Cardiology News

Five risk factors might help pinpoint patients at risk of developing device-related thrombus (DRT), itself an important risk factor for cerebrovascular events, in patients with implants for left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO), new research suggests.

The identified independent predictors of DRT in the largest dedicated multicenter LAAO-DRT registry to date were presence of a hypercoagulability disorder, pericardial effusion, renal insufficiency, an implantation depth greater than 10 mm from the pulmonary ridge, and presence of nonparoxysmal atrial fibrillation (AFib).

“Unfortunately, most of them are not modifiable, like hypercoaguable disorders or nonparoxysmal atrial fibrillation. But we can avoid deep implants because that’s been associated with creating a little bit of a crater or valley where the clot can form,” senior author Mohamad Alkhouli, MD, said in an interview.

But most important, and “really why we wanted to do this,” he said, is that “we want to give the patient a realistic prediction of adverse events for this procedure.”

LAAO has taken off in recent years for preventing thrombus formation and stroke in patients with AFib. Predicting DRT is a priority for the LAAO field, the authors note, especially given its expansion to younger, lower-risk patients and the increasing procedural volumes.

“This is a problem, DRT, that’s been discussed a lot because this is a preventative procedure,” observed Dr. Alkhouli, professor of medicine at Mayo Medical School, Rochester, Minn.

“The actual stroke risk every year – even if you don’t take any blood thinner and you have a CHADsVASc score of 9, the highest – is 11%. So if the chance of having thrombus is close, then that’s not a good tradeoff.”

Previous studies have also identified implantation depth and nonparoxysmal AFib as risk factors for DRT. But most of them have been small, he noted, with one of the largest reporting 65 DRTs in four prospective trials.

To cast a wider net, the investigators, led by Trevor Simard, MD, also from the Mayo Clinic, invited more than 50 international sites to contribute data to the registry. Of these, 37 centers reported on 237 DRTs and 474 device-matched control subjects from the same site.

Three-fourths of patients received a first-generation Watchman or a FLEX device (Boston Scientific).

Medical regimens were similar between the DRT and control cohorts at discharge after LAA closure. Most patients were managed with single (36.3%) or dual antiplatelet therapy (26.2%) at the time of DRT diagnosis.

As reported July 19 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, the timing of DRT development varied widely, with 24.9% appearing in the first 45 days, 38.8% between days 45 and 180, 16.0% between days 180 to 365, and 20.3% beyond 1 year. At last known follow-up, one-quarter of patients had DRT.

The odds ratios for DRT associated with the five identified risk factors were:

• 17.50 (95% confidence interval, 3.39-90.45) for hypercoagulability disorder
• 13.45 (95% CI, 1.46-123.52) for pericardial effusion
• 4.02 (95% CI, 1.22-13.25) for renal insufficiency
• 2.41 (95% CI, 1.57-3.69) for implantation depth >10 mm
• 1.90 (95% CI, 1.22-2.97) for nonparoxysmal AFib

The risk for a composite of death, ischemic stroke, and systemic embolization was twofold higher in the DRT cohort than in the control cohort (29.5% vs. 14.4%; hazard ratio, 2.37; 95% CI, 1.58-3.56) and driven by a higher rate of ischemic stroke (16.9% vs. 3.6%; HR, 3.49; 95% CI, 1.35-9.00).

The incidence of bleeding and intracerebral hemorrhage, however, was similar in the DRT and control cohorts.

One of the surprises of the study was that medications prescribed in the short term after LAA closure were not associated with DRT, Dr. Alkhouli said. A previous meta-analysis of 66 studies by the investigators also found that antithrombotic regimen did not explain the heterogeneity of DRT formation.

“I think we’ll have to take that with a grain of salt, because there’s so many variations in the practice, and this is observational data. But that, in my mind, brings up a mechanistic issue,” he said.

It’s often recommended “that we should put patients on blood thinners for 3 months or 6 weeks, or whatever it is, to decrease the chance of thrombus, assuming the patients will have a normal endothelialization of the device,” Dr. Alkhouli said.

“Well, we know that’s not the reality,” he continued. “We know many patients don’t endothelialize, and, even if some patients do, there may be some endothelial damage. So I think the whole mechanism of prescribing a little bit of a blood thinner to avoid that risk may be missing the point. It’s a bit more complex than that, evidenced also by the fact that three-fourths of all the DRTs happened after 45 days, when patients are typically not taking a blood thinner.”

Based on the five independent risk factors, the investigators created a clinical DRT risk score that assigned 1 point for renal insufficiency, implantation depth greater than 10 mm from the pulmonary ridge, and nonparoxysmal AFib; and 4 points for iatrogenic pericardial effusion and for hypercoagulability disorder. Low risk was categorized as 1 point and high risk as 2 or more points.

The presence of one major risk factor or two minor risk factors, for example, led to a 2.1-fold increased risk for DRT, compared with those with no DRT risk factors.

The risk score will require validation in a prospective cohort but is “a step forward in addressing DRT” and triaging patients, Dr. Alkhouli said. The findings highlight the need to avoid deep device implantation and the importance of shared decision-making with patients, especially with those at high risk.

“And third, which is most important, I think, in my mind, is that it tells us not to put a blind eye to this topic and just say with improved devices it will go away,” he said. “That’s a bit unrealistic.”

In an accompanying editorial, Oussama Wazni, MD, Walid Saliba, MD, and Ayman A. Hussein, MD, all from the Cleveland Clinic, write that “the study sheds light on this yet unresolved issue, and the observations may help with risk stratification and optimization of procedural techniques.”

Whereas many of the nonmodifiable risk factors are helpful in shared decision-making decisions, they continue, “knowledge of these risk factors may not preclude implantation in patients who are otherwise at risk of both stroke off anticoagulation and bleeding on anticoagulation.”

Dr. Wazni and colleagues acknowledge that the small number of events in the study limits statistical power for definitive conclusions and say that further studies are needed to clarify the natural history of DRTs and their management, resolution, and impact on cardiovascular events.

Practitioners should also continue to cautiously assess for LAAO clinical indications for implant, according to the editorialists, who point out that the regulatory approval language in the United States was “flexible and nonspecific.”

“As the field grows wider, enhancing LAAO safety with optimal design, implantation, and periprocedural management is critically important, yet the main focus should remain on optimal patient selection for the purpose of achieving safe and successful outcomes,” the editorialists conclude.

Dr. Alkhouli has served as a consultant for Boston Scientific. Coauthor disclosures are listed in the paper. Dr. Wazni and Dr. Hussein have received research grant support from Boston Scientific. Dr. Wazni and Dr. Saliba have been consultants for Boston Scientific.

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

Five risk factors might help pinpoint patients at risk of developing device-related thrombus (DRT), itself an important risk factor for cerebrovascular events, in patients with implants for left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO), new research suggests.

The identified independent predictors of DRT in the largest dedicated multicenter LAAO-DRT registry to date were presence of a hypercoagulability disorder, pericardial effusion, renal insufficiency, an implantation depth greater than 10 mm from the pulmonary ridge, and presence of nonparoxysmal atrial fibrillation (AFib).

“Unfortunately, most of them are not modifiable, like hypercoaguable disorders or nonparoxysmal atrial fibrillation. But we can avoid deep implants because that’s been associated with creating a little bit of a crater or valley where the clot can form,” senior author Mohamad Alkhouli, MD, said in an interview.

But most important, and “really why we wanted to do this,” he said, is that “we want to give the patient a realistic prediction of adverse events for this procedure.”

LAAO has taken off in recent years for preventing thrombus formation and stroke in patients with AFib. Predicting DRT is a priority for the LAAO field, the authors note, especially given its expansion to younger, lower-risk patients and the increasing procedural volumes.

“This is a problem, DRT, that’s been discussed a lot because this is a preventative procedure,” observed Dr. Alkhouli, professor of medicine at Mayo Medical School, Rochester, Minn.

“The actual stroke risk every year – even if you don’t take any blood thinner and you have a CHADsVASc score of 9, the highest – is 11%. So if the chance of having thrombus is close, then that’s not a good tradeoff.”

Previous studies have also identified implantation depth and nonparoxysmal AFib as risk factors for DRT. But most of them have been small, he noted, with one of the largest reporting 65 DRTs in four prospective trials.

To cast a wider net, the investigators, led by Trevor Simard, MD, also from the Mayo Clinic, invited more than 50 international sites to contribute data to the registry. Of these, 37 centers reported on 237 DRTs and 474 device-matched control subjects from the same site.

Three-fourths of patients received a first-generation Watchman or a FLEX device (Boston Scientific).

Medical regimens were similar between the DRT and control cohorts at discharge after LAA closure. Most patients were managed with single (36.3%) or dual antiplatelet therapy (26.2%) at the time of DRT diagnosis.

As reported July 19 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, the timing of DRT development varied widely, with 24.9% appearing in the first 45 days, 38.8% between days 45 and 180, 16.0% between days 180 to 365, and 20.3% beyond 1 year. At last known follow-up, one-quarter of patients had DRT.

The odds ratios for DRT associated with the five identified risk factors were:

• 17.50 (95% confidence interval, 3.39-90.45) for hypercoagulability disorder
• 13.45 (95% CI, 1.46-123.52) for pericardial effusion
• 4.02 (95% CI, 1.22-13.25) for renal insufficiency
• 2.41 (95% CI, 1.57-3.69) for implantation depth >10 mm
• 1.90 (95% CI, 1.22-2.97) for nonparoxysmal AFib

The risk for a composite of death, ischemic stroke, and systemic embolization was twofold higher in the DRT cohort than in the control cohort (29.5% vs. 14.4%; hazard ratio, 2.37; 95% CI, 1.58-3.56) and driven by a higher rate of ischemic stroke (16.9% vs. 3.6%; HR, 3.49; 95% CI, 1.35-9.00).

The incidence of bleeding and intracerebral hemorrhage, however, was similar in the DRT and control cohorts.

One of the surprises of the study was that medications prescribed in the short term after LAA closure were not associated with DRT, Dr. Alkhouli said. A previous meta-analysis of 66 studies by the investigators also found that antithrombotic regimen did not explain the heterogeneity of DRT formation.

“I think we’ll have to take that with a grain of salt, because there’s so many variations in the practice, and this is observational data. But that, in my mind, brings up a mechanistic issue,” he said.

It’s often recommended “that we should put patients on blood thinners for 3 months or 6 weeks, or whatever it is, to decrease the chance of thrombus, assuming the patients will have a normal endothelialization of the device,” Dr. Alkhouli said.

“Well, we know that’s not the reality,” he continued. “We know many patients don’t endothelialize, and, even if some patients do, there may be some endothelial damage. So I think the whole mechanism of prescribing a little bit of a blood thinner to avoid that risk may be missing the point. It’s a bit more complex than that, evidenced also by the fact that three-fourths of all the DRTs happened after 45 days, when patients are typically not taking a blood thinner.”

Based on the five independent risk factors, the investigators created a clinical DRT risk score that assigned 1 point for renal insufficiency, implantation depth greater than 10 mm from the pulmonary ridge, and nonparoxysmal AFib; and 4 points for iatrogenic pericardial effusion and for hypercoagulability disorder. Low risk was categorized as 1 point and high risk as 2 or more points.

The presence of one major risk factor or two minor risk factors, for example, led to a 2.1-fold increased risk for DRT, compared with those with no DRT risk factors.

The risk score will require validation in a prospective cohort but is “a step forward in addressing DRT” and triaging patients, Dr. Alkhouli said. The findings highlight the need to avoid deep device implantation and the importance of shared decision-making with patients, especially with those at high risk.

“And third, which is most important, I think, in my mind, is that it tells us not to put a blind eye to this topic and just say with improved devices it will go away,” he said. “That’s a bit unrealistic.”

In an accompanying editorial, Oussama Wazni, MD, Walid Saliba, MD, and Ayman A. Hussein, MD, all from the Cleveland Clinic, write that “the study sheds light on this yet unresolved issue, and the observations may help with risk stratification and optimization of procedural techniques.”

Whereas many of the nonmodifiable risk factors are helpful in shared decision-making decisions, they continue, “knowledge of these risk factors may not preclude implantation in patients who are otherwise at risk of both stroke off anticoagulation and bleeding on anticoagulation.”

Dr. Wazni and colleagues acknowledge that the small number of events in the study limits statistical power for definitive conclusions and say that further studies are needed to clarify the natural history of DRTs and their management, resolution, and impact on cardiovascular events.

Practitioners should also continue to cautiously assess for LAAO clinical indications for implant, according to the editorialists, who point out that the regulatory approval language in the United States was “flexible and nonspecific.”

“As the field grows wider, enhancing LAAO safety with optimal design, implantation, and periprocedural management is critically important, yet the main focus should remain on optimal patient selection for the purpose of achieving safe and successful outcomes,” the editorialists conclude.

Dr. Alkhouli has served as a consultant for Boston Scientific. Coauthor disclosures are listed in the paper. Dr. Wazni and Dr. Hussein have received research grant support from Boston Scientific. Dr. Wazni and Dr. Saliba have been consultants for Boston Scientific.

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

Five risk factors might help pinpoint patients at risk of developing device-related thrombus (DRT), itself an important risk factor for cerebrovascular events, in patients with implants for left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO), new research suggests.

The identified independent predictors of DRT in the largest dedicated multicenter LAAO-DRT registry to date were presence of a hypercoagulability disorder, pericardial effusion, renal insufficiency, an implantation depth greater than 10 mm from the pulmonary ridge, and presence of nonparoxysmal atrial fibrillation (AFib).

“Unfortunately, most of them are not modifiable, like hypercoaguable disorders or nonparoxysmal atrial fibrillation. But we can avoid deep implants because that’s been associated with creating a little bit of a crater or valley where the clot can form,” senior author Mohamad Alkhouli, MD, said in an interview.

But most important, and “really why we wanted to do this,” he said, is that “we want to give the patient a realistic prediction of adverse events for this procedure.”

LAAO has taken off in recent years for preventing thrombus formation and stroke in patients with AFib. Predicting DRT is a priority for the LAAO field, the authors note, especially given its expansion to younger, lower-risk patients and the increasing procedural volumes.

“This is a problem, DRT, that’s been discussed a lot because this is a preventative procedure,” observed Dr. Alkhouli, professor of medicine at Mayo Medical School, Rochester, Minn.

“The actual stroke risk every year – even if you don’t take any blood thinner and you have a CHADsVASc score of 9, the highest – is 11%. So if the chance of having thrombus is close, then that’s not a good tradeoff.”

Previous studies have also identified implantation depth and nonparoxysmal AFib as risk factors for DRT. But most of them have been small, he noted, with one of the largest reporting 65 DRTs in four prospective trials.

To cast a wider net, the investigators, led by Trevor Simard, MD, also from the Mayo Clinic, invited more than 50 international sites to contribute data to the registry. Of these, 37 centers reported on 237 DRTs and 474 device-matched control subjects from the same site.

Three-fourths of patients received a first-generation Watchman or a FLEX device (Boston Scientific).

Medical regimens were similar between the DRT and control cohorts at discharge after LAA closure. Most patients were managed with single (36.3%) or dual antiplatelet therapy (26.2%) at the time of DRT diagnosis.

As reported July 19 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, the timing of DRT development varied widely, with 24.9% appearing in the first 45 days, 38.8% between days 45 and 180, 16.0% between days 180 to 365, and 20.3% beyond 1 year. At last known follow-up, one-quarter of patients had DRT.

The odds ratios for DRT associated with the five identified risk factors were:

• 17.50 (95% confidence interval, 3.39-90.45) for hypercoagulability disorder
• 13.45 (95% CI, 1.46-123.52) for pericardial effusion
• 4.02 (95% CI, 1.22-13.25) for renal insufficiency
• 2.41 (95% CI, 1.57-3.69) for implantation depth >10 mm
• 1.90 (95% CI, 1.22-2.97) for nonparoxysmal AFib

The risk for a composite of death, ischemic stroke, and systemic embolization was twofold higher in the DRT cohort than in the control cohort (29.5% vs. 14.4%; hazard ratio, 2.37; 95% CI, 1.58-3.56) and driven by a higher rate of ischemic stroke (16.9% vs. 3.6%; HR, 3.49; 95% CI, 1.35-9.00).

The incidence of bleeding and intracerebral hemorrhage, however, was similar in the DRT and control cohorts.

One of the surprises of the study was that medications prescribed in the short term after LAA closure were not associated with DRT, Dr. Alkhouli said. A previous meta-analysis of 66 studies by the investigators also found that antithrombotic regimen did not explain the heterogeneity of DRT formation.

“I think we’ll have to take that with a grain of salt, because there’s so many variations in the practice, and this is observational data. But that, in my mind, brings up a mechanistic issue,” he said.

It’s often recommended “that we should put patients on blood thinners for 3 months or 6 weeks, or whatever it is, to decrease the chance of thrombus, assuming the patients will have a normal endothelialization of the device,” Dr. Alkhouli said.

“Well, we know that’s not the reality,” he continued. “We know many patients don’t endothelialize, and, even if some patients do, there may be some endothelial damage. So I think the whole mechanism of prescribing a little bit of a blood thinner to avoid that risk may be missing the point. It’s a bit more complex than that, evidenced also by the fact that three-fourths of all the DRTs happened after 45 days, when patients are typically not taking a blood thinner.”

Based on the five independent risk factors, the investigators created a clinical DRT risk score that assigned 1 point for renal insufficiency, implantation depth greater than 10 mm from the pulmonary ridge, and nonparoxysmal AFib; and 4 points for iatrogenic pericardial effusion and for hypercoagulability disorder. Low risk was categorized as 1 point and high risk as 2 or more points.

The presence of one major risk factor or two minor risk factors, for example, led to a 2.1-fold increased risk for DRT, compared with those with no DRT risk factors.

The risk score will require validation in a prospective cohort but is “a step forward in addressing DRT” and triaging patients, Dr. Alkhouli said. The findings highlight the need to avoid deep device implantation and the importance of shared decision-making with patients, especially with those at high risk.

“And third, which is most important, I think, in my mind, is that it tells us not to put a blind eye to this topic and just say with improved devices it will go away,” he said. “That’s a bit unrealistic.”

In an accompanying editorial, Oussama Wazni, MD, Walid Saliba, MD, and Ayman A. Hussein, MD, all from the Cleveland Clinic, write that “the study sheds light on this yet unresolved issue, and the observations may help with risk stratification and optimization of procedural techniques.”

Whereas many of the nonmodifiable risk factors are helpful in shared decision-making decisions, they continue, “knowledge of these risk factors may not preclude implantation in patients who are otherwise at risk of both stroke off anticoagulation and bleeding on anticoagulation.”

Dr. Wazni and colleagues acknowledge that the small number of events in the study limits statistical power for definitive conclusions and say that further studies are needed to clarify the natural history of DRTs and their management, resolution, and impact on cardiovascular events.

Practitioners should also continue to cautiously assess for LAAO clinical indications for implant, according to the editorialists, who point out that the regulatory approval language in the United States was “flexible and nonspecific.”

“As the field grows wider, enhancing LAAO safety with optimal design, implantation, and periprocedural management is critically important, yet the main focus should remain on optimal patient selection for the purpose of achieving safe and successful outcomes,” the editorialists conclude.

Dr. Alkhouli has served as a consultant for Boston Scientific. Coauthor disclosures are listed in the paper. Dr. Wazni and Dr. Hussein have received research grant support from Boston Scientific. Dr. Wazni and Dr. Saliba have been consultants for Boston Scientific.

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

“Purported” weight-loss products –12 dietary supplements and 2 alternative therapies – lack high-quality evidence to back up claims of efficacy, a systematic review by the Obesity Society reports.

Sally Kubetin/MDedge News

Most of the more than 300 published randomized controlled trials in the review were small and short, and only 0.5% found a statistically significant weight loss of up to 5 kg, John A. Batsis, MD, from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and colleagues reported in the journal Obesity.

“Despite the poor quality of these studies with high degrees of bias, most still failed to show efficacy of the product they were testing,” Srividya Kidambi, MD, from the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, and colleagues from the Obesity Society’s Clinical Committee pointed out in an accompanying commentary.

“Yet these are the studies that are often used to support manufacturers’ claims of ‘clinically proven’ in their marketing,” they noted.

Most consumers, they continued, are unaware that these nondrug weight-loss products are not regulated by the Food and Drug Administration, but rather, if their ingredients are “generally regarded as safe,” they are treated as dietary supplements and require little or no testing to show either efficacy or safety.

“Our patients need to become aware that dietary supplements for weight loss are nothing more than a pipe dream, and as clinicians we would do well to talk with our patients and help steer them toward science-based treatments rather than the ‘Wild West’ of dietary supplements that are marketed for weight loss,” Scott Kahan, MD, MPH, coauthor of the review and commentary, told this news organization.

The dietary supplement industry has a strong lobby against legislation for more rigorous requirements for claims, noted Dr. Kahan, of the National Center for Weight and Wellness as well as George Washington University, Washington.

However, “there has to be some level of protection for consumers” who are faced with ads by “healthy skinny people saying this [product] can change your life.”

Clinical providers need to guide patients to “evidence-based interventions to support weight loss such as behavioral weight-loss interventions, [FDA-approved] medications, or bariatric surgery,” said Dr. Batsis, who also coauthored the commentary.

There is a “critical need” for more rigorous trials, and a partnership between researchers, funders, and industry, he added.

According to Dr. Kidambi and colleagues, “the use of these products will continue as long as they are allowed to be marketed with the aforementioned limited federal oversight and there is a lack of access to evidence-based obesity treatments.”

The commentary authors “call on regulatory authorities to critically examine the dietary supplement industry, including their role in promoting misleading claims and marketing products that have the potential to harm patients.”

They also urged public and private health insurance plans to “provide adequate resources for obesity management.”

And clinicians should “consider the lack of evidence for non–FDA-approved dietary supplements and therapies and guide their patients toward tested weight-management approaches.”
 

Subpar evidence, booming industry

“Annual sales of dietary supplements for weight loss are booming with an industry valued at $30 billion worldwide, despite subpar evidence” of efficacy, the commentary authors wrote by way of background.

After the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994, the National Institutes of Health’s Office of Dietary Supplements was established “to strengthen the knowledge and understanding of dietary supplements by evaluating scientific information, stimulating and supporting research, and educating the public,” they explained.

However, dietary supplements and alternative therapies are endorsed by influencers and celebrities and marketed as a panacea for obesity and weight gain.
 

Literature review finds scant evidence

Consumers may believe that the “clinically proven” claims of efficacy of these “natural” weight-loss treatments have been thoroughly evaluated for safety and efficacy by the FDA, and clinicians lack information to counsel patients about this.

Therefore, although the Office of Dietary Supplements’ work has importantly advanced the science, the review authors wrote, members of the Obesity Society believed it was important to evaluate and perform a qualitative synthesis of the evidence for efficacy of non–FDA-regulated weight-loss supplements and alternative therapies to better inform clinicians and consumers.

From more than 20,000 citations of 53 dietary supplements and alternative therapies promoted for weight loss, the researchers identified 314 randomized controlled trials of 14 products that each had at least 5 randomized controlled trials.

The two types of alternative therapies in the review were mind-body interventions – which included behavioral therapies (for example, mindfulness and stress management), hypnosis, meditation, or massage – and acupuncture.

Several popular and widely used products (for example, human chorionic gonadotropin, raspberry ketones, nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide, vitamin infusions) did not meet the predefined number of published randomized controlled trials to be eligible for inclusion in the review.

The greatest number of trials were for acupuncture (45 trials), green tea (38), conjugated linoleic acid (31), ephedra with or without caffeine (31), mind-body therapies (22), and calcium and vitamin D (22). There were fewer trials of garcinia and/or hydroxycitrate (15), chitosan (9), phaseolus (7), pyruvate (7), chocolate/cocoa (6), chromium (6), guar gum (5), and phenylpropylamine (5).

Of the 314 studies, only 52 studies (16.5%) demonstrated that the products were efficacious and low risk, and only 16 studies (0.5%) reported a statistically significant between-group weight loss (0.3-4.93 kg).

For more information, in addition to their review and commentary, the authors refer clinicians to a dietary supplement label database.

The study was supported in part by grants from the National Institute on Aging. Dr. Batsis reported equity in SynchroHealth. Dr. Kidambi reported being the medical director for TOPS Center for Metabolic Health at the Medical College of Wisconsin, which is supported by TOPS. Dr. Kahan reported serving as a consultant for Novo Nordisk, Vivus, Gelesis, and Pfizer.

“Purported” weight-loss products –12 dietary supplements and 2 alternative therapies – lack high-quality evidence to back up claims of efficacy, a systematic review by the Obesity Society reports.

Sally Kubetin/MDedge News

Most of the more than 300 published randomized controlled trials in the review were small and short, and only 0.5% found a statistically significant weight loss of up to 5 kg, John A. Batsis, MD, from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and colleagues reported in the journal Obesity.

“Despite the poor quality of these studies with high degrees of bias, most still failed to show efficacy of the product they were testing,” Srividya Kidambi, MD, from the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, and colleagues from the Obesity Society’s Clinical Committee pointed out in an accompanying commentary.

“Yet these are the studies that are often used to support manufacturers’ claims of ‘clinically proven’ in their marketing,” they noted.

Most consumers, they continued, are unaware that these nondrug weight-loss products are not regulated by the Food and Drug Administration, but rather, if their ingredients are “generally regarded as safe,” they are treated as dietary supplements and require little or no testing to show either efficacy or safety.

“Our patients need to become aware that dietary supplements for weight loss are nothing more than a pipe dream, and as clinicians we would do well to talk with our patients and help steer them toward science-based treatments rather than the ‘Wild West’ of dietary supplements that are marketed for weight loss,” Scott Kahan, MD, MPH, coauthor of the review and commentary, told this news organization.

The dietary supplement industry has a strong lobby against legislation for more rigorous requirements for claims, noted Dr. Kahan, of the National Center for Weight and Wellness as well as George Washington University, Washington.

However, “there has to be some level of protection for consumers” who are faced with ads by “healthy skinny people saying this [product] can change your life.”

Clinical providers need to guide patients to “evidence-based interventions to support weight loss such as behavioral weight-loss interventions, [FDA-approved] medications, or bariatric surgery,” said Dr. Batsis, who also coauthored the commentary.

There is a “critical need” for more rigorous trials, and a partnership between researchers, funders, and industry, he added.

According to Dr. Kidambi and colleagues, “the use of these products will continue as long as they are allowed to be marketed with the aforementioned limited federal oversight and there is a lack of access to evidence-based obesity treatments.”

The commentary authors “call on regulatory authorities to critically examine the dietary supplement industry, including their role in promoting misleading claims and marketing products that have the potential to harm patients.”

They also urged public and private health insurance plans to “provide adequate resources for obesity management.”

And clinicians should “consider the lack of evidence for non–FDA-approved dietary supplements and therapies and guide their patients toward tested weight-management approaches.”
 

Subpar evidence, booming industry

“Annual sales of dietary supplements for weight loss are booming with an industry valued at $30 billion worldwide, despite subpar evidence” of efficacy, the commentary authors wrote by way of background.

After the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994, the National Institutes of Health’s Office of Dietary Supplements was established “to strengthen the knowledge and understanding of dietary supplements by evaluating scientific information, stimulating and supporting research, and educating the public,” they explained.

However, dietary supplements and alternative therapies are endorsed by influencers and celebrities and marketed as a panacea for obesity and weight gain.
 

Literature review finds scant evidence

Consumers may believe that the “clinically proven” claims of efficacy of these “natural” weight-loss treatments have been thoroughly evaluated for safety and efficacy by the FDA, and clinicians lack information to counsel patients about this.

Therefore, although the Office of Dietary Supplements’ work has importantly advanced the science, the review authors wrote, members of the Obesity Society believed it was important to evaluate and perform a qualitative synthesis of the evidence for efficacy of non–FDA-regulated weight-loss supplements and alternative therapies to better inform clinicians and consumers.

From more than 20,000 citations of 53 dietary supplements and alternative therapies promoted for weight loss, the researchers identified 314 randomized controlled trials of 14 products that each had at least 5 randomized controlled trials.

The two types of alternative therapies in the review were mind-body interventions – which included behavioral therapies (for example, mindfulness and stress management), hypnosis, meditation, or massage – and acupuncture.

Several popular and widely used products (for example, human chorionic gonadotropin, raspberry ketones, nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide, vitamin infusions) did not meet the predefined number of published randomized controlled trials to be eligible for inclusion in the review.

The greatest number of trials were for acupuncture (45 trials), green tea (38), conjugated linoleic acid (31), ephedra with or without caffeine (31), mind-body therapies (22), and calcium and vitamin D (22). There were fewer trials of garcinia and/or hydroxycitrate (15), chitosan (9), phaseolus (7), pyruvate (7), chocolate/cocoa (6), chromium (6), guar gum (5), and phenylpropylamine (5).

Of the 314 studies, only 52 studies (16.5%) demonstrated that the products were efficacious and low risk, and only 16 studies (0.5%) reported a statistically significant between-group weight loss (0.3-4.93 kg).

For more information, in addition to their review and commentary, the authors refer clinicians to a dietary supplement label database.

The study was supported in part by grants from the National Institute on Aging. Dr. Batsis reported equity in SynchroHealth. Dr. Kidambi reported being the medical director for TOPS Center for Metabolic Health at the Medical College of Wisconsin, which is supported by TOPS. Dr. Kahan reported serving as a consultant for Novo Nordisk, Vivus, Gelesis, and Pfizer.

“Purported” weight-loss products –12 dietary supplements and 2 alternative therapies – lack high-quality evidence to back up claims of efficacy, a systematic review by the Obesity Society reports.

Sally Kubetin/MDedge News

Most of the more than 300 published randomized controlled trials in the review were small and short, and only 0.5% found a statistically significant weight loss of up to 5 kg, John A. Batsis, MD, from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and colleagues reported in the journal Obesity.

“Despite the poor quality of these studies with high degrees of bias, most still failed to show efficacy of the product they were testing,” Srividya Kidambi, MD, from the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, and colleagues from the Obesity Society’s Clinical Committee pointed out in an accompanying commentary.

“Yet these are the studies that are often used to support manufacturers’ claims of ‘clinically proven’ in their marketing,” they noted.

Most consumers, they continued, are unaware that these nondrug weight-loss products are not regulated by the Food and Drug Administration, but rather, if their ingredients are “generally regarded as safe,” they are treated as dietary supplements and require little or no testing to show either efficacy or safety.

“Our patients need to become aware that dietary supplements for weight loss are nothing more than a pipe dream, and as clinicians we would do well to talk with our patients and help steer them toward science-based treatments rather than the ‘Wild West’ of dietary supplements that are marketed for weight loss,” Scott Kahan, MD, MPH, coauthor of the review and commentary, told this news organization.

The dietary supplement industry has a strong lobby against legislation for more rigorous requirements for claims, noted Dr. Kahan, of the National Center for Weight and Wellness as well as George Washington University, Washington.

However, “there has to be some level of protection for consumers” who are faced with ads by “healthy skinny people saying this [product] can change your life.”

Clinical providers need to guide patients to “evidence-based interventions to support weight loss such as behavioral weight-loss interventions, [FDA-approved] medications, or bariatric surgery,” said Dr. Batsis, who also coauthored the commentary.

There is a “critical need” for more rigorous trials, and a partnership between researchers, funders, and industry, he added.

According to Dr. Kidambi and colleagues, “the use of these products will continue as long as they are allowed to be marketed with the aforementioned limited federal oversight and there is a lack of access to evidence-based obesity treatments.”

The commentary authors “call on regulatory authorities to critically examine the dietary supplement industry, including their role in promoting misleading claims and marketing products that have the potential to harm patients.”

They also urged public and private health insurance plans to “provide adequate resources for obesity management.”

And clinicians should “consider the lack of evidence for non–FDA-approved dietary supplements and therapies and guide their patients toward tested weight-management approaches.”
 

Subpar evidence, booming industry

“Annual sales of dietary supplements for weight loss are booming with an industry valued at $30 billion worldwide, despite subpar evidence” of efficacy, the commentary authors wrote by way of background.

After the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994, the National Institutes of Health’s Office of Dietary Supplements was established “to strengthen the knowledge and understanding of dietary supplements by evaluating scientific information, stimulating and supporting research, and educating the public,” they explained.

However, dietary supplements and alternative therapies are endorsed by influencers and celebrities and marketed as a panacea for obesity and weight gain.
 

Literature review finds scant evidence

Consumers may believe that the “clinically proven” claims of efficacy of these “natural” weight-loss treatments have been thoroughly evaluated for safety and efficacy by the FDA, and clinicians lack information to counsel patients about this.

Therefore, although the Office of Dietary Supplements’ work has importantly advanced the science, the review authors wrote, members of the Obesity Society believed it was important to evaluate and perform a qualitative synthesis of the evidence for efficacy of non–FDA-regulated weight-loss supplements and alternative therapies to better inform clinicians and consumers.

From more than 20,000 citations of 53 dietary supplements and alternative therapies promoted for weight loss, the researchers identified 314 randomized controlled trials of 14 products that each had at least 5 randomized controlled trials.

The two types of alternative therapies in the review were mind-body interventions – which included behavioral therapies (for example, mindfulness and stress management), hypnosis, meditation, or massage – and acupuncture.

Several popular and widely used products (for example, human chorionic gonadotropin, raspberry ketones, nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide, vitamin infusions) did not meet the predefined number of published randomized controlled trials to be eligible for inclusion in the review.

The greatest number of trials were for acupuncture (45 trials), green tea (38), conjugated linoleic acid (31), ephedra with or without caffeine (31), mind-body therapies (22), and calcium and vitamin D (22). There were fewer trials of garcinia and/or hydroxycitrate (15), chitosan (9), phaseolus (7), pyruvate (7), chocolate/cocoa (6), chromium (6), guar gum (5), and phenylpropylamine (5).

Of the 314 studies, only 52 studies (16.5%) demonstrated that the products were efficacious and low risk, and only 16 studies (0.5%) reported a statistically significant between-group weight loss (0.3-4.93 kg).

For more information, in addition to their review and commentary, the authors refer clinicians to a dietary supplement label database.

The study was supported in part by grants from the National Institute on Aging. Dr. Batsis reported equity in SynchroHealth. Dr. Kidambi reported being the medical director for TOPS Center for Metabolic Health at the Medical College of Wisconsin, which is supported by TOPS. Dr. Kahan reported serving as a consultant for Novo Nordisk, Vivus, Gelesis, and Pfizer.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the first high-frequency spinal cord stimulation (SCS) therapy for treating painful diabetic neuropathy (PDN).

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

The approval is specific for the treatment of chronic pain associated with PDN using the Nevro’s Senza System with 10 kHz stimulation. It is intended for patients whose pain is refractory to, or who can’t tolerate, conventional medical treatment. According to the company, there are currently about 2.3 million individuals with refractory PDN in the United States.

The 10 kHz device, called HFX, involves minimally invasive epidural implantation of the stimulator device, which delivers mild electrical impulses to the nerves to interrupt pain signal to the brain. Such spinal cord stimulation “is a straightforward, well-established treatment for chronic pain that’s been used for over 30 years,” according to the company, although this is the first approval of the modality specifically for PDN.

Asked to comment, Rodica Pop-Busui MD, PhD, the Larry D. Soderquist Professor in Diabetes at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said that “the approval of the Nevro 10kHz high-frequency spinal cord stimulation to treat pain associated with diabetic neuropathy has the potential for benefit for many patients with diabetes and painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy.”

She noted that, “although there are several other pharmacological agents that currently carry the FDA approval for PDN, this is a condition that is notoriously difficult to treat, particularly when taking into account the actual number needed to treat with a specific agent to achieve a clinically meaningful pain reduction, as well as the spectrum of side effects and drug-drug interactions in a patient population that require many other additional agents to manage diabetes and comorbidities on a daily basis. Thus, this new therapeutic approach besides effective pain reduction has the additional benefit of bypassing drug interactions.” Dr. Pop-Busui was the lead author on the American Diabetes Association’s 2017 position statement on diabetic neuropathy.

She also cautioned, on the other hand, that “it is not very clear yet how easy it will be for all eligible patients to have access to this technology, what will be the actual costs, the insurance coverage, or the acceptance by patients across various sociodemographic backgrounds from the at-large clinical care. However, given the challenges we encounter to treat diabetic neuropathy and particularly the pain associated with it, it is quite encouraging to see that the tools available to help our patients are now broader.”

Both 6-and 12-month results show benefit

The FDA approval was based on 6-month data from a prospective, multicenter, open-label randomized clinical trial published in JAMA Neurology.

Use of the 10-kHz SCS device was compared with conventional treatment alone in 216 patients with PDN refractory to gabapentinoids and at least one other analgesic class and lower limb pain intensity of 5 cm or more on a 10-cm visual analog scale.

The primary endpoint, percentage of participants reporting 50% pain relief or more without worsening of baseline neurologic deficits at 3 months, was met by 5 of 94 (5%) patients in the conventional group, compared with 75 of 95 (79%) with the 10-kHz SCS plus conventional treatment (P < .001).

Infections requiring device explant occurred in two patients in the 10-kHz SCS group (2%).

At 12 months, those in the original SCS group plus 86% of subjects given the option to cross over from the conventional treatment group showed “clear and sustained” benefits of the 10-kHz SCS with regard to lower-limb pain, pain interference with daily living, sleep quality, and activity, Erika Petersen, MD, director of the section of functional and restorative neurosurgery at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock , reported at the 2021 annual scientific sessions of the ADA.

Infection was the most common study-related adverse event, affecting 8 of 154 patients with the SCS implants (5.2%). Three resolved with conservative treatment and five (3.2%) required removal of the device.

The patients will be followed for a total of 24 months.

Commercial launch of HFX in the United States will begin immediately, the company said.

Dr. Pop-Busui has received consultant fees in the last 12 months from Averitas Pharma, Boehringer Ingelheim, Nevro, and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Petersen has financial relationships with Nevro, Medtronic, and several other neuromodulator makers.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the first high-frequency spinal cord stimulation (SCS) therapy for treating painful diabetic neuropathy (PDN).

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

The approval is specific for the treatment of chronic pain associated with PDN using the Nevro’s Senza System with 10 kHz stimulation. It is intended for patients whose pain is refractory to, or who can’t tolerate, conventional medical treatment. According to the company, there are currently about 2.3 million individuals with refractory PDN in the United States.

The 10 kHz device, called HFX, involves minimally invasive epidural implantation of the stimulator device, which delivers mild electrical impulses to the nerves to interrupt pain signal to the brain. Such spinal cord stimulation “is a straightforward, well-established treatment for chronic pain that’s been used for over 30 years,” according to the company, although this is the first approval of the modality specifically for PDN.

Asked to comment, Rodica Pop-Busui MD, PhD, the Larry D. Soderquist Professor in Diabetes at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said that “the approval of the Nevro 10kHz high-frequency spinal cord stimulation to treat pain associated with diabetic neuropathy has the potential for benefit for many patients with diabetes and painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy.”

She noted that, “although there are several other pharmacological agents that currently carry the FDA approval for PDN, this is a condition that is notoriously difficult to treat, particularly when taking into account the actual number needed to treat with a specific agent to achieve a clinically meaningful pain reduction, as well as the spectrum of side effects and drug-drug interactions in a patient population that require many other additional agents to manage diabetes and comorbidities on a daily basis. Thus, this new therapeutic approach besides effective pain reduction has the additional benefit of bypassing drug interactions.” Dr. Pop-Busui was the lead author on the American Diabetes Association’s 2017 position statement on diabetic neuropathy.

She also cautioned, on the other hand, that “it is not very clear yet how easy it will be for all eligible patients to have access to this technology, what will be the actual costs, the insurance coverage, or the acceptance by patients across various sociodemographic backgrounds from the at-large clinical care. However, given the challenges we encounter to treat diabetic neuropathy and particularly the pain associated with it, it is quite encouraging to see that the tools available to help our patients are now broader.”

Both 6-and 12-month results show benefit

The FDA approval was based on 6-month data from a prospective, multicenter, open-label randomized clinical trial published in JAMA Neurology.

Use of the 10-kHz SCS device was compared with conventional treatment alone in 216 patients with PDN refractory to gabapentinoids and at least one other analgesic class and lower limb pain intensity of 5 cm or more on a 10-cm visual analog scale.

The primary endpoint, percentage of participants reporting 50% pain relief or more without worsening of baseline neurologic deficits at 3 months, was met by 5 of 94 (5%) patients in the conventional group, compared with 75 of 95 (79%) with the 10-kHz SCS plus conventional treatment (P < .001).

Infections requiring device explant occurred in two patients in the 10-kHz SCS group (2%).

At 12 months, those in the original SCS group plus 86% of subjects given the option to cross over from the conventional treatment group showed “clear and sustained” benefits of the 10-kHz SCS with regard to lower-limb pain, pain interference with daily living, sleep quality, and activity, Erika Petersen, MD, director of the section of functional and restorative neurosurgery at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock , reported at the 2021 annual scientific sessions of the ADA.

Infection was the most common study-related adverse event, affecting 8 of 154 patients with the SCS implants (5.2%). Three resolved with conservative treatment and five (3.2%) required removal of the device.

The patients will be followed for a total of 24 months.

Commercial launch of HFX in the United States will begin immediately, the company said.

Dr. Pop-Busui has received consultant fees in the last 12 months from Averitas Pharma, Boehringer Ingelheim, Nevro, and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Petersen has financial relationships with Nevro, Medtronic, and several other neuromodulator makers.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the first high-frequency spinal cord stimulation (SCS) therapy for treating painful diabetic neuropathy (PDN).

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

The approval is specific for the treatment of chronic pain associated with PDN using the Nevro’s Senza System with 10 kHz stimulation. It is intended for patients whose pain is refractory to, or who can’t tolerate, conventional medical treatment. According to the company, there are currently about 2.3 million individuals with refractory PDN in the United States.

The 10 kHz device, called HFX, involves minimally invasive epidural implantation of the stimulator device, which delivers mild electrical impulses to the nerves to interrupt pain signal to the brain. Such spinal cord stimulation “is a straightforward, well-established treatment for chronic pain that’s been used for over 30 years,” according to the company, although this is the first approval of the modality specifically for PDN.

Asked to comment, Rodica Pop-Busui MD, PhD, the Larry D. Soderquist Professor in Diabetes at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said that “the approval of the Nevro 10kHz high-frequency spinal cord stimulation to treat pain associated with diabetic neuropathy has the potential for benefit for many patients with diabetes and painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy.”

She noted that, “although there are several other pharmacological agents that currently carry the FDA approval for PDN, this is a condition that is notoriously difficult to treat, particularly when taking into account the actual number needed to treat with a specific agent to achieve a clinically meaningful pain reduction, as well as the spectrum of side effects and drug-drug interactions in a patient population that require many other additional agents to manage diabetes and comorbidities on a daily basis. Thus, this new therapeutic approach besides effective pain reduction has the additional benefit of bypassing drug interactions.” Dr. Pop-Busui was the lead author on the American Diabetes Association’s 2017 position statement on diabetic neuropathy.

She also cautioned, on the other hand, that “it is not very clear yet how easy it will be for all eligible patients to have access to this technology, what will be the actual costs, the insurance coverage, or the acceptance by patients across various sociodemographic backgrounds from the at-large clinical care. However, given the challenges we encounter to treat diabetic neuropathy and particularly the pain associated with it, it is quite encouraging to see that the tools available to help our patients are now broader.”

Both 6-and 12-month results show benefit

The FDA approval was based on 6-month data from a prospective, multicenter, open-label randomized clinical trial published in JAMA Neurology.

Use of the 10-kHz SCS device was compared with conventional treatment alone in 216 patients with PDN refractory to gabapentinoids and at least one other analgesic class and lower limb pain intensity of 5 cm or more on a 10-cm visual analog scale.

The primary endpoint, percentage of participants reporting 50% pain relief or more without worsening of baseline neurologic deficits at 3 months, was met by 5 of 94 (5%) patients in the conventional group, compared with 75 of 95 (79%) with the 10-kHz SCS plus conventional treatment (P < .001).

Infections requiring device explant occurred in two patients in the 10-kHz SCS group (2%).

At 12 months, those in the original SCS group plus 86% of subjects given the option to cross over from the conventional treatment group showed “clear and sustained” benefits of the 10-kHz SCS with regard to lower-limb pain, pain interference with daily living, sleep quality, and activity, Erika Petersen, MD, director of the section of functional and restorative neurosurgery at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock , reported at the 2021 annual scientific sessions of the ADA.

Infection was the most common study-related adverse event, affecting 8 of 154 patients with the SCS implants (5.2%). Three resolved with conservative treatment and five (3.2%) required removal of the device.

The patients will be followed for a total of 24 months.

Commercial launch of HFX in the United States will begin immediately, the company said.

Dr. Pop-Busui has received consultant fees in the last 12 months from Averitas Pharma, Boehringer Ingelheim, Nevro, and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Petersen has financial relationships with Nevro, Medtronic, and several other neuromodulator makers.

In patients with intermediate risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease along with risk-enhancing factors, coronary artery calcium scoring may help more precisely calculate their need for statin therapy.

Furthermore, when the need for statin treatment isn’t so clear and patients need additional risk assessment, the scoring can provide further information to personalize clinical decision making, according to a cross-sectional study of 1,688 participants in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) published in JAMA Cardiology.

And regardless of coronary artery calcium (CAC), a low ankle brachial index (ABI) score is a marker for statin therapy, the study found.

The study looked at CAC scoring in the context of ABI and other risk-enhancing factors identified in the 2018 American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology cholesterol management guidelines: a family history of premature atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), lipid and inflammatory biomarkers, chronic kidney disease, chronic inflammatory conditions, premature menopause or preeclampsia, and South Asian ancestry.

Any number of these factors can indicate the need for statins in people with borderline or intermediate risk. The guidelines also call for selective use of CAC to aid the decision-making process for statin therapy when the risk for developing atherosclerosis isn’t so clear.

“The novel risk-enhancing factors are not perfect,” said lead author Jaideep Patel, MD, director of preventive cardiology at Johns Hopkins Heart Center at Greater Baltimore Medical Center. He noted that the 2018 dyslipidemia guidelines suggested the risk for cardiovascular events rises when new risk-enhancing factors emerge, and that it was difficult to predict the extent to which each enhancer could change the 10-year risk. 
 

Utility of CAC

“In this setting, the most significant finding that supports the utility of CAC scoring is when CAC is absent – a CAC of 0 – even in the setting of any of these enhancers, whether it be single or multiple, the 10-year risk remains extremely low – at the very least below the accepted threshold to initiate statin therapy,” Dr. Patel said.

That threshold is below the 7.5% 10-year ASCVD incidence rate. Over the 12-year mean study follow-up, the ASCVD incidence rate among patients with a CAC score of 0 for all risk-enhancing factors was 7.5 events per 1,000 person years, with one exception: ABI had an incidence rate of 10.4 events per 1,000 person years. “A low ABI score should trigger statin initiation irrespective of CAC score,” Dr. Patel said.

The study found a CAC score of 0 in 45.7% of those with one or two risk-enhancing factors versus 40.3% in those with three or more. “Across all the risk enhancers (except low ABI), the prevalence of CAC of 0 was greater than 50% in women; that is, enhancers overestimate risk,” Dr. Patel said. “The prevalence of CAC of 0 was approximately 40% across all risk enhancers; that is, enhancers overestimate risk.”

Dr. Patel said previous studies have suggested the risk of a major cardiovascular event was almost identical for statin and nonstatin users with a CAC score of 0. “If there is uncertainty about statin use after the physician-patient risk discussion,” he said, “CAC scoring may be helpful to guide the use of statin therapy.”

Senior author Mahmoud Al Rifai, MD, MPH, added: “For example, if CAC was absent, a statin could be deprescribed if there’s disutility on the part of the patient, with ongoing lifestyle and risk factor modification efforts.” Dr. Al Rifai is a cardiology fellow at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

Dr. Patel said: “Alternatively, if CAC was present, then it would be prudent to continue statin therapy.”

While South Asian ethnicity is a risk enhancing factor, the investigators acknowledged that MESA didn’t recruit this population group.
 

Study confirms guidelines

The study “supports the contention of the [AHA/ACC] guidelines that, in people who are in this intermediate risk range, there may be factors that either favor statin treatment or suggest that statin treatment could be deferred,” said Neil J. Stone, MD, of Northwestern University, Chicago, and author of the 2013 ASCVD risk calculator. “The guidelines pointed out that risk-enhancing factors may be associated with an increase in lifetime risk, not necessarily short term, and so could inform a more personalized risk discussion.”

The study findings validate the utility of CAC for guiding statin therapy, Dr. Stone said. “For those who have felt that a calcium score is not useful,” he said, “this is additional evidence to show that, in the context of making a decision in those at intermediate risk as proposed by the guidelines, a calcium score is indeed very useful.”

Dr. Stone added: “An important clinical point not mentioned by the authors is that, when the patient has a CAC score of 0 and risk factors, this may be exactly the time to be aggressive with lifestyle to prevent them from developing a positive CAC score and atherosclerosis, because once atherosclerosis is present, treatment may not restore the risk back to the original lower state.”

Dr. Patel, Dr. Al Rifai, and Dr. Stone have no relevant relationships to disclose. A number of study coauthors disclosed multiple financial relationships.

In patients with intermediate risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease along with risk-enhancing factors, coronary artery calcium scoring may help more precisely calculate their need for statin therapy.

Furthermore, when the need for statin treatment isn’t so clear and patients need additional risk assessment, the scoring can provide further information to personalize clinical decision making, according to a cross-sectional study of 1,688 participants in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) published in JAMA Cardiology.

And regardless of coronary artery calcium (CAC), a low ankle brachial index (ABI) score is a marker for statin therapy, the study found.

The study looked at CAC scoring in the context of ABI and other risk-enhancing factors identified in the 2018 American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology cholesterol management guidelines: a family history of premature atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), lipid and inflammatory biomarkers, chronic kidney disease, chronic inflammatory conditions, premature menopause or preeclampsia, and South Asian ancestry.

Any number of these factors can indicate the need for statins in people with borderline or intermediate risk. The guidelines also call for selective use of CAC to aid the decision-making process for statin therapy when the risk for developing atherosclerosis isn’t so clear.

“The novel risk-enhancing factors are not perfect,” said lead author Jaideep Patel, MD, director of preventive cardiology at Johns Hopkins Heart Center at Greater Baltimore Medical Center. He noted that the 2018 dyslipidemia guidelines suggested the risk for cardiovascular events rises when new risk-enhancing factors emerge, and that it was difficult to predict the extent to which each enhancer could change the 10-year risk. 
 

Utility of CAC

“In this setting, the most significant finding that supports the utility of CAC scoring is when CAC is absent – a CAC of 0 – even in the setting of any of these enhancers, whether it be single or multiple, the 10-year risk remains extremely low – at the very least below the accepted threshold to initiate statin therapy,” Dr. Patel said.

That threshold is below the 7.5% 10-year ASCVD incidence rate. Over the 12-year mean study follow-up, the ASCVD incidence rate among patients with a CAC score of 0 for all risk-enhancing factors was 7.5 events per 1,000 person years, with one exception: ABI had an incidence rate of 10.4 events per 1,000 person years. “A low ABI score should trigger statin initiation irrespective of CAC score,” Dr. Patel said.

The study found a CAC score of 0 in 45.7% of those with one or two risk-enhancing factors versus 40.3% in those with three or more. “Across all the risk enhancers (except low ABI), the prevalence of CAC of 0 was greater than 50% in women; that is, enhancers overestimate risk,” Dr. Patel said. “The prevalence of CAC of 0 was approximately 40% across all risk enhancers; that is, enhancers overestimate risk.”

Dr. Patel said previous studies have suggested the risk of a major cardiovascular event was almost identical for statin and nonstatin users with a CAC score of 0. “If there is uncertainty about statin use after the physician-patient risk discussion,” he said, “CAC scoring may be helpful to guide the use of statin therapy.”

Senior author Mahmoud Al Rifai, MD, MPH, added: “For example, if CAC was absent, a statin could be deprescribed if there’s disutility on the part of the patient, with ongoing lifestyle and risk factor modification efforts.” Dr. Al Rifai is a cardiology fellow at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

Dr. Patel said: “Alternatively, if CAC was present, then it would be prudent to continue statin therapy.”

While South Asian ethnicity is a risk enhancing factor, the investigators acknowledged that MESA didn’t recruit this population group.
 

Study confirms guidelines

The study “supports the contention of the [AHA/ACC] guidelines that, in people who are in this intermediate risk range, there may be factors that either favor statin treatment or suggest that statin treatment could be deferred,” said Neil J. Stone, MD, of Northwestern University, Chicago, and author of the 2013 ASCVD risk calculator. “The guidelines pointed out that risk-enhancing factors may be associated with an increase in lifetime risk, not necessarily short term, and so could inform a more personalized risk discussion.”

The study findings validate the utility of CAC for guiding statin therapy, Dr. Stone said. “For those who have felt that a calcium score is not useful,” he said, “this is additional evidence to show that, in the context of making a decision in those at intermediate risk as proposed by the guidelines, a calcium score is indeed very useful.”

Dr. Stone added: “An important clinical point not mentioned by the authors is that, when the patient has a CAC score of 0 and risk factors, this may be exactly the time to be aggressive with lifestyle to prevent them from developing a positive CAC score and atherosclerosis, because once atherosclerosis is present, treatment may not restore the risk back to the original lower state.”

Dr. Patel, Dr. Al Rifai, and Dr. Stone have no relevant relationships to disclose. A number of study coauthors disclosed multiple financial relationships.

In patients with intermediate risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease along with risk-enhancing factors, coronary artery calcium scoring may help more precisely calculate their need for statin therapy.

Furthermore, when the need for statin treatment isn’t so clear and patients need additional risk assessment, the scoring can provide further information to personalize clinical decision making, according to a cross-sectional study of 1,688 participants in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) published in JAMA Cardiology.

And regardless of coronary artery calcium (CAC), a low ankle brachial index (ABI) score is a marker for statin therapy, the study found.

The study looked at CAC scoring in the context of ABI and other risk-enhancing factors identified in the 2018 American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology cholesterol management guidelines: a family history of premature atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), lipid and inflammatory biomarkers, chronic kidney disease, chronic inflammatory conditions, premature menopause or preeclampsia, and South Asian ancestry.

Any number of these factors can indicate the need for statins in people with borderline or intermediate risk. The guidelines also call for selective use of CAC to aid the decision-making process for statin therapy when the risk for developing atherosclerosis isn’t so clear.

“The novel risk-enhancing factors are not perfect,” said lead author Jaideep Patel, MD, director of preventive cardiology at Johns Hopkins Heart Center at Greater Baltimore Medical Center. He noted that the 2018 dyslipidemia guidelines suggested the risk for cardiovascular events rises when new risk-enhancing factors emerge, and that it was difficult to predict the extent to which each enhancer could change the 10-year risk. 
 

Utility of CAC

“In this setting, the most significant finding that supports the utility of CAC scoring is when CAC is absent – a CAC of 0 – even in the setting of any of these enhancers, whether it be single or multiple, the 10-year risk remains extremely low – at the very least below the accepted threshold to initiate statin therapy,” Dr. Patel said.

That threshold is below the 7.5% 10-year ASCVD incidence rate. Over the 12-year mean study follow-up, the ASCVD incidence rate among patients with a CAC score of 0 for all risk-enhancing factors was 7.5 events per 1,000 person years, with one exception: ABI had an incidence rate of 10.4 events per 1,000 person years. “A low ABI score should trigger statin initiation irrespective of CAC score,” Dr. Patel said.

The study found a CAC score of 0 in 45.7% of those with one or two risk-enhancing factors versus 40.3% in those with three or more. “Across all the risk enhancers (except low ABI), the prevalence of CAC of 0 was greater than 50% in women; that is, enhancers overestimate risk,” Dr. Patel said. “The prevalence of CAC of 0 was approximately 40% across all risk enhancers; that is, enhancers overestimate risk.”

Dr. Patel said previous studies have suggested the risk of a major cardiovascular event was almost identical for statin and nonstatin users with a CAC score of 0. “If there is uncertainty about statin use after the physician-patient risk discussion,” he said, “CAC scoring may be helpful to guide the use of statin therapy.”

Senior author Mahmoud Al Rifai, MD, MPH, added: “For example, if CAC was absent, a statin could be deprescribed if there’s disutility on the part of the patient, with ongoing lifestyle and risk factor modification efforts.” Dr. Al Rifai is a cardiology fellow at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

Dr. Patel said: “Alternatively, if CAC was present, then it would be prudent to continue statin therapy.”

While South Asian ethnicity is a risk enhancing factor, the investigators acknowledged that MESA didn’t recruit this population group.
 

Study confirms guidelines

The study “supports the contention of the [AHA/ACC] guidelines that, in people who are in this intermediate risk range, there may be factors that either favor statin treatment or suggest that statin treatment could be deferred,” said Neil J. Stone, MD, of Northwestern University, Chicago, and author of the 2013 ASCVD risk calculator. “The guidelines pointed out that risk-enhancing factors may be associated with an increase in lifetime risk, not necessarily short term, and so could inform a more personalized risk discussion.”

The study findings validate the utility of CAC for guiding statin therapy, Dr. Stone said. “For those who have felt that a calcium score is not useful,” he said, “this is additional evidence to show that, in the context of making a decision in those at intermediate risk as proposed by the guidelines, a calcium score is indeed very useful.”

Dr. Stone added: “An important clinical point not mentioned by the authors is that, when the patient has a CAC score of 0 and risk factors, this may be exactly the time to be aggressive with lifestyle to prevent them from developing a positive CAC score and atherosclerosis, because once atherosclerosis is present, treatment may not restore the risk back to the original lower state.”

Dr. Patel, Dr. Al Rifai, and Dr. Stone have no relevant relationships to disclose. A number of study coauthors disclosed multiple financial relationships.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) aims to update the labeling on all statins to remove the drugs’ blanket contraindication in all pregnant patients, the agency has announced. The change should reinforce for both physicians and patients that statin use in women with unrecognized pregnancy is unlikely to be harmful, it said.

“Because the benefits of statins may include prevention of serious or potentially fatal events in a small group of very high-risk pregnant patients, contraindicating these drugs in all pregnant women is not appropriate.”

The revision should emphasize for clinicians “that statins are safe to prescribe in patients who can become pregnant and help them reassure patients with unintended statin exposure in early pregnancy,” the FDA explained.

Removal of the broadly worded contraindication should “enable health care professionals and patients to make individual decisions about benefit and risk, especially for those at very high risk of heart attack or stroke." That includes women with homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia and those who are prescribed statins for secondary prevention, the agency said.

Clinicians “should discontinue statin therapy in most pregnant patients, or they can consider the ongoing therapeutic needs of the individual patient, particularly those at very high risk for cardiovascular events during pregnancy. Because of the chronic nature of cardiovascular disease, treatment of hyperlipidemia is not generally necessary during pregnancy.”

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) aims to update the labeling on all statins to remove the drugs’ blanket contraindication in all pregnant patients, the agency has announced. The change should reinforce for both physicians and patients that statin use in women with unrecognized pregnancy is unlikely to be harmful, it said.

“Because the benefits of statins may include prevention of serious or potentially fatal events in a small group of very high-risk pregnant patients, contraindicating these drugs in all pregnant women is not appropriate.”

The revision should emphasize for clinicians “that statins are safe to prescribe in patients who can become pregnant and help them reassure patients with unintended statin exposure in early pregnancy,” the FDA explained.

Removal of the broadly worded contraindication should “enable health care professionals and patients to make individual decisions about benefit and risk, especially for those at very high risk of heart attack or stroke." That includes women with homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia and those who are prescribed statins for secondary prevention, the agency said.

Clinicians “should discontinue statin therapy in most pregnant patients, or they can consider the ongoing therapeutic needs of the individual patient, particularly those at very high risk for cardiovascular events during pregnancy. Because of the chronic nature of cardiovascular disease, treatment of hyperlipidemia is not generally necessary during pregnancy.”

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) aims to update the labeling on all statins to remove the drugs’ blanket contraindication in all pregnant patients, the agency has announced. The change should reinforce for both physicians and patients that statin use in women with unrecognized pregnancy is unlikely to be harmful, it said.

“Because the benefits of statins may include prevention of serious or potentially fatal events in a small group of very high-risk pregnant patients, contraindicating these drugs in all pregnant women is not appropriate.”

The revision should emphasize for clinicians “that statins are safe to prescribe in patients who can become pregnant and help them reassure patients with unintended statin exposure in early pregnancy,” the FDA explained.

Removal of the broadly worded contraindication should “enable health care professionals and patients to make individual decisions about benefit and risk, especially for those at very high risk of heart attack or stroke." That includes women with homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia and those who are prescribed statins for secondary prevention, the agency said.

Clinicians “should discontinue statin therapy in most pregnant patients, or they can consider the ongoing therapeutic needs of the individual patient, particularly those at very high risk for cardiovascular events during pregnancy. Because of the chronic nature of cardiovascular disease, treatment of hyperlipidemia is not generally necessary during pregnancy.”

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

Coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) can be performed successfully after transcatheter aortic valve replacement in most cases, according to data drawn from an international registry that has collected more than 400 such cases.

Overall, reaccess coronary angiography was successful in about 99% of cases with type of prosthesis identified as the most important variable in predicting success, according to a multicenter investigating team led by Won-Keun Kim, MD, director of structural heart disease, Kerckhoff Heart Center, Bad Nauheim, Germany.

By type of prosthesis, Dr. Kim was referring to long versus short stent-frame prostheses (SFP). In the case of angiography of the right coronary artery, for example, success was achieved in 99.6% of those with a short SFP and 95.9% of those with a long SFP (P = .005).

The study was published online in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions.

Based on these and previous data, “prosthetic choice will be the main decisive factor that affects coronary reaccess, and this decision is in the hands of the TAVR operator,” said Dr. Kim in an interview.

This does not preclude use of a long SFP in TAVR. For patients with increased likelihood of eventually requiring a coronary intervention after TAVR, such as those undergoing the procedure at a relatively young age, a short device appears to be preferable, but Dr. Kim emphasized that it is not the only consideration.

When performing TAVR, “the highest priority is to accomplish a safe procedure with a good immediate outcome,” he said, pointing out that angiographic reaccess and PCI are successfully achieved in most patients whether fitted with a short or long SFP.

“If for any reason I assume that the immediate outcome [after TAVR] might be better using a long SFP, I would not hesitate to use a long SFP,” said Dr. Kim, giving such examples as a need for resheathing or precise positioning.
 

Coronary reaccess has low relative priority

“Coronary reaccess is an important issue and there is an increasing awareness of this, but it has a lower priority” than optimizing TAVR success,” Dr. Kim explained.

The analysis of coronary angiographic reaccess was based on 449 TAVR patients from 25 sites who required reaccess angiography. The indication in most cases was an acute coronary syndrome, mostly non–ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI, 79%). Of the remaining patients, about half had STEMIs and half had other acute cardiovascular situations. The median time interval from TAVR to need for coronary angiography was 311 days.

In all but 2.7%, diagnostic catheterization was performed initially. It was successful in 98.3% of the procedures in the right coronary artery, 99.3% of the left coronary artery, and 97.3% overall.

Of the 60% who underwent PCI, 9% were considered unsuccessful. The reasons included lack of reflow in eight cases and coronary access issues in six cases. A variety of other issues accounted for the remaining seven cases.

Technical success was achieved in 91.4% of native arteries. In the six cases in which engagement of the culprit vessel with a guiding catheter failed, three were converted to urgent coronary bypass grafting and three died in the hospital. Neither selective versus unselective guiding-catheter engagement nor long versus short SFP related to PCI success, but PCI was performed less commonly in the native coronary arteries of TAVR patients with a long rather than short SFP (49% vs. 57%).

The 30-day all-cause mortality in this series was 12.2%. The independent predictors were a history of diabetes and the occurrence of cardiogenic shock. In the PCI subgroup, these factors plus PCI success predicted 30-day mortality.
 

Strategies to improve reaccess not resolved

When performing TAVR, other factors that might influence subsequent PCI success includes commissural alignment and positioning, according to Dr. Kim. But he cautioned that there are a number of potential controversies when weighing how to improve chances of post-TAVR angiographic reaccess without compromising the success of valve replacement.

“Lower positioning facilitates coronary access, but unfortunately will increase rates of conduction disturbances,” he noted.

Overall, one of the main messages from this analysis is that “the fear of impaired coronary access [after TAVR] may well be disproportionate to the reality,” according to Neal S. Kleiman, MD, an interventional cardiologist at Houston Methodist DeBakey Heart and Vascular Center. Dr. Kleiman wrote an editorial on the registry findings in the same issue of JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions).

Yet, he agreed that the issue of angiographic reaccess after TAVR cannot be ignored. Although reaccess after TAVR has so far been “surprisingly rare,” Dr. Kleiman expects cases to increase as more younger patients undergo TAVR. He suggested that interventionalists will need consider this issue when performing TAVR, a point he reemphasized in an interview.

“It is still a concern when recommending TAVR to a patient and still poses challenges to device manufacturers,” said Dr. Kleiman, suggesting that “a new set of skills” will be required to perform TAVR that will optimize subsequent angiographic access and PCI.

Dr. Kim agreed. Ultimately, other challenges, such as PCI performed after TAVR-in-TAVR placement, are likely to further complicate this issue, but he, too, is looking to new devices to minimize the problems.

“It would be desirable to modify the design, especially of long SFPs, to improve access for PCI, and there are ongoing efforts of the manufacturers to achieve this,” Dr. Kim said.

Dr. Kim reported financial relationships with Abbot, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Meril Lifesciences. Dr. Kleiman reported financial relationships with Abbott, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic.

Coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) can be performed successfully after transcatheter aortic valve replacement in most cases, according to data drawn from an international registry that has collected more than 400 such cases.

Overall, reaccess coronary angiography was successful in about 99% of cases with type of prosthesis identified as the most important variable in predicting success, according to a multicenter investigating team led by Won-Keun Kim, MD, director of structural heart disease, Kerckhoff Heart Center, Bad Nauheim, Germany.

By type of prosthesis, Dr. Kim was referring to long versus short stent-frame prostheses (SFP). In the case of angiography of the right coronary artery, for example, success was achieved in 99.6% of those with a short SFP and 95.9% of those with a long SFP (P = .005).

The study was published online in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions.

Based on these and previous data, “prosthetic choice will be the main decisive factor that affects coronary reaccess, and this decision is in the hands of the TAVR operator,” said Dr. Kim in an interview.

This does not preclude use of a long SFP in TAVR. For patients with increased likelihood of eventually requiring a coronary intervention after TAVR, such as those undergoing the procedure at a relatively young age, a short device appears to be preferable, but Dr. Kim emphasized that it is not the only consideration.

When performing TAVR, “the highest priority is to accomplish a safe procedure with a good immediate outcome,” he said, pointing out that angiographic reaccess and PCI are successfully achieved in most patients whether fitted with a short or long SFP.

“If for any reason I assume that the immediate outcome [after TAVR] might be better using a long SFP, I would not hesitate to use a long SFP,” said Dr. Kim, giving such examples as a need for resheathing or precise positioning.
 

Coronary reaccess has low relative priority

“Coronary reaccess is an important issue and there is an increasing awareness of this, but it has a lower priority” than optimizing TAVR success,” Dr. Kim explained.

The analysis of coronary angiographic reaccess was based on 449 TAVR patients from 25 sites who required reaccess angiography. The indication in most cases was an acute coronary syndrome, mostly non–ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI, 79%). Of the remaining patients, about half had STEMIs and half had other acute cardiovascular situations. The median time interval from TAVR to need for coronary angiography was 311 days.

In all but 2.7%, diagnostic catheterization was performed initially. It was successful in 98.3% of the procedures in the right coronary artery, 99.3% of the left coronary artery, and 97.3% overall.

Of the 60% who underwent PCI, 9% were considered unsuccessful. The reasons included lack of reflow in eight cases and coronary access issues in six cases. A variety of other issues accounted for the remaining seven cases.

Technical success was achieved in 91.4% of native arteries. In the six cases in which engagement of the culprit vessel with a guiding catheter failed, three were converted to urgent coronary bypass grafting and three died in the hospital. Neither selective versus unselective guiding-catheter engagement nor long versus short SFP related to PCI success, but PCI was performed less commonly in the native coronary arteries of TAVR patients with a long rather than short SFP (49% vs. 57%).

The 30-day all-cause mortality in this series was 12.2%. The independent predictors were a history of diabetes and the occurrence of cardiogenic shock. In the PCI subgroup, these factors plus PCI success predicted 30-day mortality.
 

Strategies to improve reaccess not resolved

When performing TAVR, other factors that might influence subsequent PCI success includes commissural alignment and positioning, according to Dr. Kim. But he cautioned that there are a number of potential controversies when weighing how to improve chances of post-TAVR angiographic reaccess without compromising the success of valve replacement.

“Lower positioning facilitates coronary access, but unfortunately will increase rates of conduction disturbances,” he noted.

Overall, one of the main messages from this analysis is that “the fear of impaired coronary access [after TAVR] may well be disproportionate to the reality,” according to Neal S. Kleiman, MD, an interventional cardiologist at Houston Methodist DeBakey Heart and Vascular Center. Dr. Kleiman wrote an editorial on the registry findings in the same issue of JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions).

Yet, he agreed that the issue of angiographic reaccess after TAVR cannot be ignored. Although reaccess after TAVR has so far been “surprisingly rare,” Dr. Kleiman expects cases to increase as more younger patients undergo TAVR. He suggested that interventionalists will need consider this issue when performing TAVR, a point he reemphasized in an interview.

“It is still a concern when recommending TAVR to a patient and still poses challenges to device manufacturers,” said Dr. Kleiman, suggesting that “a new set of skills” will be required to perform TAVR that will optimize subsequent angiographic access and PCI.

Dr. Kim agreed. Ultimately, other challenges, such as PCI performed after TAVR-in-TAVR placement, are likely to further complicate this issue, but he, too, is looking to new devices to minimize the problems.

“It would be desirable to modify the design, especially of long SFPs, to improve access for PCI, and there are ongoing efforts of the manufacturers to achieve this,” Dr. Kim said.

Dr. Kim reported financial relationships with Abbot, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Meril Lifesciences. Dr. Kleiman reported financial relationships with Abbott, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic.

Coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) can be performed successfully after transcatheter aortic valve replacement in most cases, according to data drawn from an international registry that has collected more than 400 such cases.

Overall, reaccess coronary angiography was successful in about 99% of cases with type of prosthesis identified as the most important variable in predicting success, according to a multicenter investigating team led by Won-Keun Kim, MD, director of structural heart disease, Kerckhoff Heart Center, Bad Nauheim, Germany.

By type of prosthesis, Dr. Kim was referring to long versus short stent-frame prostheses (SFP). In the case of angiography of the right coronary artery, for example, success was achieved in 99.6% of those with a short SFP and 95.9% of those with a long SFP (P = .005).

The study was published online in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions.

Based on these and previous data, “prosthetic choice will be the main decisive factor that affects coronary reaccess, and this decision is in the hands of the TAVR operator,” said Dr. Kim in an interview.

This does not preclude use of a long SFP in TAVR. For patients with increased likelihood of eventually requiring a coronary intervention after TAVR, such as those undergoing the procedure at a relatively young age, a short device appears to be preferable, but Dr. Kim emphasized that it is not the only consideration.

When performing TAVR, “the highest priority is to accomplish a safe procedure with a good immediate outcome,” he said, pointing out that angiographic reaccess and PCI are successfully achieved in most patients whether fitted with a short or long SFP.

“If for any reason I assume that the immediate outcome [after TAVR] might be better using a long SFP, I would not hesitate to use a long SFP,” said Dr. Kim, giving such examples as a need for resheathing or precise positioning.
 

Coronary reaccess has low relative priority

“Coronary reaccess is an important issue and there is an increasing awareness of this, but it has a lower priority” than optimizing TAVR success,” Dr. Kim explained.

The analysis of coronary angiographic reaccess was based on 449 TAVR patients from 25 sites who required reaccess angiography. The indication in most cases was an acute coronary syndrome, mostly non–ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI, 79%). Of the remaining patients, about half had STEMIs and half had other acute cardiovascular situations. The median time interval from TAVR to need for coronary angiography was 311 days.

In all but 2.7%, diagnostic catheterization was performed initially. It was successful in 98.3% of the procedures in the right coronary artery, 99.3% of the left coronary artery, and 97.3% overall.

Of the 60% who underwent PCI, 9% were considered unsuccessful. The reasons included lack of reflow in eight cases and coronary access issues in six cases. A variety of other issues accounted for the remaining seven cases.

Technical success was achieved in 91.4% of native arteries. In the six cases in which engagement of the culprit vessel with a guiding catheter failed, three were converted to urgent coronary bypass grafting and three died in the hospital. Neither selective versus unselective guiding-catheter engagement nor long versus short SFP related to PCI success, but PCI was performed less commonly in the native coronary arteries of TAVR patients with a long rather than short SFP (49% vs. 57%).

The 30-day all-cause mortality in this series was 12.2%. The independent predictors were a history of diabetes and the occurrence of cardiogenic shock. In the PCI subgroup, these factors plus PCI success predicted 30-day mortality.
 

Strategies to improve reaccess not resolved

When performing TAVR, other factors that might influence subsequent PCI success includes commissural alignment and positioning, according to Dr. Kim. But he cautioned that there are a number of potential controversies when weighing how to improve chances of post-TAVR angiographic reaccess without compromising the success of valve replacement.

“Lower positioning facilitates coronary access, but unfortunately will increase rates of conduction disturbances,” he noted.

Overall, one of the main messages from this analysis is that “the fear of impaired coronary access [after TAVR] may well be disproportionate to the reality,” according to Neal S. Kleiman, MD, an interventional cardiologist at Houston Methodist DeBakey Heart and Vascular Center. Dr. Kleiman wrote an editorial on the registry findings in the same issue of JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions).

Yet, he agreed that the issue of angiographic reaccess after TAVR cannot be ignored. Although reaccess after TAVR has so far been “surprisingly rare,” Dr. Kleiman expects cases to increase as more younger patients undergo TAVR. He suggested that interventionalists will need consider this issue when performing TAVR, a point he reemphasized in an interview.

“It is still a concern when recommending TAVR to a patient and still poses challenges to device manufacturers,” said Dr. Kleiman, suggesting that “a new set of skills” will be required to perform TAVR that will optimize subsequent angiographic access and PCI.

Dr. Kim agreed. Ultimately, other challenges, such as PCI performed after TAVR-in-TAVR placement, are likely to further complicate this issue, but he, too, is looking to new devices to minimize the problems.

“It would be desirable to modify the design, especially of long SFPs, to improve access for PCI, and there are ongoing efforts of the manufacturers to achieve this,” Dr. Kim said.

Dr. Kim reported financial relationships with Abbot, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Meril Lifesciences. Dr. Kleiman reported financial relationships with Abbott, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic.

Bicycle riding may help people with diabetes live longer, new research suggests.

NicolasMcComber/E+/Getty Images

Among more than 7,000 adults with diabetes in 10 Western European countries followed for about 15 years, those who cycled regularly were significantly less likely to die of any cause or of cardiovascular causes, even after accounting for differences in factors such as sex, age, educational level, diet, comorbidities, and other physical activities.

“The association between cycling and all-cause and CVD [cardiovascular disease] mortality in this study of person[s] with diabetes was of the same magnitude and direction as observed in the healthy population,” wrote Mathias Ried-Larsen, PhD, of the Centre for Physical Activity Research, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, and colleagues. The findings were published online July 19, 2021, in JAMA Internal Medicine.

In an accompanying Editor’s Note, JAMA Internal Medicine editor Rita F. Redberg, MD, and two deputy editors said that the new data add to previous studies showing benefits of cycling, compared with other physical activities. “The analysis from Ried-Larsen and colleagues strengthens the epidemiologic data on cycling and strongly suggests that it may contribute directly to longer and healthier lives,” they wrote.

Dr. Redberg, of the University of California, San Francisco, told this news organization: “I think the number of cyclists grew greatly during pandemic, when there was little auto traffic, and people did not want to take public transportation. Cities that add bike lanes, especially protected bike lanes, see an increase in cyclists. I think Americans can cycle more, would enjoy cycling more, and would live longer [by] cycling, to work and for pleasure.”

Dr. Redberg disclosed that she is “an avid cyclist and am currently on a bike ride in Glacier National Park. ... This group [Climate Ride] raises money for more bike lanes, promotes climate change awareness, has paid for solar panels at Glacier, and more.”

However, Dr. Redberg and colleagues also “recognize that cycling requires fitness, a good sense of balance, and the means to purchase a bicycle. We also understand that regular cycling requires living in an area where it is reasonably safe, and we celebrate the installation of more bike lanes, particularly protected lanes, in many cities around the world.”

But, despite the limitations of an observational study and possible selection bias of people who are able to cycle, “it is important to share this evidence for the potentially large health benefits of cycling, which almost surely generalize to persons without diabetes.”
 

Cycling tied to lower all-cause and CVD mortality

The prospective cohort study included 7,459 adults with diabetes from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition. All were assessed during 1992-1998 and again in 1996-2011, with a mean follow-up of roughly 15 years. During that time, there were 1,673 deaths from all causes, with 811 attributed to CVD.

Compared with no cycling, those who reported any cycling had a 24% lower risk of death from any cause over a 5-year period, after adjustment for confounders and for other physical activity. The greatest risk reduction was seen in those who reported cycling between 150-299 minutes per week, particularly in CVD mortality.

In a subanalysis of 5,423 individuals with 10.7 years of follow-up, there were 975 all-cause deaths and 429 from CVD. Individuals who began or continued cycling during follow-up experienced reductions of about 35% for both all-cause and CVD mortality, compared with those who never cycled.

Dr. Redberg and colleagues added that “there are environmental benefits to increasing the use of cycling for commuting and other transport because cycling helps to decrease the adverse environmental and health effects of automobile exhaust.”

They concluded: “As avid and/or aspiring cyclists ourselves, we are sold on the mental and physical benefits of getting to work and seeing the world on two wheels, self-propelled, and think it is well worth a try.”

The study work was supported by the Health Research Fund of Instituto de Salud Carlos III; the Spanish regional governments of Andalucía, Asturias, Basque Country, Murcia, and Navarra; and the Catalan Institute of Oncology. The Centre for Physical Activity Research is supported by a grant from TrygFonden. Dr. Ried-Larsen reported personal fees from Novo Nordisk. Dr. Redberg reported receiving grants from Arnold Ventures; the Greenwall Foundation; and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

Bicycle riding may help people with diabetes live longer, new research suggests.

NicolasMcComber/E+/Getty Images

Among more than 7,000 adults with diabetes in 10 Western European countries followed for about 15 years, those who cycled regularly were significantly less likely to die of any cause or of cardiovascular causes, even after accounting for differences in factors such as sex, age, educational level, diet, comorbidities, and other physical activities.

“The association between cycling and all-cause and CVD [cardiovascular disease] mortality in this study of person[s] with diabetes was of the same magnitude and direction as observed in the healthy population,” wrote Mathias Ried-Larsen, PhD, of the Centre for Physical Activity Research, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, and colleagues. The findings were published online July 19, 2021, in JAMA Internal Medicine.

In an accompanying Editor’s Note, JAMA Internal Medicine editor Rita F. Redberg, MD, and two deputy editors said that the new data add to previous studies showing benefits of cycling, compared with other physical activities. “The analysis from Ried-Larsen and colleagues strengthens the epidemiologic data on cycling and strongly suggests that it may contribute directly to longer and healthier lives,” they wrote.

Dr. Redberg, of the University of California, San Francisco, told this news organization: “I think the number of cyclists grew greatly during pandemic, when there was little auto traffic, and people did not want to take public transportation. Cities that add bike lanes, especially protected bike lanes, see an increase in cyclists. I think Americans can cycle more, would enjoy cycling more, and would live longer [by] cycling, to work and for pleasure.”

Dr. Redberg disclosed that she is “an avid cyclist and am currently on a bike ride in Glacier National Park. ... This group [Climate Ride] raises money for more bike lanes, promotes climate change awareness, has paid for solar panels at Glacier, and more.”

However, Dr. Redberg and colleagues also “recognize that cycling requires fitness, a good sense of balance, and the means to purchase a bicycle. We also understand that regular cycling requires living in an area where it is reasonably safe, and we celebrate the installation of more bike lanes, particularly protected lanes, in many cities around the world.”

But, despite the limitations of an observational study and possible selection bias of people who are able to cycle, “it is important to share this evidence for the potentially large health benefits of cycling, which almost surely generalize to persons without diabetes.”
 

Cycling tied to lower all-cause and CVD mortality

The prospective cohort study included 7,459 adults with diabetes from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition. All were assessed during 1992-1998 and again in 1996-2011, with a mean follow-up of roughly 15 years. During that time, there were 1,673 deaths from all causes, with 811 attributed to CVD.

Compared with no cycling, those who reported any cycling had a 24% lower risk of death from any cause over a 5-year period, after adjustment for confounders and for other physical activity. The greatest risk reduction was seen in those who reported cycling between 150-299 minutes per week, particularly in CVD mortality.

In a subanalysis of 5,423 individuals with 10.7 years of follow-up, there were 975 all-cause deaths and 429 from CVD. Individuals who began or continued cycling during follow-up experienced reductions of about 35% for both all-cause and CVD mortality, compared with those who never cycled.

Dr. Redberg and colleagues added that “there are environmental benefits to increasing the use of cycling for commuting and other transport because cycling helps to decrease the adverse environmental and health effects of automobile exhaust.”

They concluded: “As avid and/or aspiring cyclists ourselves, we are sold on the mental and physical benefits of getting to work and seeing the world on two wheels, self-propelled, and think it is well worth a try.”

The study work was supported by the Health Research Fund of Instituto de Salud Carlos III; the Spanish regional governments of Andalucía, Asturias, Basque Country, Murcia, and Navarra; and the Catalan Institute of Oncology. The Centre for Physical Activity Research is supported by a grant from TrygFonden. Dr. Ried-Larsen reported personal fees from Novo Nordisk. Dr. Redberg reported receiving grants from Arnold Ventures; the Greenwall Foundation; and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

Bicycle riding may help people with diabetes live longer, new research suggests.

NicolasMcComber/E+/Getty Images

Among more than 7,000 adults with diabetes in 10 Western European countries followed for about 15 years, those who cycled regularly were significantly less likely to die of any cause or of cardiovascular causes, even after accounting for differences in factors such as sex, age, educational level, diet, comorbidities, and other physical activities.

“The association between cycling and all-cause and CVD [cardiovascular disease] mortality in this study of person[s] with diabetes was of the same magnitude and direction as observed in the healthy population,” wrote Mathias Ried-Larsen, PhD, of the Centre for Physical Activity Research, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, and colleagues. The findings were published online July 19, 2021, in JAMA Internal Medicine.

In an accompanying Editor’s Note, JAMA Internal Medicine editor Rita F. Redberg, MD, and two deputy editors said that the new data add to previous studies showing benefits of cycling, compared with other physical activities. “The analysis from Ried-Larsen and colleagues strengthens the epidemiologic data on cycling and strongly suggests that it may contribute directly to longer and healthier lives,” they wrote.

Dr. Redberg, of the University of California, San Francisco, told this news organization: “I think the number of cyclists grew greatly during pandemic, when there was little auto traffic, and people did not want to take public transportation. Cities that add bike lanes, especially protected bike lanes, see an increase in cyclists. I think Americans can cycle more, would enjoy cycling more, and would live longer [by] cycling, to work and for pleasure.”

Dr. Redberg disclosed that she is “an avid cyclist and am currently on a bike ride in Glacier National Park. ... This group [Climate Ride] raises money for more bike lanes, promotes climate change awareness, has paid for solar panels at Glacier, and more.”

However, Dr. Redberg and colleagues also “recognize that cycling requires fitness, a good sense of balance, and the means to purchase a bicycle. We also understand that regular cycling requires living in an area where it is reasonably safe, and we celebrate the installation of more bike lanes, particularly protected lanes, in many cities around the world.”

But, despite the limitations of an observational study and possible selection bias of people who are able to cycle, “it is important to share this evidence for the potentially large health benefits of cycling, which almost surely generalize to persons without diabetes.”
 

Cycling tied to lower all-cause and CVD mortality

The prospective cohort study included 7,459 adults with diabetes from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition. All were assessed during 1992-1998 and again in 1996-2011, with a mean follow-up of roughly 15 years. During that time, there were 1,673 deaths from all causes, with 811 attributed to CVD.

Compared with no cycling, those who reported any cycling had a 24% lower risk of death from any cause over a 5-year period, after adjustment for confounders and for other physical activity. The greatest risk reduction was seen in those who reported cycling between 150-299 minutes per week, particularly in CVD mortality.

In a subanalysis of 5,423 individuals with 10.7 years of follow-up, there were 975 all-cause deaths and 429 from CVD. Individuals who began or continued cycling during follow-up experienced reductions of about 35% for both all-cause and CVD mortality, compared with those who never cycled.

Dr. Redberg and colleagues added that “there are environmental benefits to increasing the use of cycling for commuting and other transport because cycling helps to decrease the adverse environmental and health effects of automobile exhaust.”

They concluded: “As avid and/or aspiring cyclists ourselves, we are sold on the mental and physical benefits of getting to work and seeing the world on two wheels, self-propelled, and think it is well worth a try.”

The study work was supported by the Health Research Fund of Instituto de Salud Carlos III; the Spanish regional governments of Andalucía, Asturias, Basque Country, Murcia, and Navarra; and the Catalan Institute of Oncology. The Centre for Physical Activity Research is supported by a grant from TrygFonden. Dr. Ried-Larsen reported personal fees from Novo Nordisk. Dr. Redberg reported receiving grants from Arnold Ventures; the Greenwall Foundation; and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

People hospitalized with acute COVID-19 who developed acute severe respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) had poorer exercise capacity, health-related quality of life, and overall health than the general population a median of 8 months after initial COVID diagnosis, according to a prospective cohort study.

Findings from the cohort, composed of 113 COVID-19 survivors who developed ARDS after admission to a single center before to April 16, 2020, were presented online at the 31st European Congress of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases by Judit Aranda, MD, from Complex Hospitalari Moisés Broggi in Barcelona.

Median age of the participants was 64 years, and 70% were male. At least one persistent symptom was experienced during follow-up by 81% of the cohort, with 45% reporting shortness of breath, 50% reporting muscle pain, 43% reporting memory impairment, and 46% reporting physical weakness of at least 5 on a 10-point scale.

Of the 104 participants who completed a 6-minute walk test, 30% had a decrease in oxygen saturation level of at least 4%, and 5% had an initial or final level below 88%. Of the 46 participants who underwent a pulmonary function test, 15% had a forced expiratory volume in 1 second below 70%.

And of the 49% of participants with pathologic findings on chest x-ray, most were bilateral interstitial infiltrates (88%).

In addition, more than 90% of participants developed depression, anxiety, or PTSD, Dr. Aranda reported.
 

Not the whole picture

This study shows that sicker people – “those in intensive care units with acute respiratory distress syndrome” – are “more likely to be struggling with more severe symptoms,” said Christopher Terndrup, MD, from the division of general internal medicine and geriatrics at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.

But a Swiss study, also presented at the meeting, “shows how even mild COVID cases can lead to debilitating symptoms,” Dr. Terndrup said in an interview.

The investigation of long-term COVID symptoms in outpatients was presented online by Florian Desgranges, MD, from Lausanne (Switzerland) University Hospital. He and his colleagues found that more than half of those with a mild to moderate disease had persistent symptoms at least 3 months after diagnosis.

The prevalence of long COVID has varied in previous research, from 15% in a study of health care workers, to 46% in a study of patients with mild COVID, 52% in a study of young COVID outpatients, and 76% in a study of patients hospitalized with COVID.

Dr. Desgranges and colleagues evaluated patients seen in an ED or outpatient clinic from February to April 2020.

The 418 patients with a confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis were compared with a control group of 89 patients who presented to the same centers during the same time frame with similar symptoms – cough, shortness of breath, or fever – but had a negative SARS-CoV-2 test.

The number of patients with comorbidities was similar in the COVID and control groups (34% vs. 36%), as was median age (41 vs. 36 years) and the prevalence of women (62% vs 64%), but the proportion of health care workers was lower in the COVID group (64% vs 82%; P =.006).

Symptoms that persisted for at least 3 months were more common in the COVID than in the control group (53% vs. 37%). And patients in the COVID group reported more symptoms than those in the control group after adjustment for age, gender, smoking status, comorbidities, and timing of the survey phone call.

Levels of sleeping problems and headache were similar in the two groups.

“We have to remember that with COVID-19 came the psychosocial changes of the pandemic situation” Dr. Desgranges said.

This study suggests that some long-COVID symptoms – such as the fatigue, headache, and sleep disorders reported in the control group – could be related to the pandemic itself, which has caused psychosocial distress, Dr. Terndrup said.

Another study that looked at outpatients “has some fantastic long-term follow-up data, and shows that many patients are still engaging in rehabilitation programs nearly a year after their diagnosis,” he explained.
 

The COVID HOME study

That prospective longitudinal COVID HOME study, which assessed long-term symptoms in people who were never hospitalized for COVID, was presented online by Adriana Tami, MD, PhD, from the University Medical Center Groningen (the Netherlands).

The researchers visited the homes of patients to collect data, blood samples, and perform polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing 1, 2, and 3 weeks after a diagnosis of COVID-19. If their PCR test was still positive, testing continued until week 6 or a negative test. In addition, participants completed questionnaires at week 2 and at months 3, 6 and 12 to assess fatigue, quality of life, and symptoms of depression and anxiety.

Three-month follow-up data were available for 134 of the 276 people initially enrolled in the study. Questionnaires were completed by 85 participants at 3 months, 62 participants at 6 months, and 10 participants at 12 months.

At least 40% of participants reported long-lasting symptoms at some point during follow-up, and at least 30% said they didn’t feel fully recovered at 12 months. The most common symptom was persistent fatigue, reported at 3, 6, and 12 months by at least 44% of participants. Other common symptoms – reported by at least 20% of respondents at 3, 6, and 12 months – were headache, mental or neurologic symptoms, and sleep disorders, shortness of breath, lack of smell or taste, and severe fatigue.

“We have a high proportion of nonhospitalized individuals who suffer from long COVID after more than 12 months,” Dr. Tami concluded, adding that the study is ongoing. “We have other variables that we want to look at, including duration viral shedding and serological results and variants.”

“These cohort studies are very helpful, but they can lead to inaccurate conclusions,” Dr. Terndrup cautioned.

They only provide pieces of the big picture, but they “do add to a growing body of knowledge about a significant portion of COVID patients still struggling with symptoms long after their initial infection. The symptoms can be quite variable but are dominated by both physical and mental fatigue, and tend to be worse in patients who were sicker at initial infection,” he said in an interview.

As a whole, these studies reinforce the need for treatment programs to help patients who suffer from long COVID, he added, but “I advise caution to folks suffering out there who seek ‘miracle cures’; across the world, we are collaborating to find solutions that are safe and effective.”

We are in desperate need of an equity lens in these studies.

“There is still a great deal to learn about long COVID,” said Dr. Terndrup. Data on underrepresented populations – such as Black, Indigenous, and people of color – are lacking from these and others studies, he explained. “We are in desperate need of an equity lens in these studies,” particularly in the United States, where there are “significant disparities” in the treatment of different populations.

However, “I do hope that this work can lead to a better understanding of how other viral infections can cause long-lasting symptoms,” said Dr. Terndrup.

“We have long proposed that after acute presentation, some microbes can cause chronic symptoms, like fatigue and widespread pain. Perhaps we can learn how to better care for these patients after learning from COVID’s significant impact on our societies across the globe.”

Dr. Aranda and Dr. Desgranges have disclosed no relevant financial relationships or study funding. The study by Dr. Tami’s team was funded by the University Medical Center Groningen Organization for Health Research and Development, and Connecting European Cohorts to Increase Common and Effective Response to SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic. Dr. Terndrup disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

People hospitalized with acute COVID-19 who developed acute severe respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) had poorer exercise capacity, health-related quality of life, and overall health than the general population a median of 8 months after initial COVID diagnosis, according to a prospective cohort study.

Findings from the cohort, composed of 113 COVID-19 survivors who developed ARDS after admission to a single center before to April 16, 2020, were presented online at the 31st European Congress of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases by Judit Aranda, MD, from Complex Hospitalari Moisés Broggi in Barcelona.

Median age of the participants was 64 years, and 70% were male. At least one persistent symptom was experienced during follow-up by 81% of the cohort, with 45% reporting shortness of breath, 50% reporting muscle pain, 43% reporting memory impairment, and 46% reporting physical weakness of at least 5 on a 10-point scale.

Of the 104 participants who completed a 6-minute walk test, 30% had a decrease in oxygen saturation level of at least 4%, and 5% had an initial or final level below 88%. Of the 46 participants who underwent a pulmonary function test, 15% had a forced expiratory volume in 1 second below 70%.

And of the 49% of participants with pathologic findings on chest x-ray, most were bilateral interstitial infiltrates (88%).

In addition, more than 90% of participants developed depression, anxiety, or PTSD, Dr. Aranda reported.
 

Not the whole picture

This study shows that sicker people – “those in intensive care units with acute respiratory distress syndrome” – are “more likely to be struggling with more severe symptoms,” said Christopher Terndrup, MD, from the division of general internal medicine and geriatrics at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.

But a Swiss study, also presented at the meeting, “shows how even mild COVID cases can lead to debilitating symptoms,” Dr. Terndrup said in an interview.

The investigation of long-term COVID symptoms in outpatients was presented online by Florian Desgranges, MD, from Lausanne (Switzerland) University Hospital. He and his colleagues found that more than half of those with a mild to moderate disease had persistent symptoms at least 3 months after diagnosis.

The prevalence of long COVID has varied in previous research, from 15% in a study of health care workers, to 46% in a study of patients with mild COVID, 52% in a study of young COVID outpatients, and 76% in a study of patients hospitalized with COVID.

Dr. Desgranges and colleagues evaluated patients seen in an ED or outpatient clinic from February to April 2020.

The 418 patients with a confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis were compared with a control group of 89 patients who presented to the same centers during the same time frame with similar symptoms – cough, shortness of breath, or fever – but had a negative SARS-CoV-2 test.

The number of patients with comorbidities was similar in the COVID and control groups (34% vs. 36%), as was median age (41 vs. 36 years) and the prevalence of women (62% vs 64%), but the proportion of health care workers was lower in the COVID group (64% vs 82%; P =.006).

Symptoms that persisted for at least 3 months were more common in the COVID than in the control group (53% vs. 37%). And patients in the COVID group reported more symptoms than those in the control group after adjustment for age, gender, smoking status, comorbidities, and timing of the survey phone call.

Levels of sleeping problems and headache were similar in the two groups.

“We have to remember that with COVID-19 came the psychosocial changes of the pandemic situation” Dr. Desgranges said.

This study suggests that some long-COVID symptoms – such as the fatigue, headache, and sleep disorders reported in the control group – could be related to the pandemic itself, which has caused psychosocial distress, Dr. Terndrup said.

Another study that looked at outpatients “has some fantastic long-term follow-up data, and shows that many patients are still engaging in rehabilitation programs nearly a year after their diagnosis,” he explained.
 

The COVID HOME study

That prospective longitudinal COVID HOME study, which assessed long-term symptoms in people who were never hospitalized for COVID, was presented online by Adriana Tami, MD, PhD, from the University Medical Center Groningen (the Netherlands).

The researchers visited the homes of patients to collect data, blood samples, and perform polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing 1, 2, and 3 weeks after a diagnosis of COVID-19. If their PCR test was still positive, testing continued until week 6 or a negative test. In addition, participants completed questionnaires at week 2 and at months 3, 6 and 12 to assess fatigue, quality of life, and symptoms of depression and anxiety.

Three-month follow-up data were available for 134 of the 276 people initially enrolled in the study. Questionnaires were completed by 85 participants at 3 months, 62 participants at 6 months, and 10 participants at 12 months.

At least 40% of participants reported long-lasting symptoms at some point during follow-up, and at least 30% said they didn’t feel fully recovered at 12 months. The most common symptom was persistent fatigue, reported at 3, 6, and 12 months by at least 44% of participants. Other common symptoms – reported by at least 20% of respondents at 3, 6, and 12 months – were headache, mental or neurologic symptoms, and sleep disorders, shortness of breath, lack of smell or taste, and severe fatigue.

“We have a high proportion of nonhospitalized individuals who suffer from long COVID after more than 12 months,” Dr. Tami concluded, adding that the study is ongoing. “We have other variables that we want to look at, including duration viral shedding and serological results and variants.”

“These cohort studies are very helpful, but they can lead to inaccurate conclusions,” Dr. Terndrup cautioned.

They only provide pieces of the big picture, but they “do add to a growing body of knowledge about a significant portion of COVID patients still struggling with symptoms long after their initial infection. The symptoms can be quite variable but are dominated by both physical and mental fatigue, and tend to be worse in patients who were sicker at initial infection,” he said in an interview.

As a whole, these studies reinforce the need for treatment programs to help patients who suffer from long COVID, he added, but “I advise caution to folks suffering out there who seek ‘miracle cures’; across the world, we are collaborating to find solutions that are safe and effective.”

We are in desperate need of an equity lens in these studies.

“There is still a great deal to learn about long COVID,” said Dr. Terndrup. Data on underrepresented populations – such as Black, Indigenous, and people of color – are lacking from these and others studies, he explained. “We are in desperate need of an equity lens in these studies,” particularly in the United States, where there are “significant disparities” in the treatment of different populations.

However, “I do hope that this work can lead to a better understanding of how other viral infections can cause long-lasting symptoms,” said Dr. Terndrup.

“We have long proposed that after acute presentation, some microbes can cause chronic symptoms, like fatigue and widespread pain. Perhaps we can learn how to better care for these patients after learning from COVID’s significant impact on our societies across the globe.”

Dr. Aranda and Dr. Desgranges have disclosed no relevant financial relationships or study funding. The study by Dr. Tami’s team was funded by the University Medical Center Groningen Organization for Health Research and Development, and Connecting European Cohorts to Increase Common and Effective Response to SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic. Dr. Terndrup disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

People hospitalized with acute COVID-19 who developed acute severe respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) had poorer exercise capacity, health-related quality of life, and overall health than the general population a median of 8 months after initial COVID diagnosis, according to a prospective cohort study.

Findings from the cohort, composed of 113 COVID-19 survivors who developed ARDS after admission to a single center before to April 16, 2020, were presented online at the 31st European Congress of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases by Judit Aranda, MD, from Complex Hospitalari Moisés Broggi in Barcelona.

Median age of the participants was 64 years, and 70% were male. At least one persistent symptom was experienced during follow-up by 81% of the cohort, with 45% reporting shortness of breath, 50% reporting muscle pain, 43% reporting memory impairment, and 46% reporting physical weakness of at least 5 on a 10-point scale.

Of the 104 participants who completed a 6-minute walk test, 30% had a decrease in oxygen saturation level of at least 4%, and 5% had an initial or final level below 88%. Of the 46 participants who underwent a pulmonary function test, 15% had a forced expiratory volume in 1 second below 70%.

And of the 49% of participants with pathologic findings on chest x-ray, most were bilateral interstitial infiltrates (88%).

In addition, more than 90% of participants developed depression, anxiety, or PTSD, Dr. Aranda reported.
 

Not the whole picture

This study shows that sicker people – “those in intensive care units with acute respiratory distress syndrome” – are “more likely to be struggling with more severe symptoms,” said Christopher Terndrup, MD, from the division of general internal medicine and geriatrics at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.

But a Swiss study, also presented at the meeting, “shows how even mild COVID cases can lead to debilitating symptoms,” Dr. Terndrup said in an interview.

The investigation of long-term COVID symptoms in outpatients was presented online by Florian Desgranges, MD, from Lausanne (Switzerland) University Hospital. He and his colleagues found that more than half of those with a mild to moderate disease had persistent symptoms at least 3 months after diagnosis.

The prevalence of long COVID has varied in previous research, from 15% in a study of health care workers, to 46% in a study of patients with mild COVID, 52% in a study of young COVID outpatients, and 76% in a study of patients hospitalized with COVID.

Dr. Desgranges and colleagues evaluated patients seen in an ED or outpatient clinic from February to April 2020.

The 418 patients with a confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis were compared with a control group of 89 patients who presented to the same centers during the same time frame with similar symptoms – cough, shortness of breath, or fever – but had a negative SARS-CoV-2 test.

The number of patients with comorbidities was similar in the COVID and control groups (34% vs. 36%), as was median age (41 vs. 36 years) and the prevalence of women (62% vs 64%), but the proportion of health care workers was lower in the COVID group (64% vs 82%; P =.006).

Symptoms that persisted for at least 3 months were more common in the COVID than in the control group (53% vs. 37%). And patients in the COVID group reported more symptoms than those in the control group after adjustment for age, gender, smoking status, comorbidities, and timing of the survey phone call.

Levels of sleeping problems and headache were similar in the two groups.

“We have to remember that with COVID-19 came the psychosocial changes of the pandemic situation” Dr. Desgranges said.

This study suggests that some long-COVID symptoms – such as the fatigue, headache, and sleep disorders reported in the control group – could be related to the pandemic itself, which has caused psychosocial distress, Dr. Terndrup said.

Another study that looked at outpatients “has some fantastic long-term follow-up data, and shows that many patients are still engaging in rehabilitation programs nearly a year after their diagnosis,” he explained.
 

The COVID HOME study

That prospective longitudinal COVID HOME study, which assessed long-term symptoms in people who were never hospitalized for COVID, was presented online by Adriana Tami, MD, PhD, from the University Medical Center Groningen (the Netherlands).

The researchers visited the homes of patients to collect data, blood samples, and perform polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing 1, 2, and 3 weeks after a diagnosis of COVID-19. If their PCR test was still positive, testing continued until week 6 or a negative test. In addition, participants completed questionnaires at week 2 and at months 3, 6 and 12 to assess fatigue, quality of life, and symptoms of depression and anxiety.

Three-month follow-up data were available for 134 of the 276 people initially enrolled in the study. Questionnaires were completed by 85 participants at 3 months, 62 participants at 6 months, and 10 participants at 12 months.

At least 40% of participants reported long-lasting symptoms at some point during follow-up, and at least 30% said they didn’t feel fully recovered at 12 months. The most common symptom was persistent fatigue, reported at 3, 6, and 12 months by at least 44% of participants. Other common symptoms – reported by at least 20% of respondents at 3, 6, and 12 months – were headache, mental or neurologic symptoms, and sleep disorders, shortness of breath, lack of smell or taste, and severe fatigue.

“We have a high proportion of nonhospitalized individuals who suffer from long COVID after more than 12 months,” Dr. Tami concluded, adding that the study is ongoing. “We have other variables that we want to look at, including duration viral shedding and serological results and variants.”

“These cohort studies are very helpful, but they can lead to inaccurate conclusions,” Dr. Terndrup cautioned.

They only provide pieces of the big picture, but they “do add to a growing body of knowledge about a significant portion of COVID patients still struggling with symptoms long after their initial infection. The symptoms can be quite variable but are dominated by both physical and mental fatigue, and tend to be worse in patients who were sicker at initial infection,” he said in an interview.

As a whole, these studies reinforce the need for treatment programs to help patients who suffer from long COVID, he added, but “I advise caution to folks suffering out there who seek ‘miracle cures’; across the world, we are collaborating to find solutions that are safe and effective.”

We are in desperate need of an equity lens in these studies.

“There is still a great deal to learn about long COVID,” said Dr. Terndrup. Data on underrepresented populations – such as Black, Indigenous, and people of color – are lacking from these and others studies, he explained. “We are in desperate need of an equity lens in these studies,” particularly in the United States, where there are “significant disparities” in the treatment of different populations.

However, “I do hope that this work can lead to a better understanding of how other viral infections can cause long-lasting symptoms,” said Dr. Terndrup.

“We have long proposed that after acute presentation, some microbes can cause chronic symptoms, like fatigue and widespread pain. Perhaps we can learn how to better care for these patients after learning from COVID’s significant impact on our societies across the globe.”

Dr. Aranda and Dr. Desgranges have disclosed no relevant financial relationships or study funding. The study by Dr. Tami’s team was funded by the University Medical Center Groningen Organization for Health Research and Development, and Connecting European Cohorts to Increase Common and Effective Response to SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic. Dr. Terndrup disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Dear big-tech AI company,

Perhaps artificial intelligence is “the most profound technology that humanity will ever develop and work on,” as Google CEO Sundar Pichai recently said. If that’s true, can you please find a way to help us physicians?

I do understand, the benefits of artificial intelligence today are already profound and protean. Thanks to AI, I can translate Italian to English in real time in the same voice as an Italian speaker. I can be driven home autonomously by our Tesla. AI helps keep me safe by predicting crimes, on time by predicting traffic, and healthy by designing plant proteins that taste just like beef. I can even use AI to build a sprinkler to keep people off my new lawn.

In medicine, the AI news is so good that a frisson of excitement spreads vertically and horizontally across all health care. AI can detect pulmonary nodules, identify melanomas, develop new drugs – speed vaccine discovery! – and detect malignant cells on a biopsy slide. It can help predict who is going to crash in the ICU and recognize when someone is about to fall out of bed in the surgical unit. Even just this sampling of benefits proves how significant and impactful AI is in improving quality of life for patients and populations.

However, much of what I do every day in medicine cannot be solved with a neat quantitative analysis. The vast majority of my patients do not have a melanoma to be diagnosed or diabetic retinopathy to be scanned. What they want and need is time spent with me, their doctor. Although the schedule says I have 15 minutes (insufficient to begin with), patients are running late and are double booked, and I’ve loads of notes to type, medications to review, and messages to answer. Most days, I have only a fraction of 15 minutes to spend face to face with each patient.

Can AI please help us? How about reviewing the reams of data from my patient’s chart and presenting it to me succinctly? Rather than my tediously clicking through pathology reports, just summarize what skin cancers my patient has had and when. Rather than learning that my patient already failed Protopic a year ago, let me know that before I sign the order and promise: “Now, this ointment will work.” Even better, suggest alternative treatments that I might not be thinking of and which might do just the trick. Oh, and given my EMR has all the data required to determine billing codes, can you just drop that in for me when I’m done? Lastly, if the patient’s insurance is going to reject this claim or that medication, can AI please complete the authorization/paperwork/signed notary document/letter from U.S. senator that will be needed for it to be accepted?

I know this is possible. If we can blast a 70-year-old businessman into space on a private jet, surely you can invent an AI that gives us more time to spend with patients. Proposals postmarked by Dec. 31, 2021, please.


I’m sincerely yours,

Jeff Benabio, MD, MBA
 

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

Dear big-tech AI company,

Perhaps artificial intelligence is “the most profound technology that humanity will ever develop and work on,” as Google CEO Sundar Pichai recently said. If that’s true, can you please find a way to help us physicians?

I do understand, the benefits of artificial intelligence today are already profound and protean. Thanks to AI, I can translate Italian to English in real time in the same voice as an Italian speaker. I can be driven home autonomously by our Tesla. AI helps keep me safe by predicting crimes, on time by predicting traffic, and healthy by designing plant proteins that taste just like beef. I can even use AI to build a sprinkler to keep people off my new lawn.

In medicine, the AI news is so good that a frisson of excitement spreads vertically and horizontally across all health care. AI can detect pulmonary nodules, identify melanomas, develop new drugs – speed vaccine discovery! – and detect malignant cells on a biopsy slide. It can help predict who is going to crash in the ICU and recognize when someone is about to fall out of bed in the surgical unit. Even just this sampling of benefits proves how significant and impactful AI is in improving quality of life for patients and populations.

However, much of what I do every day in medicine cannot be solved with a neat quantitative analysis. The vast majority of my patients do not have a melanoma to be diagnosed or diabetic retinopathy to be scanned. What they want and need is time spent with me, their doctor. Although the schedule says I have 15 minutes (insufficient to begin with), patients are running late and are double booked, and I’ve loads of notes to type, medications to review, and messages to answer. Most days, I have only a fraction of 15 minutes to spend face to face with each patient.

Can AI please help us? How about reviewing the reams of data from my patient’s chart and presenting it to me succinctly? Rather than my tediously clicking through pathology reports, just summarize what skin cancers my patient has had and when. Rather than learning that my patient already failed Protopic a year ago, let me know that before I sign the order and promise: “Now, this ointment will work.” Even better, suggest alternative treatments that I might not be thinking of and which might do just the trick. Oh, and given my EMR has all the data required to determine billing codes, can you just drop that in for me when I’m done? Lastly, if the patient’s insurance is going to reject this claim or that medication, can AI please complete the authorization/paperwork/signed notary document/letter from U.S. senator that will be needed for it to be accepted?

I know this is possible. If we can blast a 70-year-old businessman into space on a private jet, surely you can invent an AI that gives us more time to spend with patients. Proposals postmarked by Dec. 31, 2021, please.


I’m sincerely yours,

Jeff Benabio, MD, MBA
 

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

Dear big-tech AI company,

Perhaps artificial intelligence is “the most profound technology that humanity will ever develop and work on,” as Google CEO Sundar Pichai recently said. If that’s true, can you please find a way to help us physicians?

I do understand, the benefits of artificial intelligence today are already profound and protean. Thanks to AI, I can translate Italian to English in real time in the same voice as an Italian speaker. I can be driven home autonomously by our Tesla. AI helps keep me safe by predicting crimes, on time by predicting traffic, and healthy by designing plant proteins that taste just like beef. I can even use AI to build a sprinkler to keep people off my new lawn.

In medicine, the AI news is so good that a frisson of excitement spreads vertically and horizontally across all health care. AI can detect pulmonary nodules, identify melanomas, develop new drugs – speed vaccine discovery! – and detect malignant cells on a biopsy slide. It can help predict who is going to crash in the ICU and recognize when someone is about to fall out of bed in the surgical unit. Even just this sampling of benefits proves how significant and impactful AI is in improving quality of life for patients and populations.

However, much of what I do every day in medicine cannot be solved with a neat quantitative analysis. The vast majority of my patients do not have a melanoma to be diagnosed or diabetic retinopathy to be scanned. What they want and need is time spent with me, their doctor. Although the schedule says I have 15 minutes (insufficient to begin with), patients are running late and are double booked, and I’ve loads of notes to type, medications to review, and messages to answer. Most days, I have only a fraction of 15 minutes to spend face to face with each patient.

Can AI please help us? How about reviewing the reams of data from my patient’s chart and presenting it to me succinctly? Rather than my tediously clicking through pathology reports, just summarize what skin cancers my patient has had and when. Rather than learning that my patient already failed Protopic a year ago, let me know that before I sign the order and promise: “Now, this ointment will work.” Even better, suggest alternative treatments that I might not be thinking of and which might do just the trick. Oh, and given my EMR has all the data required to determine billing codes, can you just drop that in for me when I’m done? Lastly, if the patient’s insurance is going to reject this claim or that medication, can AI please complete the authorization/paperwork/signed notary document/letter from U.S. senator that will be needed for it to be accepted?

I know this is possible. If we can blast a 70-year-old businessman into space on a private jet, surely you can invent an AI that gives us more time to spend with patients. Proposals postmarked by Dec. 31, 2021, please.


I’m sincerely yours,

Jeff Benabio, MD, MBA
 

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

A recent claim against a New Jersey physician attracted considerable attention in both the medical and legal communities, not only because it resulted in a substantial jury award, but because that award was not covered by malpractice insurance.

It is a good reminder for the rest of us: Your malpractice policy covers only allegations of malpractice, which is generally defined as negligence or deviation from the standard of care. This case involved a charge of discrimination against a hearing-impaired patient – which meant the physician not only had to fund his own defense, but was personally responsible for the $400,000 award against him.

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was designed to protect individuals with various disabilities against discrimination in various public situations – including, specifically, “the professional office of a health care professional.”

When the disability is impaired hearing, the law requires physicians to provide any “auxiliary aids and services” that might be necessary to insure clear communication between doctor and patient. In the vast majority of such situations, a pad and pencil will satisfy that requirement. But occasionally it does not, particularly when complex medical concepts are involved; and in such cases, as the New Jersey trial demonstrated, failure to make the necessary extra effort can be very expensive.

The claim involved a hearing-impaired patient with lupus erythematosus under treatment by a rheumatologist. For almost 2 years the patient’s partner and her daughter provided translation; but that arrangement was inadequate, she testified, because her partner and daughter were unfamiliar with medical terminology and she was “unable to understand and participate in her care,” which left her “unaware of risks and available alternatives.”

She repeatedly requested that the rheumatologist provide an American Sign Language interpreter for her office visits. He refused on grounds that the cost of an interpreter would exceed the payment he would receive for the visits, which made it an “undue financial burden,” and therefore exempt from ADA requirements.

But the undue-burden exemption is not automatic; it must be demonstrated in court. And the jury decided the rheumatologist’s annual income of $425,000 rendered the cost of an interpreter quite affordable.

The lessons are clear: Physicians must take antidiscrimination laws seriously, particularly when uninsurable issues are involved; and we must be constantly aware of the needs of disabled patients, to be sure their care is not substantially different from that of any other patient.

In the case of hearing-impaired or deaf patients, it is important to remember that forms of communication that are quite adequate for most are not appropriate for some. Lip reading, written notes, and the use of family members as interpreters may be perfectly acceptable to one patient and unsuitable for another.

If the patient agrees to written notes and lip reading, as most do, you need to remember to speak slowly, and to write down critical information to avoid any miscommunications. And as always, it is crucial to document all communication, as well as the methods used for that communication – specifically including the fact that the patient agreed to those forms of communication. Documentation, as I’ve often said, is like garlic: There is no such thing as too much of it.

Should a patient not agree that written notes are sufficient, other alternatives can be offered: computer transcription, assistive listening devices, videotext displays (often available in hospitals), and telecommunication devices such as TTY and TDD. But if the patient rejects all of those options and continues to insist on a professional interpreter, the precedent set by the New Jersey case suggests that you need to acquiesce, even if the interpreter’s fee exceeds the visit reimbursement – and the ADA prohibits you from passing your cost along to the patient. But any such cost will be far less than a noninsured judgment against you.

If you must go that route, make sure the interpreter you hire is familiar with medical terminology, and is not acquainted or related to the patient (for HIPAA reasons). Your state may have an online registry of available interpreters, or your hospital may have a sign language interpreter on its staff that they might allow you to “borrow.”

The good news is several states have responded to this issue by introducing legislation that would require health insurance carriers to pay for the cost of interpreters, although none, as of this writing, have yet become law.
 

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

A recent claim against a New Jersey physician attracted considerable attention in both the medical and legal communities, not only because it resulted in a substantial jury award, but because that award was not covered by malpractice insurance.

It is a good reminder for the rest of us: Your malpractice policy covers only allegations of malpractice, which is generally defined as negligence or deviation from the standard of care. This case involved a charge of discrimination against a hearing-impaired patient – which meant the physician not only had to fund his own defense, but was personally responsible for the $400,000 award against him.

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was designed to protect individuals with various disabilities against discrimination in various public situations – including, specifically, “the professional office of a health care professional.”

When the disability is impaired hearing, the law requires physicians to provide any “auxiliary aids and services” that might be necessary to insure clear communication between doctor and patient. In the vast majority of such situations, a pad and pencil will satisfy that requirement. But occasionally it does not, particularly when complex medical concepts are involved; and in such cases, as the New Jersey trial demonstrated, failure to make the necessary extra effort can be very expensive.

The claim involved a hearing-impaired patient with lupus erythematosus under treatment by a rheumatologist. For almost 2 years the patient’s partner and her daughter provided translation; but that arrangement was inadequate, she testified, because her partner and daughter were unfamiliar with medical terminology and she was “unable to understand and participate in her care,” which left her “unaware of risks and available alternatives.”

She repeatedly requested that the rheumatologist provide an American Sign Language interpreter for her office visits. He refused on grounds that the cost of an interpreter would exceed the payment he would receive for the visits, which made it an “undue financial burden,” and therefore exempt from ADA requirements.

But the undue-burden exemption is not automatic; it must be demonstrated in court. And the jury decided the rheumatologist’s annual income of $425,000 rendered the cost of an interpreter quite affordable.

The lessons are clear: Physicians must take antidiscrimination laws seriously, particularly when uninsurable issues are involved; and we must be constantly aware of the needs of disabled patients, to be sure their care is not substantially different from that of any other patient.

In the case of hearing-impaired or deaf patients, it is important to remember that forms of communication that are quite adequate for most are not appropriate for some. Lip reading, written notes, and the use of family members as interpreters may be perfectly acceptable to one patient and unsuitable for another.

If the patient agrees to written notes and lip reading, as most do, you need to remember to speak slowly, and to write down critical information to avoid any miscommunications. And as always, it is crucial to document all communication, as well as the methods used for that communication – specifically including the fact that the patient agreed to those forms of communication. Documentation, as I’ve often said, is like garlic: There is no such thing as too much of it.

Should a patient not agree that written notes are sufficient, other alternatives can be offered: computer transcription, assistive listening devices, videotext displays (often available in hospitals), and telecommunication devices such as TTY and TDD. But if the patient rejects all of those options and continues to insist on a professional interpreter, the precedent set by the New Jersey case suggests that you need to acquiesce, even if the interpreter’s fee exceeds the visit reimbursement – and the ADA prohibits you from passing your cost along to the patient. But any such cost will be far less than a noninsured judgment against you.

If you must go that route, make sure the interpreter you hire is familiar with medical terminology, and is not acquainted or related to the patient (for HIPAA reasons). Your state may have an online registry of available interpreters, or your hospital may have a sign language interpreter on its staff that they might allow you to “borrow.”

The good news is several states have responded to this issue by introducing legislation that would require health insurance carriers to pay for the cost of interpreters, although none, as of this writing, have yet become law.
 

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

A recent claim against a New Jersey physician attracted considerable attention in both the medical and legal communities, not only because it resulted in a substantial jury award, but because that award was not covered by malpractice insurance.

It is a good reminder for the rest of us: Your malpractice policy covers only allegations of malpractice, which is generally defined as negligence or deviation from the standard of care. This case involved a charge of discrimination against a hearing-impaired patient – which meant the physician not only had to fund his own defense, but was personally responsible for the $400,000 award against him.

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was designed to protect individuals with various disabilities against discrimination in various public situations – including, specifically, “the professional office of a health care professional.”

When the disability is impaired hearing, the law requires physicians to provide any “auxiliary aids and services” that might be necessary to insure clear communication between doctor and patient. In the vast majority of such situations, a pad and pencil will satisfy that requirement. But occasionally it does not, particularly when complex medical concepts are involved; and in such cases, as the New Jersey trial demonstrated, failure to make the necessary extra effort can be very expensive.

The claim involved a hearing-impaired patient with lupus erythematosus under treatment by a rheumatologist. For almost 2 years the patient’s partner and her daughter provided translation; but that arrangement was inadequate, she testified, because her partner and daughter were unfamiliar with medical terminology and she was “unable to understand and participate in her care,” which left her “unaware of risks and available alternatives.”

She repeatedly requested that the rheumatologist provide an American Sign Language interpreter for her office visits. He refused on grounds that the cost of an interpreter would exceed the payment he would receive for the visits, which made it an “undue financial burden,” and therefore exempt from ADA requirements.

But the undue-burden exemption is not automatic; it must be demonstrated in court. And the jury decided the rheumatologist’s annual income of $425,000 rendered the cost of an interpreter quite affordable.

The lessons are clear: Physicians must take antidiscrimination laws seriously, particularly when uninsurable issues are involved; and we must be constantly aware of the needs of disabled patients, to be sure their care is not substantially different from that of any other patient.

In the case of hearing-impaired or deaf patients, it is important to remember that forms of communication that are quite adequate for most are not appropriate for some. Lip reading, written notes, and the use of family members as interpreters may be perfectly acceptable to one patient and unsuitable for another.

If the patient agrees to written notes and lip reading, as most do, you need to remember to speak slowly, and to write down critical information to avoid any miscommunications. And as always, it is crucial to document all communication, as well as the methods used for that communication – specifically including the fact that the patient agreed to those forms of communication. Documentation, as I’ve often said, is like garlic: There is no such thing as too much of it.

Should a patient not agree that written notes are sufficient, other alternatives can be offered: computer transcription, assistive listening devices, videotext displays (often available in hospitals), and telecommunication devices such as TTY and TDD. But if the patient rejects all of those options and continues to insist on a professional interpreter, the precedent set by the New Jersey case suggests that you need to acquiesce, even if the interpreter’s fee exceeds the visit reimbursement – and the ADA prohibits you from passing your cost along to the patient. But any such cost will be far less than a noninsured judgment against you.

If you must go that route, make sure the interpreter you hire is familiar with medical terminology, and is not acquainted or related to the patient (for HIPAA reasons). Your state may have an online registry of available interpreters, or your hospital may have a sign language interpreter on its staff that they might allow you to “borrow.”

The good news is several states have responded to this issue by introducing legislation that would require health insurance carriers to pay for the cost of interpreters, although none, as of this writing, have yet become law.
 

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