicians. As a result, most of us feel slightly uneasy at treating other physicians. We naturally wish to keep our colleagues well, but at the same time realize that our clinical skills are being very closely scrutinized. What if they are found to be wanting? This discomfiture can make a physician treating a physician overly compulsive, or worse, overtly dismissive.

Second, we physicians are famously poor patients. We pretend we don’t need the advice we give others, to monitor our health and promptly seek care when something feels amiss. And, for the period during which we delay a medical encounter, we often attempt to diagnose and treat ourselves.

Sometimes we are successful, which reinforces this approach. Other times, we fail at being our own caregiver and present to someone else either too late, or with avoidable complications. In the former instance, we congratulate ourselves and learn nothing from the experience. In the latter, we may heap shame upon ourselves for our folly, and we may learn; but it could be a lethal lesson. In the worst scenario, our colleague gives in to frustration (or angst), and heaps even more shame onto their late-presenting physician patient.

Third, when we do submit to being a patient, we often demand VIP treatment. This is probably in response to our anxiety that some of the worst things we have seen happen to patients might happen to us if we are not vigilant to ensure we receive a higher level of care. But of course, such hypervigilance can lead to excessive care and testing, with all the attendant hazards, or alternatively to dilution of care if our caregivers decide we are just too much trouble.

Fourth, as a fifth-generation physician myself, I am convinced that physicians and physician family members are either prone to unusual manifestations of common diseases or unusual diseases, or that rare disease entities and complications are actually more common than literature suggests, and they simply aren’t pursued or diagnosed in nonphysician families.

No matter how we may have arrived in a position to need medical care, how often is such care substandard? And how do we respond when we suspect, or know, this to be the case? Are physicians more, or less, likely to take legal action in the face of it?

I certainly don’t know any statistics. Physicians are in an excellent position to take such action, because judges and juries will likely believe that a doctor can recognize negligence when we fall victim to it. But we may also be reluctant to publicly admit the way (or ways) in which we may have contributed to substandard care or outcome.

Based on decades of working with physician clients who have been sued, and having been sued myself (thus witnessing and also experiencing the effects of litigation), I am probably more reluctant than normal patients or physicians to consider taking legal action. This, despite the fact that I am also a lawyer and (through organized medicine) know many colleagues in all specialties who might serve as expert witnesses.

I have experienced serial substandard care, which has left me highly conflicted about the efficacy of my chosen profession. As a resident, I had my first odd pain condition and consulted an “elder statesperson” from my institution, whom I assumed to be a “doctor’s doctor” because he was a superb teacher (wrong!)

He completely missed the diagnosis and further belittled (indeed, libeled) me in the medical record. (Some years later, I learned that, during that period, he was increasingly demented and tended to view all female patients as having “wandering uterus” equivalents.) Fortunately, I found a better diagnostician, or at least one more willing to lend credence to my complaints, who successfully removed the first of several “zebra” lesions I have experienced.

As a young faculty member, I had an odd presentation of a recurring gynecologic condition, which was treated surgically, successfully, except that my fertility was cut in half – a possibility about which I had not been informed when giving operative consent. Would I have sued this fellow faculty member for that? Never, because she invariably treated me with respect as a colleague.

Later in my career after leaving academia, the same condition recurred in a new location. My old-school gynecologist desired to do an extensive procedure, to which I demurred unless specific pathology was found intraoperatively. Affronted, he subjected me to laparoscopy, did nothing but look, and then left the hospital leaving me and the PACU nurse to try to decipher his instructions (which said, basically, “I didn’t find anything; don’t bother me again.”). Several years of pain later, a younger gynecologist performed the correct procedure to address my problem, which has never recurred. Would I have sued him? No, because I believe he had a disability.

At age 59, I developed a new mole. My beloved general practitioner, in the waning years of his practice, forgot to consult a colleague to remove it for several months. When I forced the issue, the mole was removed and turned out to be a rare pediatric condition considered a precursor to melanoma. The same general practitioner had told me I needn’t worry about my “mild hypercalcemia.”

Ten years later I diagnosed my own parathyroid adenoma, in the interim losing 10% of my bone density. Would I have sued him? No, for he always showed he cared. (Though maybe, if I had fractured my spine or hip.)

If you have been the victim of physician malpractice, how did you respond?

Do we serve our profession well by how we handle substandard care – upon ourselves (or our loved ones)?

Dr. Andrew is a former assistant professor in the department of emergency medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and founder and principal of MDMentor, Victoria, B.C.

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

Have you experienced malpractice?

No, I’m not asking whether you have experienced litigation. I’m asking whether you, as a physician, have actually experienced substandard care from a colleague. I have heard many such experiences over the years, and mistreatment doesn’t seem to be getting any less frequent.

It seems to me that physicians may be especially prone to receiving substandard care. If true, there could be several explanations. The first is that, unlike the Pope, who has a dedicated confessor trained to minister to his spiritual needs, no one formally trains physicians to treat physicians. As a result, most of us feel slightly uneasy at treating other physicians. We naturally wish to keep our colleagues well, but at the same time realize that our clinical skills are being very closely scrutinized. What if they are found to be wanting? This discomfiture can make a physician treating a physician overly compulsive, or worse, overtly dismissive.

Second, we physicians are famously poor patients. We pretend we don’t need the advice we give others, to monitor our health and promptly seek care when something feels amiss. And, for the period during which we delay a medical encounter, we often attempt to diagnose and treat ourselves.

Sometimes we are successful, which reinforces this approach. Other times, we fail at being our own caregiver and present to someone else either too late, or with avoidable complications. In the former instance, we congratulate ourselves and learn nothing from the experience. In the latter, we may heap shame upon ourselves for our folly, and we may learn; but it could be a lethal lesson. In the worst scenario, our colleague gives in to frustration (or angst), and heaps even more shame onto their late-presenting physician patient.

Third, when we do submit to being a patient, we often demand VIP treatment. This is probably in response to our anxiety that some of the worst things we have seen happen to patients might happen to us if we are not vigilant to ensure we receive a higher level of care. But of course, such hypervigilance can lead to excessive care and testing, with all the attendant hazards, or alternatively to dilution of care if our caregivers decide we are just too much trouble.

Fourth, as a fifth-generation physician myself, I am convinced that physicians and physician family members are either prone to unusual manifestations of common diseases or unusual diseases, or that rare disease entities and complications are actually more common than literature suggests, and they simply aren’t pursued or diagnosed in nonphysician families.

No matter how we may have arrived in a position to need medical care, how often is such care substandard? And how do we respond when we suspect, or know, this to be the case? Are physicians more, or less, likely to take legal action in the face of it?

I certainly don’t know any statistics. Physicians are in an excellent position to take such action, because judges and juries will likely believe that a doctor can recognize negligence when we fall victim to it. But we may also be reluctant to publicly admit the way (or ways) in which we may have contributed to substandard care or outcome.

Based on decades of working with physician clients who have been sued, and having been sued myself (thus witnessing and also experiencing the effects of litigation), I am probably more reluctant than normal patients or physicians to consider taking legal action. This, despite the fact that I am also a lawyer and (through organized medicine) know many colleagues in all specialties who might serve as expert witnesses.

I have experienced serial substandard care, which has left me highly conflicted about the efficacy of my chosen profession. As a resident, I had my first odd pain condition and consulted an “elder statesperson” from my institution, whom I assumed to be a “doctor’s doctor” because he was a superb teacher (wrong!)

He completely missed the diagnosis and further belittled (indeed, libeled) me in the medical record. (Some years later, I learned that, during that period, he was increasingly demented and tended to view all female patients as having “wandering uterus” equivalents.) Fortunately, I found a better diagnostician, or at least one more willing to lend credence to my complaints, who successfully removed the first of several “zebra” lesions I have experienced.

As a young faculty member, I had an odd presentation of a recurring gynecologic condition, which was treated surgically, successfully, except that my fertility was cut in half – a possibility about which I had not been informed when giving operative consent. Would I have sued this fellow faculty member for that? Never, because she invariably treated me with respect as a colleague.

Later in my career after leaving academia, the same condition recurred in a new location. My old-school gynecologist desired to do an extensive procedure, to which I demurred unless specific pathology was found intraoperatively. Affronted, he subjected me to laparoscopy, did nothing but look, and then left the hospital leaving me and the PACU nurse to try to decipher his instructions (which said, basically, “I didn’t find anything; don’t bother me again.”). Several years of pain later, a younger gynecologist performed the correct procedure to address my problem, which has never recurred. Would I have sued him? No, because I believe he had a disability.

At age 59, I developed a new mole. My beloved general practitioner, in the waning years of his practice, forgot to consult a colleague to remove it for several months. When I forced the issue, the mole was removed and turned out to be a rare pediatric condition considered a precursor to melanoma. The same general practitioner had told me I needn’t worry about my “mild hypercalcemia.”

Ten years later I diagnosed my own parathyroid adenoma, in the interim losing 10% of my bone density. Would I have sued him? No, for he always showed he cared. (Though maybe, if I had fractured my spine or hip.)

If you have been the victim of physician malpractice, how did you respond?

Do we serve our profession well by how we handle substandard care – upon ourselves (or our loved ones)?

Dr. Andrew is a former assistant professor in the department of emergency medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and founder and principal of MDMentor, Victoria, B.C.

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

Low-value health care services that provide little or no benefit to patients are “common, potentially harmful, and costly,” and there is a critical need to reduce this kind of care, the American Heart Association said in a newly released scientific statement.

Each year, nearly half of patients in the United States will receive at least one low-value test or procedure, with the attendant risk of avoidable complications from cascades of care and excess costs to individuals and society, the authors noted. Reducing low-value care is particularly important in cardiology, given the high prevalence and costs of cardiovascular disease in the United States.

The statement was published online Feb. 22, 2022, in Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes.
 

High burden with uncertain benefit

“Cardiovascular disease is common and can present suddenly, such as a heart attack or abnormal heart rhythm,” Vinay Kini, MD, chair of the statement writing group and assistant professor of medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, said in a news release.

“Our desire to be vigilant about treating and preventing cardiovascular disease may sometimes lead to use of tests and procedures where the benefits to patients may be uncertain,” Dr. Kini said. “This may impose burdens on patients, in the form of increased risk of physical harm from the low-value procedure or potential complications, as well as follow-up care and out-of-pocket financial costs.”

For example, studies have shown that up to one in five echocardiograms and up to half of all stress tests performed in the United States may be rated as rarely appropriate, based on established guidelines for their use.

In addition, up to 15% of percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs) are classified as rarely appropriate, the writing group said.

Annually, among Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries, low-value stress testing in patients with stable coronary artery disease is estimated to cost between $212 million and $2.1 billion, while costs of PCI for stable CAD range from $212 million to $2.8 billion, the writing group noted.

“At best, spending on low-value care potentially diverts resources from higher-value services that would benefit patients more effectively at the same or reduced cost. At worst, low-value care results in physical harm in the form of preventable morbidity and mortality,” they said.

“Thus, reducing low-value care is one of the few patient-centered solutions that directly address both the need to control health care spending and the societal imperative to devote its limited resources to beneficial health care services that improve health,” they added.

The group outlines several ways to reduce low-value cardiovascular care targeting patients, providers, and payers/policymakers.

For patients, education and shared decision-making may help reduce low-value care and dispel misconceptions about the intended purpose of test or treatment, they suggested.

For clinicians, a “layered” approach to reducing low-value care may be most effective, such as through education, audit and feedback, and behavioral science tools (“nudges”) to shift behaviors and practices, they said.

For payers and policy leaders, interventions to reduce low-value care include national insurance coverage determinations; prior authorization; alternative payment models that reward lower costs and higher-quality health care; value-based insurance designs that financially penalize low-value care; and medical liability reform to reduce defensive medical practices.

Low-value cardiovascular care is a complex problem, the writing group acknowledged, and achieving meaningful reductions in low-value cardiovascular care will require a multidisciplinary approach that includes continuous research, implementation, evaluation, and adjustment while ensuring equitable access to care.

“Each approach has benefits and drawbacks,” Dr. Kini said. “For example, prior authorization imposes a large burden on health care professionals to obtain insurance approval for tests and treatments. Prior authorization and some value-based payment models may unintentionally worsen existing racial and ethnic health care disparities.

“A one-size-fits-all approach to reducing low-value care is unlikely to succeed; rather, acting through multiple perspectives and frequently measuring impacts and potential unintended consequences is critical,” he concluded.

The scientific statement was prepared by the volunteer writing group on behalf of the AHA’s Council on Quality of Care and Outcomes Research.

The research had no commercial funding. Dr. Kini disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Low-value health care services that provide little or no benefit to patients are “common, potentially harmful, and costly,” and there is a critical need to reduce this kind of care, the American Heart Association said in a newly released scientific statement.

Each year, nearly half of patients in the United States will receive at least one low-value test or procedure, with the attendant risk of avoidable complications from cascades of care and excess costs to individuals and society, the authors noted. Reducing low-value care is particularly important in cardiology, given the high prevalence and costs of cardiovascular disease in the United States.

The statement was published online Feb. 22, 2022, in Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes.
 

High burden with uncertain benefit

“Cardiovascular disease is common and can present suddenly, such as a heart attack or abnormal heart rhythm,” Vinay Kini, MD, chair of the statement writing group and assistant professor of medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, said in a news release.

“Our desire to be vigilant about treating and preventing cardiovascular disease may sometimes lead to use of tests and procedures where the benefits to patients may be uncertain,” Dr. Kini said. “This may impose burdens on patients, in the form of increased risk of physical harm from the low-value procedure or potential complications, as well as follow-up care and out-of-pocket financial costs.”

For example, studies have shown that up to one in five echocardiograms and up to half of all stress tests performed in the United States may be rated as rarely appropriate, based on established guidelines for their use.

In addition, up to 15% of percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs) are classified as rarely appropriate, the writing group said.

Annually, among Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries, low-value stress testing in patients with stable coronary artery disease is estimated to cost between $212 million and $2.1 billion, while costs of PCI for stable CAD range from $212 million to $2.8 billion, the writing group noted.

“At best, spending on low-value care potentially diverts resources from higher-value services that would benefit patients more effectively at the same or reduced cost. At worst, low-value care results in physical harm in the form of preventable morbidity and mortality,” they said.

“Thus, reducing low-value care is one of the few patient-centered solutions that directly address both the need to control health care spending and the societal imperative to devote its limited resources to beneficial health care services that improve health,” they added.

The group outlines several ways to reduce low-value cardiovascular care targeting patients, providers, and payers/policymakers.

For patients, education and shared decision-making may help reduce low-value care and dispel misconceptions about the intended purpose of test or treatment, they suggested.

For clinicians, a “layered” approach to reducing low-value care may be most effective, such as through education, audit and feedback, and behavioral science tools (“nudges”) to shift behaviors and practices, they said.

For payers and policy leaders, interventions to reduce low-value care include national insurance coverage determinations; prior authorization; alternative payment models that reward lower costs and higher-quality health care; value-based insurance designs that financially penalize low-value care; and medical liability reform to reduce defensive medical practices.

Low-value cardiovascular care is a complex problem, the writing group acknowledged, and achieving meaningful reductions in low-value cardiovascular care will require a multidisciplinary approach that includes continuous research, implementation, evaluation, and adjustment while ensuring equitable access to care.

“Each approach has benefits and drawbacks,” Dr. Kini said. “For example, prior authorization imposes a large burden on health care professionals to obtain insurance approval for tests and treatments. Prior authorization and some value-based payment models may unintentionally worsen existing racial and ethnic health care disparities.

“A one-size-fits-all approach to reducing low-value care is unlikely to succeed; rather, acting through multiple perspectives and frequently measuring impacts and potential unintended consequences is critical,” he concluded.

The scientific statement was prepared by the volunteer writing group on behalf of the AHA’s Council on Quality of Care and Outcomes Research.

The research had no commercial funding. Dr. Kini disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Low-value health care services that provide little or no benefit to patients are “common, potentially harmful, and costly,” and there is a critical need to reduce this kind of care, the American Heart Association said in a newly released scientific statement.

Each year, nearly half of patients in the United States will receive at least one low-value test or procedure, with the attendant risk of avoidable complications from cascades of care and excess costs to individuals and society, the authors noted. Reducing low-value care is particularly important in cardiology, given the high prevalence and costs of cardiovascular disease in the United States.

The statement was published online Feb. 22, 2022, in Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes.
 

High burden with uncertain benefit

“Cardiovascular disease is common and can present suddenly, such as a heart attack or abnormal heart rhythm,” Vinay Kini, MD, chair of the statement writing group and assistant professor of medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, said in a news release.

“Our desire to be vigilant about treating and preventing cardiovascular disease may sometimes lead to use of tests and procedures where the benefits to patients may be uncertain,” Dr. Kini said. “This may impose burdens on patients, in the form of increased risk of physical harm from the low-value procedure or potential complications, as well as follow-up care and out-of-pocket financial costs.”

For example, studies have shown that up to one in five echocardiograms and up to half of all stress tests performed in the United States may be rated as rarely appropriate, based on established guidelines for their use.

In addition, up to 15% of percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs) are classified as rarely appropriate, the writing group said.

Annually, among Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries, low-value stress testing in patients with stable coronary artery disease is estimated to cost between $212 million and $2.1 billion, while costs of PCI for stable CAD range from $212 million to $2.8 billion, the writing group noted.

“At best, spending on low-value care potentially diverts resources from higher-value services that would benefit patients more effectively at the same or reduced cost. At worst, low-value care results in physical harm in the form of preventable morbidity and mortality,” they said.

“Thus, reducing low-value care is one of the few patient-centered solutions that directly address both the need to control health care spending and the societal imperative to devote its limited resources to beneficial health care services that improve health,” they added.

The group outlines several ways to reduce low-value cardiovascular care targeting patients, providers, and payers/policymakers.

For patients, education and shared decision-making may help reduce low-value care and dispel misconceptions about the intended purpose of test or treatment, they suggested.

For clinicians, a “layered” approach to reducing low-value care may be most effective, such as through education, audit and feedback, and behavioral science tools (“nudges”) to shift behaviors and practices, they said.

For payers and policy leaders, interventions to reduce low-value care include national insurance coverage determinations; prior authorization; alternative payment models that reward lower costs and higher-quality health care; value-based insurance designs that financially penalize low-value care; and medical liability reform to reduce defensive medical practices.

Low-value cardiovascular care is a complex problem, the writing group acknowledged, and achieving meaningful reductions in low-value cardiovascular care will require a multidisciplinary approach that includes continuous research, implementation, evaluation, and adjustment while ensuring equitable access to care.

“Each approach has benefits and drawbacks,” Dr. Kini said. “For example, prior authorization imposes a large burden on health care professionals to obtain insurance approval for tests and treatments. Prior authorization and some value-based payment models may unintentionally worsen existing racial and ethnic health care disparities.

“A one-size-fits-all approach to reducing low-value care is unlikely to succeed; rather, acting through multiple perspectives and frequently measuring impacts and potential unintended consequences is critical,” he concluded.

The scientific statement was prepared by the volunteer writing group on behalf of the AHA’s Council on Quality of Care and Outcomes Research.

The research had no commercial funding. Dr. Kini disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved an expanded heart failure indication for the sodium-glucose transporter 2 inhibitor empagliflozin (Jardiance) that now includes HF with mid-range or preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), the agency announced on Feb. 24.

That means the SGLT2 inhibitor, once considered primarily an antidiabetic agent, is approved for use in patients with HF per se without regard to ventricular function. The drug received approval for HF with reduced LVEF in August 2021.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

The expanded indication, specifically for reducing the risk of cardiovascular death and HF hospitalization in adults, was widely anticipated based on the landmark results from the EMPEROR-Preserved trial. The study saw a significant 21% relative reduction in that composite endpoint over about 2 years in patients with New York Heart Association class II-IV heart failure and an LVEF greater than 40% who received empagliflozin along with other standard care.

Interestingly, the drug’s expanded indication in HF resembles that approved for sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto) in February 2021 based mostly on the PARAGON-HF trial, which entered patients with HF and an LVEF at least 45%. The trial was “negative” in that it saw no significant advantage to the drug for its primary clinical outcome but did suggest benefit for some secondary endpoints.

The FDA had used more cautionary language in its expanded indication for sacubitril/valsartan, “to reduce the risk of cardiovascular death and hospitalization for heart failure in adult patients with chronic heart failure. Benefits are most clearly evident in patients with left ventricular ejection fraction below normal.”

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved an expanded heart failure indication for the sodium-glucose transporter 2 inhibitor empagliflozin (Jardiance) that now includes HF with mid-range or preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), the agency announced on Feb. 24.

That means the SGLT2 inhibitor, once considered primarily an antidiabetic agent, is approved for use in patients with HF per se without regard to ventricular function. The drug received approval for HF with reduced LVEF in August 2021.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

The expanded indication, specifically for reducing the risk of cardiovascular death and HF hospitalization in adults, was widely anticipated based on the landmark results from the EMPEROR-Preserved trial. The study saw a significant 21% relative reduction in that composite endpoint over about 2 years in patients with New York Heart Association class II-IV heart failure and an LVEF greater than 40% who received empagliflozin along with other standard care.

Interestingly, the drug’s expanded indication in HF resembles that approved for sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto) in February 2021 based mostly on the PARAGON-HF trial, which entered patients with HF and an LVEF at least 45%. The trial was “negative” in that it saw no significant advantage to the drug for its primary clinical outcome but did suggest benefit for some secondary endpoints.

The FDA had used more cautionary language in its expanded indication for sacubitril/valsartan, “to reduce the risk of cardiovascular death and hospitalization for heart failure in adult patients with chronic heart failure. Benefits are most clearly evident in patients with left ventricular ejection fraction below normal.”

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved an expanded heart failure indication for the sodium-glucose transporter 2 inhibitor empagliflozin (Jardiance) that now includes HF with mid-range or preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), the agency announced on Feb. 24.

That means the SGLT2 inhibitor, once considered primarily an antidiabetic agent, is approved for use in patients with HF per se without regard to ventricular function. The drug received approval for HF with reduced LVEF in August 2021.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

The expanded indication, specifically for reducing the risk of cardiovascular death and HF hospitalization in adults, was widely anticipated based on the landmark results from the EMPEROR-Preserved trial. The study saw a significant 21% relative reduction in that composite endpoint over about 2 years in patients with New York Heart Association class II-IV heart failure and an LVEF greater than 40% who received empagliflozin along with other standard care.

Interestingly, the drug’s expanded indication in HF resembles that approved for sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto) in February 2021 based mostly on the PARAGON-HF trial, which entered patients with HF and an LVEF at least 45%. The trial was “negative” in that it saw no significant advantage to the drug for its primary clinical outcome but did suggest benefit for some secondary endpoints.

The FDA had used more cautionary language in its expanded indication for sacubitril/valsartan, “to reduce the risk of cardiovascular death and hospitalization for heart failure in adult patients with chronic heart failure. Benefits are most clearly evident in patients with left ventricular ejection fraction below normal.”

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

The Dexcom G7 continuous glucose monitor (CGM) is as accurate or better than other currently marketed CGM devices for measuring glucose in those with diabetes, new data from a pivotal study suggest.  

Currently under review by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the G7 is expected to be an improvement over the Dexcom G6 version in several ways.

The on-body size will be 60% smaller, “roughly the size of three stacked quarters,” according to the authors, and will incorporate the sensor with a single-use transmitter, as opposed to the current separate 3-month transmitter used with the G6 sensor. This will eliminate the need for using a transmitter across multiple sensor sessions (as is the case for G6).

The warm-up period after insertion is reduced from 2 hours to 27 minutes, and users are given an extra 12-hour “grace period” after the 10-day wear period to change the device before it stops displaying glucose data. Up to 24 hours of missed data can also be recaptured.

“The enhanced features of G7 may increase clinical adoption, encourage sustained use, and reduce the burden of diabetes management,” write Satish K. Garg, MD, of the University of Colorado, Aurora, and colleagues, in their article, published online Feb. 14 in Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics.  

Several features of the G6 remain unchanged, including factory calibration, but also the capacity for optional user calibrations, use of Bluetooth to transmit data up to 20 feet (approximately 6 meters), and data displays on either a dedicated receiver or a variety of iOS and Android smart devices.

It will also allow for user-customized settings and alerts, as well as the option for real-time remote “share” monitoring with caregivers or providers. The G7 will also not be susceptible to interference by acetaminophen (paracetamol) or ascorbic acid.

And, like the G6, the G7 was submitted for approval to the FDA as an “integrated CGM,” meaning that it will be interoperable with other compatible devices, including insulin pumps, glucose meters, or other electronic devices used for diabetes management.

Accuracy shown on abdomen, arm

The prospective, multicenter, single-arm study reported by Dr. Garg and colleagues was conducted at 12 U.S. sites between February and June 2021.

In-clinic visits were conducted on days 1 or 2, 4 or 7, and one additional day for comparisons with a reference glucose measure (YSI 2300 Stat Plus glucose analyzer). Participants wore blinded G7 sensors concurrently on the upper arm and abdomen while continuing to use their own personal glucose monitoring method (CGM or fingerstick) at home.

A total of 316 insulin-using adults with type 1 or type 2 diabetes contributed data from 308 arm- and 311 abdomen-placed blinded devices, which generated 77,774 matched pairs of data within the blood glucose reportable range of 40-400 mg/dL.  

The overall mean absolute relative difference (MARD) of each CGM-YSI pair (a standard metric for CGM analysis) was 8.2%, with 9.1% for the abdomen and 8.2% for the arm.

Accuracy remained high in both arm- and abdomen-placed sensors across the 10-day wear period through the 12-hour grace period and across glucose ranges. There were no significant differences between G7 accuracy by diabetes type, insulin regimen, or body mass index.

The highest agreement rates and lowest MARDs occurred when CGM readings were increasing or decreasing by no more than 1 mg/dL per minute. However, even at the highest rates of glucose concentration change, MARD values below 10% were found for arm-placed sensors and below 10.5% for abdomen-placed sensors, Dr. Garg and colleagues report.

When the hypoglycemia threshold alert was set to 55 mg/dL, true alert rates for detection of hypoglycemia below 70 mg/dL by sensors worn on the arm and abdomen were 91.3% and 85.2%, respectively. With hyperglycemia threshold alerts set to 300 mg/dL, the true alert rates for detection of hyperglycemia greater than 250 mg/dL by sensors worn on the arm and abdomen were 99.9% and 99.8% respectively.

The overall mean time lag for the sensors was 3.5 minutes, 3.6 minutes for the arm, and 3.4 minutes for the abdomen. There were no serious adverse events during the study.

The study excluded children and adolescents; data from these populations will be reported separately, the authors note.
 

Accuracy at least as good as prior Dexcom versions, competitors

The MARD values of 8.2% on the arm and 9.1% on the abdomen were similar to or better than accuracy measurements of other commercially available CGM systems, note Dr. Garg and colleagues, although they acknowledge that few head-to-head studies at different anatomic locations have been conducted.

A study of an older Dexcom version (G4 Platinum) found MARD estimates of 12.0% on the arm and 12.3% on the abdomen, the authors note.  

The newly FDA-approved implantable Eversense E3 (Senseonics) CGM, worn on the upper arm, has a MARD of 9.1%, while the arm-placed Abbott FreeStyle Libre 2, approved in the U.S. in June 2020, has an overall MARD of 9.3%.

Lag-time differences between the reference and G7 were also similar to or better than time delays in prior-generation Dexcom CGMs, Dr. Garg and colleagues say.

Participants also completed a survey. “The redesigned applicator allows for sensor deployment with one hand, and most participants found G7 easier to insert than their prior CGM system,” the researchers say.

Finally, “unlike G6, G7 allows for temporary silencing of all audible alerts, including Urgent Low. Taken together, these attributes are anticipated to provide for a better end-user experience with G7 and help reduce diabetes burden,” they conclude.

The study was supported by a grant from Dexcom. Dr. Garg has reported receiving consultant fees from Medtronic, Novo Nordisk, Zealand, LifeScan, Roche, and Lilly, as well as research grants through the University of Colorado from Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Medtronic, Dexcom, T1D Exchange, Helmsley Trust, NIDDK, and JDRF.

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

The Dexcom G7 continuous glucose monitor (CGM) is as accurate or better than other currently marketed CGM devices for measuring glucose in those with diabetes, new data from a pivotal study suggest.  

Currently under review by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the G7 is expected to be an improvement over the Dexcom G6 version in several ways.

The on-body size will be 60% smaller, “roughly the size of three stacked quarters,” according to the authors, and will incorporate the sensor with a single-use transmitter, as opposed to the current separate 3-month transmitter used with the G6 sensor. This will eliminate the need for using a transmitter across multiple sensor sessions (as is the case for G6).

The warm-up period after insertion is reduced from 2 hours to 27 minutes, and users are given an extra 12-hour “grace period” after the 10-day wear period to change the device before it stops displaying glucose data. Up to 24 hours of missed data can also be recaptured.

“The enhanced features of G7 may increase clinical adoption, encourage sustained use, and reduce the burden of diabetes management,” write Satish K. Garg, MD, of the University of Colorado, Aurora, and colleagues, in their article, published online Feb. 14 in Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics.  

Several features of the G6 remain unchanged, including factory calibration, but also the capacity for optional user calibrations, use of Bluetooth to transmit data up to 20 feet (approximately 6 meters), and data displays on either a dedicated receiver or a variety of iOS and Android smart devices.

It will also allow for user-customized settings and alerts, as well as the option for real-time remote “share” monitoring with caregivers or providers. The G7 will also not be susceptible to interference by acetaminophen (paracetamol) or ascorbic acid.

And, like the G6, the G7 was submitted for approval to the FDA as an “integrated CGM,” meaning that it will be interoperable with other compatible devices, including insulin pumps, glucose meters, or other electronic devices used for diabetes management.

Accuracy shown on abdomen, arm

The prospective, multicenter, single-arm study reported by Dr. Garg and colleagues was conducted at 12 U.S. sites between February and June 2021.

In-clinic visits were conducted on days 1 or 2, 4 or 7, and one additional day for comparisons with a reference glucose measure (YSI 2300 Stat Plus glucose analyzer). Participants wore blinded G7 sensors concurrently on the upper arm and abdomen while continuing to use their own personal glucose monitoring method (CGM or fingerstick) at home.

A total of 316 insulin-using adults with type 1 or type 2 diabetes contributed data from 308 arm- and 311 abdomen-placed blinded devices, which generated 77,774 matched pairs of data within the blood glucose reportable range of 40-400 mg/dL.  

The overall mean absolute relative difference (MARD) of each CGM-YSI pair (a standard metric for CGM analysis) was 8.2%, with 9.1% for the abdomen and 8.2% for the arm.

Accuracy remained high in both arm- and abdomen-placed sensors across the 10-day wear period through the 12-hour grace period and across glucose ranges. There were no significant differences between G7 accuracy by diabetes type, insulin regimen, or body mass index.

The highest agreement rates and lowest MARDs occurred when CGM readings were increasing or decreasing by no more than 1 mg/dL per minute. However, even at the highest rates of glucose concentration change, MARD values below 10% were found for arm-placed sensors and below 10.5% for abdomen-placed sensors, Dr. Garg and colleagues report.

When the hypoglycemia threshold alert was set to 55 mg/dL, true alert rates for detection of hypoglycemia below 70 mg/dL by sensors worn on the arm and abdomen were 91.3% and 85.2%, respectively. With hyperglycemia threshold alerts set to 300 mg/dL, the true alert rates for detection of hyperglycemia greater than 250 mg/dL by sensors worn on the arm and abdomen were 99.9% and 99.8% respectively.

The overall mean time lag for the sensors was 3.5 minutes, 3.6 minutes for the arm, and 3.4 minutes for the abdomen. There were no serious adverse events during the study.

The study excluded children and adolescents; data from these populations will be reported separately, the authors note.
 

Accuracy at least as good as prior Dexcom versions, competitors

The MARD values of 8.2% on the arm and 9.1% on the abdomen were similar to or better than accuracy measurements of other commercially available CGM systems, note Dr. Garg and colleagues, although they acknowledge that few head-to-head studies at different anatomic locations have been conducted.

A study of an older Dexcom version (G4 Platinum) found MARD estimates of 12.0% on the arm and 12.3% on the abdomen, the authors note.  

The newly FDA-approved implantable Eversense E3 (Senseonics) CGM, worn on the upper arm, has a MARD of 9.1%, while the arm-placed Abbott FreeStyle Libre 2, approved in the U.S. in June 2020, has an overall MARD of 9.3%.

Lag-time differences between the reference and G7 were also similar to or better than time delays in prior-generation Dexcom CGMs, Dr. Garg and colleagues say.

Participants also completed a survey. “The redesigned applicator allows for sensor deployment with one hand, and most participants found G7 easier to insert than their prior CGM system,” the researchers say.

Finally, “unlike G6, G7 allows for temporary silencing of all audible alerts, including Urgent Low. Taken together, these attributes are anticipated to provide for a better end-user experience with G7 and help reduce diabetes burden,” they conclude.

The study was supported by a grant from Dexcom. Dr. Garg has reported receiving consultant fees from Medtronic, Novo Nordisk, Zealand, LifeScan, Roche, and Lilly, as well as research grants through the University of Colorado from Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Medtronic, Dexcom, T1D Exchange, Helmsley Trust, NIDDK, and JDRF.

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

The Dexcom G7 continuous glucose monitor (CGM) is as accurate or better than other currently marketed CGM devices for measuring glucose in those with diabetes, new data from a pivotal study suggest.  

Currently under review by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the G7 is expected to be an improvement over the Dexcom G6 version in several ways.

The on-body size will be 60% smaller, “roughly the size of three stacked quarters,” according to the authors, and will incorporate the sensor with a single-use transmitter, as opposed to the current separate 3-month transmitter used with the G6 sensor. This will eliminate the need for using a transmitter across multiple sensor sessions (as is the case for G6).

The warm-up period after insertion is reduced from 2 hours to 27 minutes, and users are given an extra 12-hour “grace period” after the 10-day wear period to change the device before it stops displaying glucose data. Up to 24 hours of missed data can also be recaptured.

“The enhanced features of G7 may increase clinical adoption, encourage sustained use, and reduce the burden of diabetes management,” write Satish K. Garg, MD, of the University of Colorado, Aurora, and colleagues, in their article, published online Feb. 14 in Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics.  

Several features of the G6 remain unchanged, including factory calibration, but also the capacity for optional user calibrations, use of Bluetooth to transmit data up to 20 feet (approximately 6 meters), and data displays on either a dedicated receiver or a variety of iOS and Android smart devices.

It will also allow for user-customized settings and alerts, as well as the option for real-time remote “share” monitoring with caregivers or providers. The G7 will also not be susceptible to interference by acetaminophen (paracetamol) or ascorbic acid.

And, like the G6, the G7 was submitted for approval to the FDA as an “integrated CGM,” meaning that it will be interoperable with other compatible devices, including insulin pumps, glucose meters, or other electronic devices used for diabetes management.

Accuracy shown on abdomen, arm

The prospective, multicenter, single-arm study reported by Dr. Garg and colleagues was conducted at 12 U.S. sites between February and June 2021.

In-clinic visits were conducted on days 1 or 2, 4 or 7, and one additional day for comparisons with a reference glucose measure (YSI 2300 Stat Plus glucose analyzer). Participants wore blinded G7 sensors concurrently on the upper arm and abdomen while continuing to use their own personal glucose monitoring method (CGM or fingerstick) at home.

A total of 316 insulin-using adults with type 1 or type 2 diabetes contributed data from 308 arm- and 311 abdomen-placed blinded devices, which generated 77,774 matched pairs of data within the blood glucose reportable range of 40-400 mg/dL.  

The overall mean absolute relative difference (MARD) of each CGM-YSI pair (a standard metric for CGM analysis) was 8.2%, with 9.1% for the abdomen and 8.2% for the arm.

Accuracy remained high in both arm- and abdomen-placed sensors across the 10-day wear period through the 12-hour grace period and across glucose ranges. There were no significant differences between G7 accuracy by diabetes type, insulin regimen, or body mass index.

The highest agreement rates and lowest MARDs occurred when CGM readings were increasing or decreasing by no more than 1 mg/dL per minute. However, even at the highest rates of glucose concentration change, MARD values below 10% were found for arm-placed sensors and below 10.5% for abdomen-placed sensors, Dr. Garg and colleagues report.

When the hypoglycemia threshold alert was set to 55 mg/dL, true alert rates for detection of hypoglycemia below 70 mg/dL by sensors worn on the arm and abdomen were 91.3% and 85.2%, respectively. With hyperglycemia threshold alerts set to 300 mg/dL, the true alert rates for detection of hyperglycemia greater than 250 mg/dL by sensors worn on the arm and abdomen were 99.9% and 99.8% respectively.

The overall mean time lag for the sensors was 3.5 minutes, 3.6 minutes for the arm, and 3.4 minutes for the abdomen. There were no serious adverse events during the study.

The study excluded children and adolescents; data from these populations will be reported separately, the authors note.
 

Accuracy at least as good as prior Dexcom versions, competitors

The MARD values of 8.2% on the arm and 9.1% on the abdomen were similar to or better than accuracy measurements of other commercially available CGM systems, note Dr. Garg and colleagues, although they acknowledge that few head-to-head studies at different anatomic locations have been conducted.

A study of an older Dexcom version (G4 Platinum) found MARD estimates of 12.0% on the arm and 12.3% on the abdomen, the authors note.  

The newly FDA-approved implantable Eversense E3 (Senseonics) CGM, worn on the upper arm, has a MARD of 9.1%, while the arm-placed Abbott FreeStyle Libre 2, approved in the U.S. in June 2020, has an overall MARD of 9.3%.

Lag-time differences between the reference and G7 were also similar to or better than time delays in prior-generation Dexcom CGMs, Dr. Garg and colleagues say.

Participants also completed a survey. “The redesigned applicator allows for sensor deployment with one hand, and most participants found G7 easier to insert than their prior CGM system,” the researchers say.

Finally, “unlike G6, G7 allows for temporary silencing of all audible alerts, including Urgent Low. Taken together, these attributes are anticipated to provide for a better end-user experience with G7 and help reduce diabetes burden,” they conclude.

The study was supported by a grant from Dexcom. Dr. Garg has reported receiving consultant fees from Medtronic, Novo Nordisk, Zealand, LifeScan, Roche, and Lilly, as well as research grants through the University of Colorado from Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Medtronic, Dexcom, T1D Exchange, Helmsley Trust, NIDDK, and JDRF.

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

Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) shows efficacy as a potential noninvasive option for the treatment of low-risk microcarcinomas in papillary thyroid cancer (PTC) when measures beyond active surveillance are warranted, results from a new review show.

“The results in the current study suggest that RFA could function as a useful alternative treatment strategy in which patients are treated minimally invasively with curative intentions,” reported the authors of the meta-analysis published online in JAMA Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery.

Commenting on the research, Joanna Klubo-Gwiezdzinska, MD, PhD, said the work offers useful evidence on the potential role for RFA in low-risk micro-PTC – with some notable caveats.

“I agree that RFA might be a good option for patients unwilling or unable to accept active surveillance and for patients who are at high surgical risk because of comorbid conditions,” she told this news organization.

However, “RFA for patients with an evidence of nodule growth requires more data to be analyzed and a longer follow-up period in lieu of the fact that 21% of nodules subjected to RFA did not disappear, based on the data the authors provide,” noted Dr. Klubo-Gwiezdzinska, who is acting chief of thyroid tumors and functional thyroid disorders at the National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, in Bethesda, Md.  
 

When active surveillance isn’t enough

Microcarcinoma PTC, defined as measuring 10 mm or less, is highly common, making up approximately half of papillary thyroid cancers diagnosed in some countries, and the outcomes of those cancers are excellent, with disease-specific survival of more than 99% after 10 years.

Guidelines in the United States and Europe typically recommend surgery (lobectomy) as a standard treatment for thyroid cancer, however, with many of the low-risk microcarcinomas remaining indolent and never progressing to the point of requiring treatment over a person’s lifetime, some also recommend considering active surveillance, or watchful waiting, for those lower-risk cancers.

In situations such as evidence of tumor growth during active surveillance, some countries, particularly Asian countries, also suggest considering thermal ablation techniques, including RFA, as an alternative to surgery, with key benefits including lower costs and potentially a lower risk of complications, compared with surgical lobectomy.

Otherwise, RFA is more typically reserved for benign nodules, recurrent PTC, or inoperable disease.
 

New meta-analysis

To investigate reported outcomes with RFA specifically in the treatment of microcarcinoma PTC, the authors, led by Sam P.J. van Dijk, BSc, of University Medical Center Rotterdam (the Netherlands), identified 15 studies published after 2016 involving 1,770 adult patients and 1,822 tumors who received RFA for the treatment of low-risk PTC microcarcinomas, defined as measuring 10 mm or less.

The studies were conducted in China and South Korea, where RFA is more commonly used in low-risk microcarcinoma PTC.

Patients were 77.9% women and a mean age of 45.4 years. The analysis excluded patients with pre-ablation lymph node or distant metastases, recurrence of disease, or extrathyroidal extension.

Of the 1,822 tumors treated with RFA, 49 required an additional RFA treatment and 1 tumor had two additional treatments.

With a mean follow-up of 33 months (range, 6-131 months), the primary outcome of the pooled rate of complete disappearance of microcarcinoma PTC on ultrasonography was 79%.

The overall rate of tumor progression was 1.5% (26 patients), and local residual microcarcinoma PTC occurred in 0.4% (7 tumors).

New microcarcinoma PTC occurred in 0.9% (15) of patients; 0.2% (4) developed lymph node metastases during follow-up, and no distant metastases were observed.

Minor complications occurred in 45 patients, and there were three major complications, including two voice changes that lasted more than 2 months and one cardiac arrhythmia.

“This study suggests that radiofrequency ablation is a safe and efficient method to treat selected low-risk papillary microcarcinoma of the thyroid,” the researchers said.
 

Questions surrounding the 20% of patients who still had residual nodules

While the analysis did not include direct comparisons between RFA and lobectomy, Dr. Klubo-Gwiezdzinska noted that, in general, “RFA appears to be associated with a lower complication rate compared with surgery, but also lower efficacy, with 21% of patients with residual nodules.”

The results raise the question of whether “all of the residual lesions are associated with persistent disease, and, if so, do they warrant further intervention?” she added.

To that point, the authors noted that only seven (0.4%) of the 21% of patients with persistent nodules showed residual microcarcinoma PTC cells after RFA, a fact that underscores that “the assessment of tumor response in patients with mPTC after RFA is complicated,” they wrote.

A key concern with assessing responses in RFA is that fine needle aspiration has been shown to have reduced diagnostic accuracy following treatment due to insufficient cellularity in the ablation area, the authors noted.

They add that core needle biopsy is believed to have higher accuracy.

While commenting that the analysis used the “best standards,” Dr. Klubo-Gwiezdzinska noted the caveat that it provides “low- to moderate-quality evidence as it included either case series or retrospective cohort studies, characterized by an inherent bias associated with these study designs.”

And as the authors also acknowledge, possible overlap in the included cohorts “could mean that sample sizes might be smaller than reported,” Dr. Klubo-Gwiezdzinska commented.

To further evaluate the pros and cons of RFA, the authors suggested that “future studies may focus on improving complete disappearance rates of the tumor volume, possibly with more advanced or longer RFA procedures.”
 

RFA an option for some patients

In the meantime, senior author Tessa M. van Ginhoven, MD, PhD, of the department of surgical oncology and gastrointestinal surgery, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Centre Rotterdam, suggests that, in addition to cases of local tumor growth, possible uses of RFA for micro-PTC could include situations of patient anxiety due to active surveillance.

“If active surveillance is appropriate for your population, but the patient is anxious and prefers lobectomy, one could envision RFA as a possible adjunct to active surveillance,” she told this news organization.

The authors and Dr. Klubo-Gwiezdzinska reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) shows efficacy as a potential noninvasive option for the treatment of low-risk microcarcinomas in papillary thyroid cancer (PTC) when measures beyond active surveillance are warranted, results from a new review show.

“The results in the current study suggest that RFA could function as a useful alternative treatment strategy in which patients are treated minimally invasively with curative intentions,” reported the authors of the meta-analysis published online in JAMA Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery.

Commenting on the research, Joanna Klubo-Gwiezdzinska, MD, PhD, said the work offers useful evidence on the potential role for RFA in low-risk micro-PTC – with some notable caveats.

“I agree that RFA might be a good option for patients unwilling or unable to accept active surveillance and for patients who are at high surgical risk because of comorbid conditions,” she told this news organization.

However, “RFA for patients with an evidence of nodule growth requires more data to be analyzed and a longer follow-up period in lieu of the fact that 21% of nodules subjected to RFA did not disappear, based on the data the authors provide,” noted Dr. Klubo-Gwiezdzinska, who is acting chief of thyroid tumors and functional thyroid disorders at the National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, in Bethesda, Md.  
 

When active surveillance isn’t enough

Microcarcinoma PTC, defined as measuring 10 mm or less, is highly common, making up approximately half of papillary thyroid cancers diagnosed in some countries, and the outcomes of those cancers are excellent, with disease-specific survival of more than 99% after 10 years.

Guidelines in the United States and Europe typically recommend surgery (lobectomy) as a standard treatment for thyroid cancer, however, with many of the low-risk microcarcinomas remaining indolent and never progressing to the point of requiring treatment over a person’s lifetime, some also recommend considering active surveillance, or watchful waiting, for those lower-risk cancers.

In situations such as evidence of tumor growth during active surveillance, some countries, particularly Asian countries, also suggest considering thermal ablation techniques, including RFA, as an alternative to surgery, with key benefits including lower costs and potentially a lower risk of complications, compared with surgical lobectomy.

Otherwise, RFA is more typically reserved for benign nodules, recurrent PTC, or inoperable disease.
 

New meta-analysis

To investigate reported outcomes with RFA specifically in the treatment of microcarcinoma PTC, the authors, led by Sam P.J. van Dijk, BSc, of University Medical Center Rotterdam (the Netherlands), identified 15 studies published after 2016 involving 1,770 adult patients and 1,822 tumors who received RFA for the treatment of low-risk PTC microcarcinomas, defined as measuring 10 mm or less.

The studies were conducted in China and South Korea, where RFA is more commonly used in low-risk microcarcinoma PTC.

Patients were 77.9% women and a mean age of 45.4 years. The analysis excluded patients with pre-ablation lymph node or distant metastases, recurrence of disease, or extrathyroidal extension.

Of the 1,822 tumors treated with RFA, 49 required an additional RFA treatment and 1 tumor had two additional treatments.

With a mean follow-up of 33 months (range, 6-131 months), the primary outcome of the pooled rate of complete disappearance of microcarcinoma PTC on ultrasonography was 79%.

The overall rate of tumor progression was 1.5% (26 patients), and local residual microcarcinoma PTC occurred in 0.4% (7 tumors).

New microcarcinoma PTC occurred in 0.9% (15) of patients; 0.2% (4) developed lymph node metastases during follow-up, and no distant metastases were observed.

Minor complications occurred in 45 patients, and there were three major complications, including two voice changes that lasted more than 2 months and one cardiac arrhythmia.

“This study suggests that radiofrequency ablation is a safe and efficient method to treat selected low-risk papillary microcarcinoma of the thyroid,” the researchers said.
 

Questions surrounding the 20% of patients who still had residual nodules

While the analysis did not include direct comparisons between RFA and lobectomy, Dr. Klubo-Gwiezdzinska noted that, in general, “RFA appears to be associated with a lower complication rate compared with surgery, but also lower efficacy, with 21% of patients with residual nodules.”

The results raise the question of whether “all of the residual lesions are associated with persistent disease, and, if so, do they warrant further intervention?” she added.

To that point, the authors noted that only seven (0.4%) of the 21% of patients with persistent nodules showed residual microcarcinoma PTC cells after RFA, a fact that underscores that “the assessment of tumor response in patients with mPTC after RFA is complicated,” they wrote.

A key concern with assessing responses in RFA is that fine needle aspiration has been shown to have reduced diagnostic accuracy following treatment due to insufficient cellularity in the ablation area, the authors noted.

They add that core needle biopsy is believed to have higher accuracy.

While commenting that the analysis used the “best standards,” Dr. Klubo-Gwiezdzinska noted the caveat that it provides “low- to moderate-quality evidence as it included either case series or retrospective cohort studies, characterized by an inherent bias associated with these study designs.”

And as the authors also acknowledge, possible overlap in the included cohorts “could mean that sample sizes might be smaller than reported,” Dr. Klubo-Gwiezdzinska commented.

To further evaluate the pros and cons of RFA, the authors suggested that “future studies may focus on improving complete disappearance rates of the tumor volume, possibly with more advanced or longer RFA procedures.”
 

RFA an option for some patients

In the meantime, senior author Tessa M. van Ginhoven, MD, PhD, of the department of surgical oncology and gastrointestinal surgery, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Centre Rotterdam, suggests that, in addition to cases of local tumor growth, possible uses of RFA for micro-PTC could include situations of patient anxiety due to active surveillance.

“If active surveillance is appropriate for your population, but the patient is anxious and prefers lobectomy, one could envision RFA as a possible adjunct to active surveillance,” she told this news organization.

The authors and Dr. Klubo-Gwiezdzinska reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) shows efficacy as a potential noninvasive option for the treatment of low-risk microcarcinomas in papillary thyroid cancer (PTC) when measures beyond active surveillance are warranted, results from a new review show.

“The results in the current study suggest that RFA could function as a useful alternative treatment strategy in which patients are treated minimally invasively with curative intentions,” reported the authors of the meta-analysis published online in JAMA Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery.

Commenting on the research, Joanna Klubo-Gwiezdzinska, MD, PhD, said the work offers useful evidence on the potential role for RFA in low-risk micro-PTC – with some notable caveats.

“I agree that RFA might be a good option for patients unwilling or unable to accept active surveillance and for patients who are at high surgical risk because of comorbid conditions,” she told this news organization.

However, “RFA for patients with an evidence of nodule growth requires more data to be analyzed and a longer follow-up period in lieu of the fact that 21% of nodules subjected to RFA did not disappear, based on the data the authors provide,” noted Dr. Klubo-Gwiezdzinska, who is acting chief of thyroid tumors and functional thyroid disorders at the National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, in Bethesda, Md.  
 

When active surveillance isn’t enough

Microcarcinoma PTC, defined as measuring 10 mm or less, is highly common, making up approximately half of papillary thyroid cancers diagnosed in some countries, and the outcomes of those cancers are excellent, with disease-specific survival of more than 99% after 10 years.

Guidelines in the United States and Europe typically recommend surgery (lobectomy) as a standard treatment for thyroid cancer, however, with many of the low-risk microcarcinomas remaining indolent and never progressing to the point of requiring treatment over a person’s lifetime, some also recommend considering active surveillance, or watchful waiting, for those lower-risk cancers.

In situations such as evidence of tumor growth during active surveillance, some countries, particularly Asian countries, also suggest considering thermal ablation techniques, including RFA, as an alternative to surgery, with key benefits including lower costs and potentially a lower risk of complications, compared with surgical lobectomy.

Otherwise, RFA is more typically reserved for benign nodules, recurrent PTC, or inoperable disease.
 

New meta-analysis

To investigate reported outcomes with RFA specifically in the treatment of microcarcinoma PTC, the authors, led by Sam P.J. van Dijk, BSc, of University Medical Center Rotterdam (the Netherlands), identified 15 studies published after 2016 involving 1,770 adult patients and 1,822 tumors who received RFA for the treatment of low-risk PTC microcarcinomas, defined as measuring 10 mm or less.

The studies were conducted in China and South Korea, where RFA is more commonly used in low-risk microcarcinoma PTC.

Patients were 77.9% women and a mean age of 45.4 years. The analysis excluded patients with pre-ablation lymph node or distant metastases, recurrence of disease, or extrathyroidal extension.

Of the 1,822 tumors treated with RFA, 49 required an additional RFA treatment and 1 tumor had two additional treatments.

With a mean follow-up of 33 months (range, 6-131 months), the primary outcome of the pooled rate of complete disappearance of microcarcinoma PTC on ultrasonography was 79%.

The overall rate of tumor progression was 1.5% (26 patients), and local residual microcarcinoma PTC occurred in 0.4% (7 tumors).

New microcarcinoma PTC occurred in 0.9% (15) of patients; 0.2% (4) developed lymph node metastases during follow-up, and no distant metastases were observed.

Minor complications occurred in 45 patients, and there were three major complications, including two voice changes that lasted more than 2 months and one cardiac arrhythmia.

“This study suggests that radiofrequency ablation is a safe and efficient method to treat selected low-risk papillary microcarcinoma of the thyroid,” the researchers said.
 

Questions surrounding the 20% of patients who still had residual nodules

While the analysis did not include direct comparisons between RFA and lobectomy, Dr. Klubo-Gwiezdzinska noted that, in general, “RFA appears to be associated with a lower complication rate compared with surgery, but also lower efficacy, with 21% of patients with residual nodules.”

The results raise the question of whether “all of the residual lesions are associated with persistent disease, and, if so, do they warrant further intervention?” she added.

To that point, the authors noted that only seven (0.4%) of the 21% of patients with persistent nodules showed residual microcarcinoma PTC cells after RFA, a fact that underscores that “the assessment of tumor response in patients with mPTC after RFA is complicated,” they wrote.

A key concern with assessing responses in RFA is that fine needle aspiration has been shown to have reduced diagnostic accuracy following treatment due to insufficient cellularity in the ablation area, the authors noted.

They add that core needle biopsy is believed to have higher accuracy.

While commenting that the analysis used the “best standards,” Dr. Klubo-Gwiezdzinska noted the caveat that it provides “low- to moderate-quality evidence as it included either case series or retrospective cohort studies, characterized by an inherent bias associated with these study designs.”

And as the authors also acknowledge, possible overlap in the included cohorts “could mean that sample sizes might be smaller than reported,” Dr. Klubo-Gwiezdzinska commented.

To further evaluate the pros and cons of RFA, the authors suggested that “future studies may focus on improving complete disappearance rates of the tumor volume, possibly with more advanced or longer RFA procedures.”
 

RFA an option for some patients

In the meantime, senior author Tessa M. van Ginhoven, MD, PhD, of the department of surgical oncology and gastrointestinal surgery, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Centre Rotterdam, suggests that, in addition to cases of local tumor growth, possible uses of RFA for micro-PTC could include situations of patient anxiety due to active surveillance.

“If active surveillance is appropriate for your population, but the patient is anxious and prefers lobectomy, one could envision RFA as a possible adjunct to active surveillance,” she told this news organization.

The authors and Dr. Klubo-Gwiezdzinska reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

As COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations continue to decline across the United States, all states but one -- Hawaii -- have dropped their mask mandates or have announced plans to do so in coming weeks.

Retailers and cruises are following along, with Apple and Target stores lifting their own mask mandates this week. Cruise lines such as Norwegian and Royal Caribbean International have said mask requirements will be relaxed for vaccinated passengers, according to the Washington Post.

But guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention hasn’t changed even as the Omicron variant recedes across the country. Vaccinated people should wear masks when indoors in areas of “substantial or high transmission,” which still covers more than 95% of the country, according to a CDC map.

As daily cases continue to fall, the CDC is reviewing its recommendations, Rochelle Walensky, MD, the CDC director, said during a briefing last week.

“We want to give people a break from things like mask-wearing, when these metrics are better, and then have the ability to reach for them again should things worsen,” she said.

As states relax mask rules, county and city officials are now deciding what to do in their jurisdictions. Vaccinated residents in Los Angeles County may soon be able to go maskless in indoor settings that check for proof of vaccination, according to the Los Angeles Times.

Chicago will also end its mask and COVID-19 vaccine mandates for public places such as restaurants Feb. 28, according to the Chicago Tribune. Illinois will end a statewide indoor mask mandate on the same day. Masks will still be required in health care settings and public transmit.

State and local school boards are debating their mask policies as well. The Maryland State Board of Education voted Feb. 22 to allow local school districts to decide whether students must wear face coverings in school, according to the Associated Press. The update will take effect on March 1 if approved by a Maryland General Assembly committee that oversees the rule.

In New York, state officials have begun lifting mask rules. At the same time, 58% of New York voters want to see early March data before school mask mandates are ended, according to a new poll, released Feb. 22 by the Siena College Research Institute. About 45% of those polled said the state’s indoor public mask mandate should also still be in place.

The debate about wearing masks in schools will likely continue, especially as districts get caught between health authorities and parents, according to the Wall Street Journal. District officials in several states are receiving hundreds of emails daily from both sides, with parents calling for mask rules to end or saying that requirements should remain in place for now to keep kids safe.

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

As COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations continue to decline across the United States, all states but one -- Hawaii -- have dropped their mask mandates or have announced plans to do so in coming weeks.

Retailers and cruises are following along, with Apple and Target stores lifting their own mask mandates this week. Cruise lines such as Norwegian and Royal Caribbean International have said mask requirements will be relaxed for vaccinated passengers, according to the Washington Post.

But guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention hasn’t changed even as the Omicron variant recedes across the country. Vaccinated people should wear masks when indoors in areas of “substantial or high transmission,” which still covers more than 95% of the country, according to a CDC map.

As daily cases continue to fall, the CDC is reviewing its recommendations, Rochelle Walensky, MD, the CDC director, said during a briefing last week.

“We want to give people a break from things like mask-wearing, when these metrics are better, and then have the ability to reach for them again should things worsen,” she said.

As states relax mask rules, county and city officials are now deciding what to do in their jurisdictions. Vaccinated residents in Los Angeles County may soon be able to go maskless in indoor settings that check for proof of vaccination, according to the Los Angeles Times.

Chicago will also end its mask and COVID-19 vaccine mandates for public places such as restaurants Feb. 28, according to the Chicago Tribune. Illinois will end a statewide indoor mask mandate on the same day. Masks will still be required in health care settings and public transmit.

State and local school boards are debating their mask policies as well. The Maryland State Board of Education voted Feb. 22 to allow local school districts to decide whether students must wear face coverings in school, according to the Associated Press. The update will take effect on March 1 if approved by a Maryland General Assembly committee that oversees the rule.

In New York, state officials have begun lifting mask rules. At the same time, 58% of New York voters want to see early March data before school mask mandates are ended, according to a new poll, released Feb. 22 by the Siena College Research Institute. About 45% of those polled said the state’s indoor public mask mandate should also still be in place.

The debate about wearing masks in schools will likely continue, especially as districts get caught between health authorities and parents, according to the Wall Street Journal. District officials in several states are receiving hundreds of emails daily from both sides, with parents calling for mask rules to end or saying that requirements should remain in place for now to keep kids safe.

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

As COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations continue to decline across the United States, all states but one -- Hawaii -- have dropped their mask mandates or have announced plans to do so in coming weeks.

Retailers and cruises are following along, with Apple and Target stores lifting their own mask mandates this week. Cruise lines such as Norwegian and Royal Caribbean International have said mask requirements will be relaxed for vaccinated passengers, according to the Washington Post.

But guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention hasn’t changed even as the Omicron variant recedes across the country. Vaccinated people should wear masks when indoors in areas of “substantial or high transmission,” which still covers more than 95% of the country, according to a CDC map.

As daily cases continue to fall, the CDC is reviewing its recommendations, Rochelle Walensky, MD, the CDC director, said during a briefing last week.

“We want to give people a break from things like mask-wearing, when these metrics are better, and then have the ability to reach for them again should things worsen,” she said.

As states relax mask rules, county and city officials are now deciding what to do in their jurisdictions. Vaccinated residents in Los Angeles County may soon be able to go maskless in indoor settings that check for proof of vaccination, according to the Los Angeles Times.

Chicago will also end its mask and COVID-19 vaccine mandates for public places such as restaurants Feb. 28, according to the Chicago Tribune. Illinois will end a statewide indoor mask mandate on the same day. Masks will still be required in health care settings and public transmit.

State and local school boards are debating their mask policies as well. The Maryland State Board of Education voted Feb. 22 to allow local school districts to decide whether students must wear face coverings in school, according to the Associated Press. The update will take effect on March 1 if approved by a Maryland General Assembly committee that oversees the rule.

In New York, state officials have begun lifting mask rules. At the same time, 58% of New York voters want to see early March data before school mask mandates are ended, according to a new poll, released Feb. 22 by the Siena College Research Institute. About 45% of those polled said the state’s indoor public mask mandate should also still be in place.

The debate about wearing masks in schools will likely continue, especially as districts get caught between health authorities and parents, according to the Wall Street Journal. District officials in several states are receiving hundreds of emails daily from both sides, with parents calling for mask rules to end or saying that requirements should remain in place for now to keep kids safe.

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

American health care workers have remained resilient during the pandemic but are feeling the ongoing strain, with 23% saying they are likely to leave the field in the near future, according to a new poll.

About half of the respondents to the poll from USA Today/Ipsos reported feeling “burned out,” 43% said they were “anxious,” and 21% said they were “angry” about politics and abuse from patients and families.

“We’re trying to help people here, and we are getting verbally and physically abused for it,” Sarah Fried, a nurse in California who responded to the survey, told USA Today in a follow-up interview.

“Early in this pandemic, people were clapping for us and calling us heroes,” she said. “And what happened to that? What happened to them appreciating what nurses are doing?”

The poll was done Feb. 9-16 among 1,170 adults in the U.S. health care industry, including doctors, nurses, paramedics, therapists, home health aides, dentists, and other medical professionals.

A large majority of workers still reported being satisfied with their jobs, although that optimism has declined somewhat since early 2021 when the COVID-19 vaccine rollout was underway. About 80% of those in the recent poll said they were somewhat or very satisfied with their current job, which is down from 89% in an April 2021 poll from Kaiser Family Foundation/the Washington Post.

Most health care workers reported feeling “hopeful” (59%), “motivated” (59%), or “optimistic” (56%) about going to work. But “hopeful” is down from 76% and “optimistic” is down from 67%, compared with last year.

If they could pick a career over again, about 16% disagreed with the statement, “I would still decide to go into health care,” and 18% said they didn’t know how they felt about it.

“The pandemic has actually made me realize how important this career is and how I really do make a difference. I still love it,” Christina Rosa, a mental health counselor in Massachusetts, told USA Today.

During the pandemic, about 66% of those polled said they had treated a COVID-19 patient, which increased to 84% among nurses and 86% among hospital workers. Among those, 47% reported having a patient who died from COVID-19, including 53% of nurses and 55% of hospital workers.

What’s more, 81% of those who treated COVID-19 patients have cared for unvaccinated patients. Among those, 67% said their patients continued to express skepticism toward COVID-19 vaccines, and 38% said some patients expressed regret for not getting a vaccine. Beyond that, 26% said unvaccinated patients asked for unproven treatments, and 30% said the patient or family criticized the care they received.

Regarding coronavirus-related policy, most Americans working in health care expressed skepticism or criticism of the nation’s handling of the pandemic. About 39% agreed that the American health care system is “on the verge of collapse.”

Only 21% said the pandemic is mostly or completely under control. About 61% don’t think Americans are taking enough precautions to prevent the spread of the coronavirus.

Health care workers were slightly positive when it comes to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (54% approve, 34% disapprove), divided on the Biden administration (41% approve, 40% disapprove), and critical of the news media (20% approve, 61% disapprove) and the American public (18% approve, 68% disapprove).

Broadly, though, health care workers support public health efforts. About 85% back measures that provide N95 masks, and 83% back measures that provide COVID-19 tests.

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

American health care workers have remained resilient during the pandemic but are feeling the ongoing strain, with 23% saying they are likely to leave the field in the near future, according to a new poll.

About half of the respondents to the poll from USA Today/Ipsos reported feeling “burned out,” 43% said they were “anxious,” and 21% said they were “angry” about politics and abuse from patients and families.

“We’re trying to help people here, and we are getting verbally and physically abused for it,” Sarah Fried, a nurse in California who responded to the survey, told USA Today in a follow-up interview.

“Early in this pandemic, people were clapping for us and calling us heroes,” she said. “And what happened to that? What happened to them appreciating what nurses are doing?”

The poll was done Feb. 9-16 among 1,170 adults in the U.S. health care industry, including doctors, nurses, paramedics, therapists, home health aides, dentists, and other medical professionals.

A large majority of workers still reported being satisfied with their jobs, although that optimism has declined somewhat since early 2021 when the COVID-19 vaccine rollout was underway. About 80% of those in the recent poll said they were somewhat or very satisfied with their current job, which is down from 89% in an April 2021 poll from Kaiser Family Foundation/the Washington Post.

Most health care workers reported feeling “hopeful” (59%), “motivated” (59%), or “optimistic” (56%) about going to work. But “hopeful” is down from 76% and “optimistic” is down from 67%, compared with last year.

If they could pick a career over again, about 16% disagreed with the statement, “I would still decide to go into health care,” and 18% said they didn’t know how they felt about it.

“The pandemic has actually made me realize how important this career is and how I really do make a difference. I still love it,” Christina Rosa, a mental health counselor in Massachusetts, told USA Today.

During the pandemic, about 66% of those polled said they had treated a COVID-19 patient, which increased to 84% among nurses and 86% among hospital workers. Among those, 47% reported having a patient who died from COVID-19, including 53% of nurses and 55% of hospital workers.

What’s more, 81% of those who treated COVID-19 patients have cared for unvaccinated patients. Among those, 67% said their patients continued to express skepticism toward COVID-19 vaccines, and 38% said some patients expressed regret for not getting a vaccine. Beyond that, 26% said unvaccinated patients asked for unproven treatments, and 30% said the patient or family criticized the care they received.

Regarding coronavirus-related policy, most Americans working in health care expressed skepticism or criticism of the nation’s handling of the pandemic. About 39% agreed that the American health care system is “on the verge of collapse.”

Only 21% said the pandemic is mostly or completely under control. About 61% don’t think Americans are taking enough precautions to prevent the spread of the coronavirus.

Health care workers were slightly positive when it comes to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (54% approve, 34% disapprove), divided on the Biden administration (41% approve, 40% disapprove), and critical of the news media (20% approve, 61% disapprove) and the American public (18% approve, 68% disapprove).

Broadly, though, health care workers support public health efforts. About 85% back measures that provide N95 masks, and 83% back measures that provide COVID-19 tests.

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

American health care workers have remained resilient during the pandemic but are feeling the ongoing strain, with 23% saying they are likely to leave the field in the near future, according to a new poll.

About half of the respondents to the poll from USA Today/Ipsos reported feeling “burned out,” 43% said they were “anxious,” and 21% said they were “angry” about politics and abuse from patients and families.

“We’re trying to help people here, and we are getting verbally and physically abused for it,” Sarah Fried, a nurse in California who responded to the survey, told USA Today in a follow-up interview.

“Early in this pandemic, people were clapping for us and calling us heroes,” she said. “And what happened to that? What happened to them appreciating what nurses are doing?”

The poll was done Feb. 9-16 among 1,170 adults in the U.S. health care industry, including doctors, nurses, paramedics, therapists, home health aides, dentists, and other medical professionals.

A large majority of workers still reported being satisfied with their jobs, although that optimism has declined somewhat since early 2021 when the COVID-19 vaccine rollout was underway. About 80% of those in the recent poll said they were somewhat or very satisfied with their current job, which is down from 89% in an April 2021 poll from Kaiser Family Foundation/the Washington Post.

Most health care workers reported feeling “hopeful” (59%), “motivated” (59%), or “optimistic” (56%) about going to work. But “hopeful” is down from 76% and “optimistic” is down from 67%, compared with last year.

If they could pick a career over again, about 16% disagreed with the statement, “I would still decide to go into health care,” and 18% said they didn’t know how they felt about it.

“The pandemic has actually made me realize how important this career is and how I really do make a difference. I still love it,” Christina Rosa, a mental health counselor in Massachusetts, told USA Today.

During the pandemic, about 66% of those polled said they had treated a COVID-19 patient, which increased to 84% among nurses and 86% among hospital workers. Among those, 47% reported having a patient who died from COVID-19, including 53% of nurses and 55% of hospital workers.

What’s more, 81% of those who treated COVID-19 patients have cared for unvaccinated patients. Among those, 67% said their patients continued to express skepticism toward COVID-19 vaccines, and 38% said some patients expressed regret for not getting a vaccine. Beyond that, 26% said unvaccinated patients asked for unproven treatments, and 30% said the patient or family criticized the care they received.

Regarding coronavirus-related policy, most Americans working in health care expressed skepticism or criticism of the nation’s handling of the pandemic. About 39% agreed that the American health care system is “on the verge of collapse.”

Only 21% said the pandemic is mostly or completely under control. About 61% don’t think Americans are taking enough precautions to prevent the spread of the coronavirus.

Health care workers were slightly positive when it comes to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (54% approve, 34% disapprove), divided on the Biden administration (41% approve, 40% disapprove), and critical of the news media (20% approve, 61% disapprove) and the American public (18% approve, 68% disapprove).

Broadly, though, health care workers support public health efforts. About 85% back measures that provide N95 masks, and 83% back measures that provide COVID-19 tests.

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

Big Vegetable has lied to us all

Hear this, children of the world: Your parents have betrayed you. They tell you day in and day out that vegetables are necessary, that they’re healthy, that you need them, but it is not the truth. Behind their foul taste is nothing but empty lies.

Okay, before we get a full-blown child rebellion on our hands, let’s reel things in. Eating vegetables has many benefits, and will help prevent many nasty medical conditions, such as diabetes or cancer. However, cardiovascular disease is not among them.

nneem/Pixabay

For their study published in Frontiers in Nutrition, researchers analyzed the diet, lifestyle, and medical history of nearly 400,000 U.K. adults over a 5-year period, finding that 4.5% developed heart disease and that the average adult consumed about 5 tablespoons of vegetables per day. Those who consumed the most vegetables had a reduction in heart disease incidence of about 15%, compared with those who ate the least.

Hang on, you’re thinking, we just said that vegetables didn’t prevent cardiovascular disease. But the data show otherwise! Ah, but the data are unadjusted. Once the researchers took socioeconomic status, information level, and general lifestyle into account, that benefit disappeared almost completely. The benefit seems to come not from the vegetables themselves, but from being able to afford better food and medical care in general.

The researchers were quick to note the other benefits of eating vegetables, and that people should probably keep eating those five servings a day. But we’re onto you, scientists. You can’t fool us with your vegetable-based lies. Unless we’re talking about pizza. Pizza is the best vegetable.
 

The good old days of surgery?

Modern surgical instruments, techniques, and technological innovations are amazing. It’s hard to imagine what surgery was like before laparoscopes came along, or x-ray machines, or even anesthesia. But those days weren’t really that long ago. Modern anesthesia, after all, dates back to just 1846. We’ve got socks almost that old.

Petar Ubiparip/Pixabay

But suppose we go back even further … say 5,300 years. Older than the oldest sock. Scientists studying a funerary chamber in Burgos, Spain, which was built in the 4th millennium B.C., have come across what looks like “the first known radical mastoidectomy in the history of humankind,” Sonia Díaz-Navarro of the University of Valladolid (Spain) and associates wrote in Scientific Reports.

One of the skulls they uncovered shows signs of trepanation. “Despite the [evidence] of cut marks, it is difficult to conclude the type of tool used to remove the bone tissue, most likely a sharp instrument with a circular movement,” they investigators said.

What is clear, though, is that the patient survived the surgery, because there is evidence of bone regeneration at the surgical sites. Sites? “Based on the differences in bone remodelling between the two temporals, it appears that the procedure was first conducted on the right ear, due to an ear pathology sufficiently alarming to require an intervention, which this prehistoric woman survived,” they explained.

The same procedure was then performed on the left ear, “but whether this was performed shortly after the right ear, or several months or even years later can’t be concluded from the existing evidence,” IFL Science reported.

Located nearby was a small section of tree bark with some scratches on it. That, ladies and gentlemen, was the first prior authorization form.
 

I hate that song, with reason

Do you have a favorite song? You may have a million reasons for loving that song. And past research can tell you why. But it’s only in a recent study that researchers were able to tell you why you dislike a song. And you know the song we’re talking about.

MPI for Empirical Aesthetics

Dislike breaks down into three major categories of rationale: subject-related reasons (how the song makes you feel emotionally and/or physically), object-related reasons (the lyrics or composition), and social reasons (do you relate to this?). Researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Empirical Aesthetics in Frankfurt, Germany, interviewed 21 participants and asked them to come up with a prepared list of music that they disliked and why they didn’t like it. And there was a lot that they didn’t like: 277 dislikes worth, to be exact.

“The most often mentioned type of dislike was musical style, followed by artist and genre,” senior author Julia Merrill explained on Eurekalert. Just over 40% of those rationales for not liking the music just had to do with the music itself, but 85% involved the music combined with one of the other categories.

Social reasoning played a big part in dislike. If the listener didn’t feel like a part of the target in-group for the music or the music didn’t have the same social values as those of the listener, it had an impact on dislike, they said.

But our dislike of certain types of music doesn’t just separate us from people in a negative way. Looking at the dislike of certain types of music helps us define our terms of having good taste, the researchers explained. Saying that one type of music is better than another can bring us closer with like-minded people and becomes a piece of how we identify ourselves. Cue the music snobs.

So if you can blast Barry Manilow but can’t bring yourself to play the Rolling Stones, there’s a reason for that. And if you love Aretha Franklin but not Frank Sinatra, there’s a reason for that, too. It’s all very personal. Just as music is meant to be.

Big Vegetable has lied to us all

Hear this, children of the world: Your parents have betrayed you. They tell you day in and day out that vegetables are necessary, that they’re healthy, that you need them, but it is not the truth. Behind their foul taste is nothing but empty lies.

Okay, before we get a full-blown child rebellion on our hands, let’s reel things in. Eating vegetables has many benefits, and will help prevent many nasty medical conditions, such as diabetes or cancer. However, cardiovascular disease is not among them.

nneem/Pixabay

For their study published in Frontiers in Nutrition, researchers analyzed the diet, lifestyle, and medical history of nearly 400,000 U.K. adults over a 5-year period, finding that 4.5% developed heart disease and that the average adult consumed about 5 tablespoons of vegetables per day. Those who consumed the most vegetables had a reduction in heart disease incidence of about 15%, compared with those who ate the least.

Hang on, you’re thinking, we just said that vegetables didn’t prevent cardiovascular disease. But the data show otherwise! Ah, but the data are unadjusted. Once the researchers took socioeconomic status, information level, and general lifestyle into account, that benefit disappeared almost completely. The benefit seems to come not from the vegetables themselves, but from being able to afford better food and medical care in general.

The researchers were quick to note the other benefits of eating vegetables, and that people should probably keep eating those five servings a day. But we’re onto you, scientists. You can’t fool us with your vegetable-based lies. Unless we’re talking about pizza. Pizza is the best vegetable.
 

The good old days of surgery?

Modern surgical instruments, techniques, and technological innovations are amazing. It’s hard to imagine what surgery was like before laparoscopes came along, or x-ray machines, or even anesthesia. But those days weren’t really that long ago. Modern anesthesia, after all, dates back to just 1846. We’ve got socks almost that old.

Petar Ubiparip/Pixabay

But suppose we go back even further … say 5,300 years. Older than the oldest sock. Scientists studying a funerary chamber in Burgos, Spain, which was built in the 4th millennium B.C., have come across what looks like “the first known radical mastoidectomy in the history of humankind,” Sonia Díaz-Navarro of the University of Valladolid (Spain) and associates wrote in Scientific Reports.

One of the skulls they uncovered shows signs of trepanation. “Despite the [evidence] of cut marks, it is difficult to conclude the type of tool used to remove the bone tissue, most likely a sharp instrument with a circular movement,” they investigators said.

What is clear, though, is that the patient survived the surgery, because there is evidence of bone regeneration at the surgical sites. Sites? “Based on the differences in bone remodelling between the two temporals, it appears that the procedure was first conducted on the right ear, due to an ear pathology sufficiently alarming to require an intervention, which this prehistoric woman survived,” they explained.

The same procedure was then performed on the left ear, “but whether this was performed shortly after the right ear, or several months or even years later can’t be concluded from the existing evidence,” IFL Science reported.

Located nearby was a small section of tree bark with some scratches on it. That, ladies and gentlemen, was the first prior authorization form.
 

I hate that song, with reason

Do you have a favorite song? You may have a million reasons for loving that song. And past research can tell you why. But it’s only in a recent study that researchers were able to tell you why you dislike a song. And you know the song we’re talking about.

MPI for Empirical Aesthetics

Dislike breaks down into three major categories of rationale: subject-related reasons (how the song makes you feel emotionally and/or physically), object-related reasons (the lyrics or composition), and social reasons (do you relate to this?). Researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Empirical Aesthetics in Frankfurt, Germany, interviewed 21 participants and asked them to come up with a prepared list of music that they disliked and why they didn’t like it. And there was a lot that they didn’t like: 277 dislikes worth, to be exact.

“The most often mentioned type of dislike was musical style, followed by artist and genre,” senior author Julia Merrill explained on Eurekalert. Just over 40% of those rationales for not liking the music just had to do with the music itself, but 85% involved the music combined with one of the other categories.

Social reasoning played a big part in dislike. If the listener didn’t feel like a part of the target in-group for the music or the music didn’t have the same social values as those of the listener, it had an impact on dislike, they said.

But our dislike of certain types of music doesn’t just separate us from people in a negative way. Looking at the dislike of certain types of music helps us define our terms of having good taste, the researchers explained. Saying that one type of music is better than another can bring us closer with like-minded people and becomes a piece of how we identify ourselves. Cue the music snobs.

So if you can blast Barry Manilow but can’t bring yourself to play the Rolling Stones, there’s a reason for that. And if you love Aretha Franklin but not Frank Sinatra, there’s a reason for that, too. It’s all very personal. Just as music is meant to be.

Big Vegetable has lied to us all

Hear this, children of the world: Your parents have betrayed you. They tell you day in and day out that vegetables are necessary, that they’re healthy, that you need them, but it is not the truth. Behind their foul taste is nothing but empty lies.

Okay, before we get a full-blown child rebellion on our hands, let’s reel things in. Eating vegetables has many benefits, and will help prevent many nasty medical conditions, such as diabetes or cancer. However, cardiovascular disease is not among them.

nneem/Pixabay

For their study published in Frontiers in Nutrition, researchers analyzed the diet, lifestyle, and medical history of nearly 400,000 U.K. adults over a 5-year period, finding that 4.5% developed heart disease and that the average adult consumed about 5 tablespoons of vegetables per day. Those who consumed the most vegetables had a reduction in heart disease incidence of about 15%, compared with those who ate the least.

Hang on, you’re thinking, we just said that vegetables didn’t prevent cardiovascular disease. But the data show otherwise! Ah, but the data are unadjusted. Once the researchers took socioeconomic status, information level, and general lifestyle into account, that benefit disappeared almost completely. The benefit seems to come not from the vegetables themselves, but from being able to afford better food and medical care in general.

The researchers were quick to note the other benefits of eating vegetables, and that people should probably keep eating those five servings a day. But we’re onto you, scientists. You can’t fool us with your vegetable-based lies. Unless we’re talking about pizza. Pizza is the best vegetable.
 

The good old days of surgery?

Modern surgical instruments, techniques, and technological innovations are amazing. It’s hard to imagine what surgery was like before laparoscopes came along, or x-ray machines, or even anesthesia. But those days weren’t really that long ago. Modern anesthesia, after all, dates back to just 1846. We’ve got socks almost that old.

Petar Ubiparip/Pixabay

But suppose we go back even further … say 5,300 years. Older than the oldest sock. Scientists studying a funerary chamber in Burgos, Spain, which was built in the 4th millennium B.C., have come across what looks like “the first known radical mastoidectomy in the history of humankind,” Sonia Díaz-Navarro of the University of Valladolid (Spain) and associates wrote in Scientific Reports.

One of the skulls they uncovered shows signs of trepanation. “Despite the [evidence] of cut marks, it is difficult to conclude the type of tool used to remove the bone tissue, most likely a sharp instrument with a circular movement,” they investigators said.

What is clear, though, is that the patient survived the surgery, because there is evidence of bone regeneration at the surgical sites. Sites? “Based on the differences in bone remodelling between the two temporals, it appears that the procedure was first conducted on the right ear, due to an ear pathology sufficiently alarming to require an intervention, which this prehistoric woman survived,” they explained.

The same procedure was then performed on the left ear, “but whether this was performed shortly after the right ear, or several months or even years later can’t be concluded from the existing evidence,” IFL Science reported.

Located nearby was a small section of tree bark with some scratches on it. That, ladies and gentlemen, was the first prior authorization form.
 

I hate that song, with reason

Do you have a favorite song? You may have a million reasons for loving that song. And past research can tell you why. But it’s only in a recent study that researchers were able to tell you why you dislike a song. And you know the song we’re talking about.

MPI for Empirical Aesthetics

Dislike breaks down into three major categories of rationale: subject-related reasons (how the song makes you feel emotionally and/or physically), object-related reasons (the lyrics or composition), and social reasons (do you relate to this?). Researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Empirical Aesthetics in Frankfurt, Germany, interviewed 21 participants and asked them to come up with a prepared list of music that they disliked and why they didn’t like it. And there was a lot that they didn’t like: 277 dislikes worth, to be exact.

“The most often mentioned type of dislike was musical style, followed by artist and genre,” senior author Julia Merrill explained on Eurekalert. Just over 40% of those rationales for not liking the music just had to do with the music itself, but 85% involved the music combined with one of the other categories.

Social reasoning played a big part in dislike. If the listener didn’t feel like a part of the target in-group for the music or the music didn’t have the same social values as those of the listener, it had an impact on dislike, they said.

But our dislike of certain types of music doesn’t just separate us from people in a negative way. Looking at the dislike of certain types of music helps us define our terms of having good taste, the researchers explained. Saying that one type of music is better than another can bring us closer with like-minded people and becomes a piece of how we identify ourselves. Cue the music snobs.

So if you can blast Barry Manilow but can’t bring yourself to play the Rolling Stones, there’s a reason for that. And if you love Aretha Franklin but not Frank Sinatra, there’s a reason for that, too. It’s all very personal. Just as music is meant to be.

Given the expansive contemporary role of statins for primary cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention, the language in the new U.S. Preventive Services Task Force draft guidance on their use in that setting may seem conservative. Even so, the proposed recommendations, open to public comment until March 21, take more recent data into account but don’t substantially vary from the 2016 USPSTF document they are intended to replace.

The task force concluded “with moderate certainty” that a statin prescription will clinically benefit adults aged 40-75 years without CVD but with at least one of several risk factors, such as dyslipidemia or diabetes, who have a 10-year CVD risk of at least 7.5%.

AndrewSoundarajan/Thinkstock

The net benefit of statin therapy is “at least small” for individuals in whom the 10-year CVD risk is 7.5% up to 10.0%, the new report states. That, says an accompanying USPSTF press release, means such people “may benefit from statin use and should decide with their clinician if taking a statin is right for them.”

Also, notes the report, the net benefit of statin therapy is “at least moderate” for individuals with a 10% or greater CVD risk over the next decade who, the press release states, “should take a statin to prevent a first heart attack or stroke.”

The evidence review on which the task force based the guidance, the report says, lacked sufficient basis for determining statin benefit versus risk in adults older than 75 years without a history of CVD. “In the absence of this evidence, clinicians should use their judgment as to whether to offer a statin to a patient in this age group,” according to the press release.

The review focused on 22 clinical trials for data on the statin benefits and saw significantly decreased associated risks for death from any cause, fatal or nonfatal stroke, and fatal or nonfatal myocardial infarction with treatment. The combined trial populations exceeded 85,000 for assessing all-cause mortality and 76,000 for each of the other two endpoints.

To assess any potential statin therapy harms, the evidence review covered 19 clinical trials with a combined enrollment of about 75,000 – two more trials than considered in the 2016 document – plus three observational studies with more than 400,000 participants. Statins were found not to be associated with an increased risk for study withdrawal because of adverse events, nor were there signs of greater risk for myalgia or new-onset diabetes, compared with placebo.

“A majority of the trials reviewed by the USPSTF used moderate-intensity statin therapy,” the report states. “Based on available evidence, use of moderate-intensity statin therapy seems reasonable for the primary prevention of CVD in most persons.”

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

Given the expansive contemporary role of statins for primary cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention, the language in the new U.S. Preventive Services Task Force draft guidance on their use in that setting may seem conservative. Even so, the proposed recommendations, open to public comment until March 21, take more recent data into account but don’t substantially vary from the 2016 USPSTF document they are intended to replace.

The task force concluded “with moderate certainty” that a statin prescription will clinically benefit adults aged 40-75 years without CVD but with at least one of several risk factors, such as dyslipidemia or diabetes, who have a 10-year CVD risk of at least 7.5%.

AndrewSoundarajan/Thinkstock

The net benefit of statin therapy is “at least small” for individuals in whom the 10-year CVD risk is 7.5% up to 10.0%, the new report states. That, says an accompanying USPSTF press release, means such people “may benefit from statin use and should decide with their clinician if taking a statin is right for them.”

Also, notes the report, the net benefit of statin therapy is “at least moderate” for individuals with a 10% or greater CVD risk over the next decade who, the press release states, “should take a statin to prevent a first heart attack or stroke.”

The evidence review on which the task force based the guidance, the report says, lacked sufficient basis for determining statin benefit versus risk in adults older than 75 years without a history of CVD. “In the absence of this evidence, clinicians should use their judgment as to whether to offer a statin to a patient in this age group,” according to the press release.

The review focused on 22 clinical trials for data on the statin benefits and saw significantly decreased associated risks for death from any cause, fatal or nonfatal stroke, and fatal or nonfatal myocardial infarction with treatment. The combined trial populations exceeded 85,000 for assessing all-cause mortality and 76,000 for each of the other two endpoints.

To assess any potential statin therapy harms, the evidence review covered 19 clinical trials with a combined enrollment of about 75,000 – two more trials than considered in the 2016 document – plus three observational studies with more than 400,000 participants. Statins were found not to be associated with an increased risk for study withdrawal because of adverse events, nor were there signs of greater risk for myalgia or new-onset diabetes, compared with placebo.

“A majority of the trials reviewed by the USPSTF used moderate-intensity statin therapy,” the report states. “Based on available evidence, use of moderate-intensity statin therapy seems reasonable for the primary prevention of CVD in most persons.”

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

Given the expansive contemporary role of statins for primary cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention, the language in the new U.S. Preventive Services Task Force draft guidance on their use in that setting may seem conservative. Even so, the proposed recommendations, open to public comment until March 21, take more recent data into account but don’t substantially vary from the 2016 USPSTF document they are intended to replace.

The task force concluded “with moderate certainty” that a statin prescription will clinically benefit adults aged 40-75 years without CVD but with at least one of several risk factors, such as dyslipidemia or diabetes, who have a 10-year CVD risk of at least 7.5%.

AndrewSoundarajan/Thinkstock

The net benefit of statin therapy is “at least small” for individuals in whom the 10-year CVD risk is 7.5% up to 10.0%, the new report states. That, says an accompanying USPSTF press release, means such people “may benefit from statin use and should decide with their clinician if taking a statin is right for them.”

Also, notes the report, the net benefit of statin therapy is “at least moderate” for individuals with a 10% or greater CVD risk over the next decade who, the press release states, “should take a statin to prevent a first heart attack or stroke.”

The evidence review on which the task force based the guidance, the report says, lacked sufficient basis for determining statin benefit versus risk in adults older than 75 years without a history of CVD. “In the absence of this evidence, clinicians should use their judgment as to whether to offer a statin to a patient in this age group,” according to the press release.

The review focused on 22 clinical trials for data on the statin benefits and saw significantly decreased associated risks for death from any cause, fatal or nonfatal stroke, and fatal or nonfatal myocardial infarction with treatment. The combined trial populations exceeded 85,000 for assessing all-cause mortality and 76,000 for each of the other two endpoints.

To assess any potential statin therapy harms, the evidence review covered 19 clinical trials with a combined enrollment of about 75,000 – two more trials than considered in the 2016 document – plus three observational studies with more than 400,000 participants. Statins were found not to be associated with an increased risk for study withdrawal because of adverse events, nor were there signs of greater risk for myalgia or new-onset diabetes, compared with placebo.

“A majority of the trials reviewed by the USPSTF used moderate-intensity statin therapy,” the report states. “Based on available evidence, use of moderate-intensity statin therapy seems reasonable for the primary prevention of CVD in most persons.”

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