Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management

Drinking two to three daily cups of – ground, instant, or decaffeinated – is associated with significant reductions in new cardiovascular disease (CVD) and mortality risk, compared with avoiding coffee, a new analysis of the prospective UK Biobank suggests.

Ground and instant coffee, but not decaffeinated coffee, also was associated with reduced risk of new-onset arrhythmia, including atrial fibrillation.

Visual_Intermezzo/iStock/Getty Images Plus

“Our study is the first to look at differences in coffee subtypes to tease out important differences which may explain some of the mechanisms through which coffee works,” Peter M. Kistler, MD, of the Alfred Hospital and Baker Heart and Diabetes Institute, Melbourne, Australia, told this news organization.

“Daily coffee intake should not be discouraged by physicians but rather considered part of a healthy diet,” Dr. Kistler said.

“This study supports that coffee is safe and even potentially beneficial, which is consistent with most of the prior evidence,” Carl “Chip” Lavie, MD, who wasn’t involved in the study, told this news organization.

“We do not prescribe coffee to patients, but for the majority who like coffee, they can be encouraged it is fine to take a few cups daily,” said Dr. Lavie, with the Ochsner Heart and Vascular Institute in New Orleans.

The study was published online in the European Journal of Preventive Cardiology.

 

Clear cardiovascular benefits

A total of 449,563 UK Biobank participants (median age 58 years; 55% women), who were free of arrhythmias or other CVD at baseline, reported in questionnaires their level of daily coffee intake and preferred type of coffee.

During more than 12.5 years of follow-up, 27,809 participants (6.2%) died.

Drinking one to five cups per day of ground or instant coffee (but not decaffeinated coffee) was associated with a significant reduction in incident arrhythmia. The lowest risk was with four to five cups per day for ground coffee (hazard ratio [HR] 0.83; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76-0.91; P < .0001) and two to three cups per day for instant coffee (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.85-0.92; P < .0001).

Habitual coffee drinking of up to five cups perday was also associated with significant reductions in the risk of incident CVD, when compared with nondrinkers.

Significant reductions in the risk of incident coronary heart disease (CHD) were associated with habitual coffee intake of up to five cups per day, with the lowest risk for CHD observed in those who consumed two to three cups per day (HR 0.89; 95% CI, 0.86-0.91; P < .0001).

Coffee consumption at all levels was linked to significant reduction in the risk of congestive cardiac failure (CCF) and ischemic stroke. The lowest risks were observed in those who consumed two to three cups per day, with HR, 0.83 (95% CI, 0.79-0.87; P < .0001) for CCF and HR, 0.84 (95% CI, 0.78-0.90; P < .0001) for ischemic stroke.

Death from any cause was significantly reduced for all coffee subtypes, with the greatest risk reduction seen with two to three cups per day for decaffeinated (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.81-0.91; P < .0001); ground (HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.69-0.78; P < .0001); and instant coffee (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.86-0.93; P < .0001).

“Coffee consumption is associated with cardiovascular benefits and should not empirically be discontinued in those with underlying heart rhythm disorders or cardiovascular disease,” Dr. Kistler told this news organization.

Plausible mechanisms

There are a number of proposed mechanisms to explain the benefits of coffee on CVD.

“Caffeine has antiarrhythmic properties through adenosine A1 and A2A receptor inhibition, hence the difference in effects of decaf vs. full-strength coffee on heart rhythm disorders,” Dr. Kistler explained.

Coffee has vasodilatory effects and coffee also contains antioxidant polyphenols, which reduce oxidative stress and modulate metabolism.

“The explanation for improved survival with habitual coffee consumption remains unclear,” Dr. Kistler said.

“Putative mechanisms include improved endothelial function, circulating antioxidants, improved insulin sensitivity, and reduced inflammation. Another potential mechanism includes the beneficial effects of coffee on metabolic syndrome,” he said.

“Caffeine has a role in weight loss through inhibition of gut fatty acid absorption and increase in basal metabolic rate. Furthermore, coffee has been associated with a significantly lower incidence of type 2 diabetes mellitus,” Dr. Kistler added.
 

Direction of relationship unclear

Charlotte Mills, PhD, University of Reading, England, said this study “adds to the body of evidence from observational trials associating moderate coffee consumption with cardioprotection, which looks promising.”

However, with the observational design, it’s unclear “which direction the relationship goes – for example, does coffee make you healthy or do inherently healthier people consume coffee? Randomized controlled trials are needed to fully understand the relationship between coffee and health before recommendations can be made,” Dr. Mills told the UK nonprofit Science Media Centre.

Annette Creedon, PhD, nutrition scientist with the British Nutrition Foundation, said it’s possible that respondents over- or underestimated the amount of coffee that they were consuming at the start of the study when they self-reported their intake.

“It is therefore difficult to determine whether the outcomes can be directly associated with the behaviors in coffee consumption reported at the start of the study,” she told the Science Media Centre.

The study had no funding. Dr. Kistler has received funding from Abbott Medical for consultancy and speaking engagements and fellowship support from Biosense Webster. Dr. Lavie has no relevant disclosures. Dr. Mills has worked in collaboration with Nestle on research relating to coffee and health funded by UKRI. Dr. Creedon has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Drinking two to three daily cups of – ground, instant, or decaffeinated – is associated with significant reductions in new cardiovascular disease (CVD) and mortality risk, compared with avoiding coffee, a new analysis of the prospective UK Biobank suggests.

Ground and instant coffee, but not decaffeinated coffee, also was associated with reduced risk of new-onset arrhythmia, including atrial fibrillation.

Visual_Intermezzo/iStock/Getty Images Plus

“Our study is the first to look at differences in coffee subtypes to tease out important differences which may explain some of the mechanisms through which coffee works,” Peter M. Kistler, MD, of the Alfred Hospital and Baker Heart and Diabetes Institute, Melbourne, Australia, told this news organization.

“Daily coffee intake should not be discouraged by physicians but rather considered part of a healthy diet,” Dr. Kistler said.

“This study supports that coffee is safe and even potentially beneficial, which is consistent with most of the prior evidence,” Carl “Chip” Lavie, MD, who wasn’t involved in the study, told this news organization.

“We do not prescribe coffee to patients, but for the majority who like coffee, they can be encouraged it is fine to take a few cups daily,” said Dr. Lavie, with the Ochsner Heart and Vascular Institute in New Orleans.

The study was published online in the European Journal of Preventive Cardiology.

 

Clear cardiovascular benefits

A total of 449,563 UK Biobank participants (median age 58 years; 55% women), who were free of arrhythmias or other CVD at baseline, reported in questionnaires their level of daily coffee intake and preferred type of coffee.

During more than 12.5 years of follow-up, 27,809 participants (6.2%) died.

Drinking one to five cups per day of ground or instant coffee (but not decaffeinated coffee) was associated with a significant reduction in incident arrhythmia. The lowest risk was with four to five cups per day for ground coffee (hazard ratio [HR] 0.83; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76-0.91; P < .0001) and two to three cups per day for instant coffee (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.85-0.92; P < .0001).

Habitual coffee drinking of up to five cups perday was also associated with significant reductions in the risk of incident CVD, when compared with nondrinkers.

Significant reductions in the risk of incident coronary heart disease (CHD) were associated with habitual coffee intake of up to five cups per day, with the lowest risk for CHD observed in those who consumed two to three cups per day (HR 0.89; 95% CI, 0.86-0.91; P < .0001).

Coffee consumption at all levels was linked to significant reduction in the risk of congestive cardiac failure (CCF) and ischemic stroke. The lowest risks were observed in those who consumed two to three cups per day, with HR, 0.83 (95% CI, 0.79-0.87; P < .0001) for CCF and HR, 0.84 (95% CI, 0.78-0.90; P < .0001) for ischemic stroke.

Death from any cause was significantly reduced for all coffee subtypes, with the greatest risk reduction seen with two to three cups per day for decaffeinated (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.81-0.91; P < .0001); ground (HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.69-0.78; P < .0001); and instant coffee (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.86-0.93; P < .0001).

“Coffee consumption is associated with cardiovascular benefits and should not empirically be discontinued in those with underlying heart rhythm disorders or cardiovascular disease,” Dr. Kistler told this news organization.

Plausible mechanisms

There are a number of proposed mechanisms to explain the benefits of coffee on CVD.

“Caffeine has antiarrhythmic properties through adenosine A1 and A2A receptor inhibition, hence the difference in effects of decaf vs. full-strength coffee on heart rhythm disorders,” Dr. Kistler explained.

Coffee has vasodilatory effects and coffee also contains antioxidant polyphenols, which reduce oxidative stress and modulate metabolism.

“The explanation for improved survival with habitual coffee consumption remains unclear,” Dr. Kistler said.

“Putative mechanisms include improved endothelial function, circulating antioxidants, improved insulin sensitivity, and reduced inflammation. Another potential mechanism includes the beneficial effects of coffee on metabolic syndrome,” he said.

“Caffeine has a role in weight loss through inhibition of gut fatty acid absorption and increase in basal metabolic rate. Furthermore, coffee has been associated with a significantly lower incidence of type 2 diabetes mellitus,” Dr. Kistler added.
 

Direction of relationship unclear

Charlotte Mills, PhD, University of Reading, England, said this study “adds to the body of evidence from observational trials associating moderate coffee consumption with cardioprotection, which looks promising.”

However, with the observational design, it’s unclear “which direction the relationship goes – for example, does coffee make you healthy or do inherently healthier people consume coffee? Randomized controlled trials are needed to fully understand the relationship between coffee and health before recommendations can be made,” Dr. Mills told the UK nonprofit Science Media Centre.

Annette Creedon, PhD, nutrition scientist with the British Nutrition Foundation, said it’s possible that respondents over- or underestimated the amount of coffee that they were consuming at the start of the study when they self-reported their intake.

“It is therefore difficult to determine whether the outcomes can be directly associated with the behaviors in coffee consumption reported at the start of the study,” she told the Science Media Centre.

The study had no funding. Dr. Kistler has received funding from Abbott Medical for consultancy and speaking engagements and fellowship support from Biosense Webster. Dr. Lavie has no relevant disclosures. Dr. Mills has worked in collaboration with Nestle on research relating to coffee and health funded by UKRI. Dr. Creedon has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Drinking two to three daily cups of – ground, instant, or decaffeinated – is associated with significant reductions in new cardiovascular disease (CVD) and mortality risk, compared with avoiding coffee, a new analysis of the prospective UK Biobank suggests.

Ground and instant coffee, but not decaffeinated coffee, also was associated with reduced risk of new-onset arrhythmia, including atrial fibrillation.

Visual_Intermezzo/iStock/Getty Images Plus

“Our study is the first to look at differences in coffee subtypes to tease out important differences which may explain some of the mechanisms through which coffee works,” Peter M. Kistler, MD, of the Alfred Hospital and Baker Heart and Diabetes Institute, Melbourne, Australia, told this news organization.

“Daily coffee intake should not be discouraged by physicians but rather considered part of a healthy diet,” Dr. Kistler said.

“This study supports that coffee is safe and even potentially beneficial, which is consistent with most of the prior evidence,” Carl “Chip” Lavie, MD, who wasn’t involved in the study, told this news organization.

“We do not prescribe coffee to patients, but for the majority who like coffee, they can be encouraged it is fine to take a few cups daily,” said Dr. Lavie, with the Ochsner Heart and Vascular Institute in New Orleans.

The study was published online in the European Journal of Preventive Cardiology.

 

Clear cardiovascular benefits

A total of 449,563 UK Biobank participants (median age 58 years; 55% women), who were free of arrhythmias or other CVD at baseline, reported in questionnaires their level of daily coffee intake and preferred type of coffee.

During more than 12.5 years of follow-up, 27,809 participants (6.2%) died.

Drinking one to five cups per day of ground or instant coffee (but not decaffeinated coffee) was associated with a significant reduction in incident arrhythmia. The lowest risk was with four to five cups per day for ground coffee (hazard ratio [HR] 0.83; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76-0.91; P < .0001) and two to three cups per day for instant coffee (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.85-0.92; P < .0001).

Habitual coffee drinking of up to five cups perday was also associated with significant reductions in the risk of incident CVD, when compared with nondrinkers.

Significant reductions in the risk of incident coronary heart disease (CHD) were associated with habitual coffee intake of up to five cups per day, with the lowest risk for CHD observed in those who consumed two to three cups per day (HR 0.89; 95% CI, 0.86-0.91; P < .0001).

Coffee consumption at all levels was linked to significant reduction in the risk of congestive cardiac failure (CCF) and ischemic stroke. The lowest risks were observed in those who consumed two to three cups per day, with HR, 0.83 (95% CI, 0.79-0.87; P < .0001) for CCF and HR, 0.84 (95% CI, 0.78-0.90; P < .0001) for ischemic stroke.

Death from any cause was significantly reduced for all coffee subtypes, with the greatest risk reduction seen with two to three cups per day for decaffeinated (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.81-0.91; P < .0001); ground (HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.69-0.78; P < .0001); and instant coffee (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.86-0.93; P < .0001).

“Coffee consumption is associated with cardiovascular benefits and should not empirically be discontinued in those with underlying heart rhythm disorders or cardiovascular disease,” Dr. Kistler told this news organization.

Plausible mechanisms

There are a number of proposed mechanisms to explain the benefits of coffee on CVD.

“Caffeine has antiarrhythmic properties through adenosine A1 and A2A receptor inhibition, hence the difference in effects of decaf vs. full-strength coffee on heart rhythm disorders,” Dr. Kistler explained.

Coffee has vasodilatory effects and coffee also contains antioxidant polyphenols, which reduce oxidative stress and modulate metabolism.

“The explanation for improved survival with habitual coffee consumption remains unclear,” Dr. Kistler said.

“Putative mechanisms include improved endothelial function, circulating antioxidants, improved insulin sensitivity, and reduced inflammation. Another potential mechanism includes the beneficial effects of coffee on metabolic syndrome,” he said.

“Caffeine has a role in weight loss through inhibition of gut fatty acid absorption and increase in basal metabolic rate. Furthermore, coffee has been associated with a significantly lower incidence of type 2 diabetes mellitus,” Dr. Kistler added.
 

Direction of relationship unclear

Charlotte Mills, PhD, University of Reading, England, said this study “adds to the body of evidence from observational trials associating moderate coffee consumption with cardioprotection, which looks promising.”

However, with the observational design, it’s unclear “which direction the relationship goes – for example, does coffee make you healthy or do inherently healthier people consume coffee? Randomized controlled trials are needed to fully understand the relationship between coffee and health before recommendations can be made,” Dr. Mills told the UK nonprofit Science Media Centre.

Annette Creedon, PhD, nutrition scientist with the British Nutrition Foundation, said it’s possible that respondents over- or underestimated the amount of coffee that they were consuming at the start of the study when they self-reported their intake.

“It is therefore difficult to determine whether the outcomes can be directly associated with the behaviors in coffee consumption reported at the start of the study,” she told the Science Media Centre.

The study had no funding. Dr. Kistler has received funding from Abbott Medical for consultancy and speaking engagements and fellowship support from Biosense Webster. Dr. Lavie has no relevant disclosures. Dr. Mills has worked in collaboration with Nestle on research relating to coffee and health funded by UKRI. Dr. Creedon has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Diagnosis: Calciphylaxis

Calciphylaxis is a rare life-threatening condition that most often is seen in patients with end-stage renal disease at a rate of 35 per 10,000 chronic dialysis patients.¹ It less commonly has been described in nonuremic patients. The exact incidence of nonuremic calciphylaxis is unknown, but multiple risk factors have been identified, such as alcoholic liver disease, primary hyperparathyroidism, connective tissue diseases, and underlying malignancies. Other less common risk factors include type 2 diabetes mellitus, hypercoagulable disorders, obesity, hypoalbuminemia, and warfarin/ corticosteroid use.² However, most often no obvious triggers are identified.¹

Regardless of the etiology, calciphylaxis is characterized by the calcification of blood vessels and connective tissues, leading to vessel injury, intimal fibrosis, and thrombosis, followed by ischemic necrosis of the skin and soft tissue. It is postulated that microvascular calcification occurs as an active cell-mediated process that depends on the balance between the promoters and inhibitors of calcification.¹ In our patient, liver disease likely predisposed formation of calcification through the creation of an environment susceptible to vascular injury via decreased synthesis of proteins C and S.³ Synthesis of fetuin-A, a protein that acts as a circulating inhibitor of vascular ossification/calcification, also is decreased in calcification. Another inhibitor of calcification, matrix Gla protein, is unable to undergo activation through vitamin K–dependent carboxylation secondary to liver disease–induced vitamin K deficiency.³ Microvascular calcification without calciphylaxis may occur in other conditions such as type 2 diabetes mellitus. Therefore, clinicopathologic correlation is important in determining the diagnosis.

Calciphylaxis has a variety of clinical presentations depending on the stage of disease. It begins as a fixed, indurated, livedo reticularis–like plaque. The lesions become increasingly violaceous with intermixed areas of light blanched skin secondary to ischemia and then develop retiform pupura.⁴ Eventually, affected sites can become bullous and ulcerate or form a necrotic eschar. Severe pain is a cardinal feature throughout all stages.⁴ Lesions in nonuremic calciphylaxis most commonly are located in the central and/or proximal areas of the body.²

Clinical suspicion is essential for diagnosis. Skin biopsy is the standard method for confirmation in unclear cases. The classic histologic features include intravascular and extravascular calcification, microthrombosis, and fibrointimal hyperplasia of the small dermal and subcutaneous arteries and arterioles, leading to ischemia and intense septal panniculitis.¹ Von Kossa immunostaining is used to increase the detection of calcium deposits (Figure 1).¹ In addition to the classic changes, our case demonstrated a rare histologic variant with pseudoxanthoma elasticum (PXE)–like changes (Figure 2), which are thought to occur secondary to pathologic elastin fibrogenesis or increased proteolytic activity resulting in abnormal remodeling of the extracellular matrix in the setting of increased calcification of elastin fibers.⁵ Detection of PXE-like changes may be a helpful clue when specimens lack other characteristic signs.

Wound care, pain control, and addressing underlying causes are mainstays of therapy. Sodium thiosulfate, an antioxidant with vasodilatory properties that also inhibits adipocyte calcification and blocks the ability of adipocytes to induce calcification of vascular smooth-muscle cells, also is useful. Antibiotic prophylaxis is not indicated.¹

Even with treatment, both uremic and nonuremic calciphylaxis have a dismal prognosis; 1-year mortality is approximately 50% to 60% and rises to 80% at 2 years.⁴ Lesion location affects prognosis, and more proximal lesions portend worse outcomes. In patients with both proximal and distal lesions, there is a 90% mortality rate within 1 year. Ulceration also portends worse outcomes, as the wounds often are resistant to healing and act as nidi for infection.⁴ Septicemia is the most common cause of death.¹

Ecthyma gangrenosum is a cutaneous manifestation secondary to an infection most commonly associated with Pseudomonas aeruginosa.⁶ It often presents in immunocompromised patients with an underlying gramnegative septicemia.⁷ The clinical presentation initially begins with painless macules that rapidly progress into necrotic ulcers, usually accompanied by associated systemic symptoms such as fever, chills, and hypotension. Histopathology reveals numerous gram-negative rods around necrotic vessels.⁷

Idiopathic purpura fulminans is the rarest form of purpura fulminans. It is caused by autoantibody formation against protein S, resulting in protein S depletion and subsequent hypercoagulability.⁸ It usually occurs 7 to 10 days after the onset of a precipitating infection. Lesions begin as erythematous macules that progress within hours to painful, sharply defined areas of purpura and hemorrhagic cutaneous necrosis that may extend to deeper tissues.⁸ Secondary infection of gangrenous tissue may occur. Distribution usually is diffuse and signs of septic shock and disseminated intravascular coagulation usually are present.

Hughes syndrome, also known as antiphospholipid syndrome, is an acquired autoimmune disorder that manifests clinically as recurrent arterial or venous thrombosis.⁹ Cutaneous manifestations consist of livedo reticularis, arterial and venous ulcers, and superficial thrombophlebitis.¹⁰ Laboratory testing for antiphospholipid antibodies and obtaining a detailed history of the patient’s cardiovascular health are crucial for diagnosis.⁹

Necrotizing fasciitis typically begins as an inconspicuous superficial cutaneous infection that rapidly is transmitted to the fascia. Infection can spread along fascial planes for several days without affecting the overlying skin, leading to delayed diagnosis.¹¹ The first signs to appear are disproportionate pain and a change in skin color to reddish-purple or bluish-gray. Next, the skin will become indurated, swollen, shiny, and more painful.¹¹ Skin breakdown will begin in 3 to 5 days and is accompanied by bullae and cutaneous gangrene. The involved area becomes painless due to thrombosis of the small vessels that supply the superficial nerves.¹² Septic shock ultimately will develop if untreated.

We present a rare case of nonuremic calciphylaxis. We encourage dermatologists to include calciphylaxis in the differential when evaluating any patient with a painful retiform rash or ulcerated eschar, even in the absence of renal disease.

The Diagnosis: Calciphylaxis

Calciphylaxis is a rare life-threatening condition that most often is seen in patients with end-stage renal disease at a rate of 35 per 10,000 chronic dialysis patients.¹ It less commonly has been described in nonuremic patients. The exact incidence of nonuremic calciphylaxis is unknown, but multiple risk factors have been identified, such as alcoholic liver disease, primary hyperparathyroidism, connective tissue diseases, and underlying malignancies. Other less common risk factors include type 2 diabetes mellitus, hypercoagulable disorders, obesity, hypoalbuminemia, and warfarin/ corticosteroid use.² However, most often no obvious triggers are identified.¹

Regardless of the etiology, calciphylaxis is characterized by the calcification of blood vessels and connective tissues, leading to vessel injury, intimal fibrosis, and thrombosis, followed by ischemic necrosis of the skin and soft tissue. It is postulated that microvascular calcification occurs as an active cell-mediated process that depends on the balance between the promoters and inhibitors of calcification.¹ In our patient, liver disease likely predisposed formation of calcification through the creation of an environment susceptible to vascular injury via decreased synthesis of proteins C and S.³ Synthesis of fetuin-A, a protein that acts as a circulating inhibitor of vascular ossification/calcification, also is decreased in calcification. Another inhibitor of calcification, matrix Gla protein, is unable to undergo activation through vitamin K–dependent carboxylation secondary to liver disease–induced vitamin K deficiency.³ Microvascular calcification without calciphylaxis may occur in other conditions such as type 2 diabetes mellitus. Therefore, clinicopathologic correlation is important in determining the diagnosis.

Calciphylaxis has a variety of clinical presentations depending on the stage of disease. It begins as a fixed, indurated, livedo reticularis–like plaque. The lesions become increasingly violaceous with intermixed areas of light blanched skin secondary to ischemia and then develop retiform pupura.⁴ Eventually, affected sites can become bullous and ulcerate or form a necrotic eschar. Severe pain is a cardinal feature throughout all stages.⁴ Lesions in nonuremic calciphylaxis most commonly are located in the central and/or proximal areas of the body.²

Clinical suspicion is essential for diagnosis. Skin biopsy is the standard method for confirmation in unclear cases. The classic histologic features include intravascular and extravascular calcification, microthrombosis, and fibrointimal hyperplasia of the small dermal and subcutaneous arteries and arterioles, leading to ischemia and intense septal panniculitis.¹ Von Kossa immunostaining is used to increase the detection of calcium deposits (Figure 1).¹ In addition to the classic changes, our case demonstrated a rare histologic variant with pseudoxanthoma elasticum (PXE)–like changes (Figure 2), which are thought to occur secondary to pathologic elastin fibrogenesis or increased proteolytic activity resulting in abnormal remodeling of the extracellular matrix in the setting of increased calcification of elastin fibers.⁵ Detection of PXE-like changes may be a helpful clue when specimens lack other characteristic signs.

Wound care, pain control, and addressing underlying causes are mainstays of therapy. Sodium thiosulfate, an antioxidant with vasodilatory properties that also inhibits adipocyte calcification and blocks the ability of adipocytes to induce calcification of vascular smooth-muscle cells, also is useful. Antibiotic prophylaxis is not indicated.¹

Even with treatment, both uremic and nonuremic calciphylaxis have a dismal prognosis; 1-year mortality is approximately 50% to 60% and rises to 80% at 2 years.⁴ Lesion location affects prognosis, and more proximal lesions portend worse outcomes. In patients with both proximal and distal lesions, there is a 90% mortality rate within 1 year. Ulceration also portends worse outcomes, as the wounds often are resistant to healing and act as nidi for infection.⁴ Septicemia is the most common cause of death.¹

Ecthyma gangrenosum is a cutaneous manifestation secondary to an infection most commonly associated with Pseudomonas aeruginosa.⁶ It often presents in immunocompromised patients with an underlying gramnegative septicemia.⁷ The clinical presentation initially begins with painless macules that rapidly progress into necrotic ulcers, usually accompanied by associated systemic symptoms such as fever, chills, and hypotension. Histopathology reveals numerous gram-negative rods around necrotic vessels.⁷

Idiopathic purpura fulminans is the rarest form of purpura fulminans. It is caused by autoantibody formation against protein S, resulting in protein S depletion and subsequent hypercoagulability.⁸ It usually occurs 7 to 10 days after the onset of a precipitating infection. Lesions begin as erythematous macules that progress within hours to painful, sharply defined areas of purpura and hemorrhagic cutaneous necrosis that may extend to deeper tissues.⁸ Secondary infection of gangrenous tissue may occur. Distribution usually is diffuse and signs of septic shock and disseminated intravascular coagulation usually are present.

Hughes syndrome, also known as antiphospholipid syndrome, is an acquired autoimmune disorder that manifests clinically as recurrent arterial or venous thrombosis.⁹ Cutaneous manifestations consist of livedo reticularis, arterial and venous ulcers, and superficial thrombophlebitis.¹⁰ Laboratory testing for antiphospholipid antibodies and obtaining a detailed history of the patient’s cardiovascular health are crucial for diagnosis.⁹

Necrotizing fasciitis typically begins as an inconspicuous superficial cutaneous infection that rapidly is transmitted to the fascia. Infection can spread along fascial planes for several days without affecting the overlying skin, leading to delayed diagnosis.¹¹ The first signs to appear are disproportionate pain and a change in skin color to reddish-purple or bluish-gray. Next, the skin will become indurated, swollen, shiny, and more painful.¹¹ Skin breakdown will begin in 3 to 5 days and is accompanied by bullae and cutaneous gangrene. The involved area becomes painless due to thrombosis of the small vessels that supply the superficial nerves.¹² Septic shock ultimately will develop if untreated.

We present a rare case of nonuremic calciphylaxis. We encourage dermatologists to include calciphylaxis in the differential when evaluating any patient with a painful retiform rash or ulcerated eschar, even in the absence of renal disease.

The Diagnosis: Calciphylaxis

Calciphylaxis is a rare life-threatening condition that most often is seen in patients with end-stage renal disease at a rate of 35 per 10,000 chronic dialysis patients.¹ It less commonly has been described in nonuremic patients. The exact incidence of nonuremic calciphylaxis is unknown, but multiple risk factors have been identified, such as alcoholic liver disease, primary hyperparathyroidism, connective tissue diseases, and underlying malignancies. Other less common risk factors include type 2 diabetes mellitus, hypercoagulable disorders, obesity, hypoalbuminemia, and warfarin/ corticosteroid use.² However, most often no obvious triggers are identified.¹

Regardless of the etiology, calciphylaxis is characterized by the calcification of blood vessels and connective tissues, leading to vessel injury, intimal fibrosis, and thrombosis, followed by ischemic necrosis of the skin and soft tissue. It is postulated that microvascular calcification occurs as an active cell-mediated process that depends on the balance between the promoters and inhibitors of calcification.¹ In our patient, liver disease likely predisposed formation of calcification through the creation of an environment susceptible to vascular injury via decreased synthesis of proteins C and S.³ Synthesis of fetuin-A, a protein that acts as a circulating inhibitor of vascular ossification/calcification, also is decreased in calcification. Another inhibitor of calcification, matrix Gla protein, is unable to undergo activation through vitamin K–dependent carboxylation secondary to liver disease–induced vitamin K deficiency.³ Microvascular calcification without calciphylaxis may occur in other conditions such as type 2 diabetes mellitus. Therefore, clinicopathologic correlation is important in determining the diagnosis.

Calciphylaxis has a variety of clinical presentations depending on the stage of disease. It begins as a fixed, indurated, livedo reticularis–like plaque. The lesions become increasingly violaceous with intermixed areas of light blanched skin secondary to ischemia and then develop retiform pupura.⁴ Eventually, affected sites can become bullous and ulcerate or form a necrotic eschar. Severe pain is a cardinal feature throughout all stages.⁴ Lesions in nonuremic calciphylaxis most commonly are located in the central and/or proximal areas of the body.²

Clinical suspicion is essential for diagnosis. Skin biopsy is the standard method for confirmation in unclear cases. The classic histologic features include intravascular and extravascular calcification, microthrombosis, and fibrointimal hyperplasia of the small dermal and subcutaneous arteries and arterioles, leading to ischemia and intense septal panniculitis.¹ Von Kossa immunostaining is used to increase the detection of calcium deposits (Figure 1).¹ In addition to the classic changes, our case demonstrated a rare histologic variant with pseudoxanthoma elasticum (PXE)–like changes (Figure 2), which are thought to occur secondary to pathologic elastin fibrogenesis or increased proteolytic activity resulting in abnormal remodeling of the extracellular matrix in the setting of increased calcification of elastin fibers.⁵ Detection of PXE-like changes may be a helpful clue when specimens lack other characteristic signs.

Wound care, pain control, and addressing underlying causes are mainstays of therapy. Sodium thiosulfate, an antioxidant with vasodilatory properties that also inhibits adipocyte calcification and blocks the ability of adipocytes to induce calcification of vascular smooth-muscle cells, also is useful. Antibiotic prophylaxis is not indicated.¹

Even with treatment, both uremic and nonuremic calciphylaxis have a dismal prognosis; 1-year mortality is approximately 50% to 60% and rises to 80% at 2 years.⁴ Lesion location affects prognosis, and more proximal lesions portend worse outcomes. In patients with both proximal and distal lesions, there is a 90% mortality rate within 1 year. Ulceration also portends worse outcomes, as the wounds often are resistant to healing and act as nidi for infection.⁴ Septicemia is the most common cause of death.¹

Ecthyma gangrenosum is a cutaneous manifestation secondary to an infection most commonly associated with Pseudomonas aeruginosa.⁶ It often presents in immunocompromised patients with an underlying gramnegative septicemia.⁷ The clinical presentation initially begins with painless macules that rapidly progress into necrotic ulcers, usually accompanied by associated systemic symptoms such as fever, chills, and hypotension. Histopathology reveals numerous gram-negative rods around necrotic vessels.⁷

Idiopathic purpura fulminans is the rarest form of purpura fulminans. It is caused by autoantibody formation against protein S, resulting in protein S depletion and subsequent hypercoagulability.⁸ It usually occurs 7 to 10 days after the onset of a precipitating infection. Lesions begin as erythematous macules that progress within hours to painful, sharply defined areas of purpura and hemorrhagic cutaneous necrosis that may extend to deeper tissues.⁸ Secondary infection of gangrenous tissue may occur. Distribution usually is diffuse and signs of septic shock and disseminated intravascular coagulation usually are present.

Hughes syndrome, also known as antiphospholipid syndrome, is an acquired autoimmune disorder that manifests clinically as recurrent arterial or venous thrombosis.⁹ Cutaneous manifestations consist of livedo reticularis, arterial and venous ulcers, and superficial thrombophlebitis.¹⁰ Laboratory testing for antiphospholipid antibodies and obtaining a detailed history of the patient’s cardiovascular health are crucial for diagnosis.⁹

Necrotizing fasciitis typically begins as an inconspicuous superficial cutaneous infection that rapidly is transmitted to the fascia. Infection can spread along fascial planes for several days without affecting the overlying skin, leading to delayed diagnosis.¹¹ The first signs to appear are disproportionate pain and a change in skin color to reddish-purple or bluish-gray. Next, the skin will become indurated, swollen, shiny, and more painful.¹¹ Skin breakdown will begin in 3 to 5 days and is accompanied by bullae and cutaneous gangrene. The involved area becomes painless due to thrombosis of the small vessels that supply the superficial nerves.¹² Septic shock ultimately will develop if untreated.

We present a rare case of nonuremic calciphylaxis. We encourage dermatologists to include calciphylaxis in the differential when evaluating any patient with a painful retiform rash or ulcerated eschar, even in the absence of renal disease.

Long COVID: The name says it all. It’s an illness that, for many people, has not yet stopped.

Eric Roach became ill with COVID-19 in November 2020, and he’s still sick. “I have brain fog, memory loss,” says the 67-year-old Navy veteran from Spearfish, S.D. “The fatigue has just been insane.” 

Long COVID, more formally known as post-acute sequelae of COVID (PASC), is the lay term to describe when people start to recover, or seem to recover, from a bout of COVID-19 but then continue to suffer from symptoms. For some, it’s gone on for 2 years or longer. While the governments of the United Statesand several other countries formally recognize the existence of long COVID, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has yet to formally define it. There’s no approved treatment, and the causes are not understood.

Here’s what is known: Long COVID is a postviral condition affecting a large percentage of people who become infected with the coronavirus. It can be utterly debilitating or mildly annoying, and it is affecting enough people to cause concern for employers, health insurers, and governments.
 

First, the many symptoms

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prvention, long COVID symptoms may include:

• Tiredness or fatigue that interferes with daily life.
• Symptoms that get worse after physical or mental effort.
• Fever.
• Difficulty breathing or shortness of breath.
• Cough.
• Chest pain.
• Heart palpitations.
• Difficulty thinking or concentrating (sometimes referred to as “brain fog”).
• Headache.
• Sleep problems.
• Dizziness when standing.
• Pins-and-needles feelings.
• Change in smell or taste.
• Depression or anxiety.
• Diarrhea.
• Stomach pain.
• Joint or muscle pain.
• Rash.
• Changes in menstrual cycles.

“People with post-COVID conditions may develop or continue to have symptoms that are hard to explain and manage,” the CDC says on its website. “Clinical evaluations and results of routine blood tests, chest x-rays, and electrocardiograms may be normal. The symptoms are similar to those reported by people with ME/CFS (myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome) and other poorly understood chronic illnesses that may occur after other infections.” 

Doctors may not fully appreciate the subtle nature of some of the symptoms. 

“People with these unexplained symptoms may be misunderstood by their health care providers, which can result in a long time for them to get a diagnosis and receive appropriate care or treatment,” the CDC says.

Health professionals should recognize that long COVID can be disabling, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services says. “Long COVID can substantially limit a major life activity,” HHS says in civil rights guidance. One possible example: “A person with long COVID who has lung damage that causes shortness of breath, fatigue, and related effects is substantially limited in respiratory function, among other major life activities,” the HHS notes.
 

How many people are affected?

This has been difficult to judge because not everyone who has had COVID-19 gets tested for it and there are no formal diagnostic criteria yet for long COVID. The CDC estimates that 19% of patients in the United States who have ever had COVID-19 have long COVID symptoms. 

Some estimates go higher. A University of Oxford study in September 2021 found more than a third of patients had symptoms of long COVID between 3 months and 6 months after a COVID-19 diagnosis. As many as 55% of COVID-19 patients in one Chinese study had one or more lingering symptoms 2 years later, Lixue Huang, MD, of the China-Japan Friendship Hospital in Beijing, and colleagues reported in the journal Lancet Respiratory Medicine in May.

According to the CDC, age is a factor. “Older adults are less likely to have long COVID than younger adults. Nearly three times as many adults ages 50-59 currently have long COVID than those age 80 and older,” the CDC says. Women and racial and ethnic minorities are more likely to be affected.

Many people are experiencing neurological effects, such as the so-called brain fog, according to Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, of Washington University and the VA St. Louis Health Care System, and colleagues, whose report was published in Nature Medicine in September. They estimated that 6.6 million Americans have brain impairments associated with COVID infection.

“Some of the neurologic disorders reported here are serious chronic conditions that will impact some people for a lifetime,” they wrote. “Given the colossal scale of the pandemic, and even though the absolute numbers reported in this work are small, these may translate into a large number of affected individuals around the world – and this will likely contribute to a rise in the burden of neurologic diseases.”
 

Causes

It’s not clear what the underlying causes are, but most research points to a combination of factors. Suspects include ongoing inflammation, tiny blood clots, and reactivation of latent viruses. In May, Brent Palmer, PhD, of the University of Colorado, Denver, and colleagues found people with long COVID had persistent activation of T-cells that were specific for SARS-CoV-2.

COVID-19 itself can damage organs, and long COVID might be caused by ongoing damage. In August, Alexandros Rovas, MD, of University Hospital Munster in Germany, and colleagues found patients with long COVID had evidence of damage to their capillaries. “Whether, to what extent, and when the observed damage might be reversible remains unclear,” they wrote in the journal Angiogenesis.

People with long COVID have immune responses to other viruses, such as Epstein-Barr – evidence that COVID-19 might reactivate latent viruses. “Our data suggest the involvement of persistent antigen, reactivation of latent herpesviruses, and chronic inflammation,” immunobiologist Akiko Iwasaki, PhD, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and colleagues wrote in a study posted in August that had not yet been peer-reviewed for publication.

This might be causing an autoimmune response. “The infection may cause the immune system to start making autoantibodies that attack a person’s own organs and tissues,” the NIH says.

There could be other factors. A study by Harvard researchers found that people who felt stressed, depressed, or lonely before catching COVID-19 were more likely to develop long COVID afterward. “Distress was more strongly associated with developing long COVID than physical health risk factors such as obesity, asthma, and hypertension,” Siwen Wang, MD, a research fellow with Harvard University’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, said in a statement.  Plus, nearly 44% of those in the study developed COVID-19 infections after having been assessed for stress, Dr. Wang and colleagues reported in the journal JAMA Psychiatry.
 

Vaccine protection 

There’s evidence that vaccination protects against long COVID, both by preventing infection in the first place, but also even for people who have breakthrough infections.

A meta-analysis covering studies involving 17 million people found evidence vaccination might reduce the severity of COVID-19 or might help the body clear any lingering virus after an infection.

“Overall, vaccination was associated with reduced risks or odds of long COVID, with preliminary evidence suggesting that two doses are more effective than one dose,” wrote Cesar Fernandez de las Penas, PhD, of King Juan Carlos University in Madrid, and colleagues. Their report is in The Lancet’s eClinicalMedicine.

A team in Milan found that unvaccinated people in their study were nearly three times as likely to have serious symptoms for longer than 4 weeks compared to vaccinated volunteers. According to their report in JAMA, Elena Azzolini, MD, PhD, assistant professor at Humanitas Research Hospital, and colleagues found two or three doses of vaccine reduced the risk of hospitalization from COVID to 16% or 17% compared to 42% for the unvaccinated.
 

Treatments

With no diagnostic criteria and no understanding of the causes, it’s hard for doctors to determine treatments.

Most experts dealing with long COVID, even those at the specialty centers that have been set up at hospitals and health systems in the United States, recommend that patients start with their primary care doctors before moving on to specialists.

“The mainstay of management is supportive, holistic care, symptom control, and detection of treatable complications,” Trish Greenhalgh, MD, professor of primary care health sciences at the University of Oxford, England, and colleagues wrote in the journal The BMJ in September. “Patients with long COVID greatly value input from their primary care clinician. Generalist clinicians can help patients considerably by hearing the patient’s story and validating their experience … (and) making the diagnosis of long COVID (which does not have to be by exclusion) and excluding alternative diagnoses.”

Evidence is building that long COVID closely resembles other postviral conditions – something that can provide clues for treatment. For example, several studies indicate that exercise doesn’t help most patients.

But there are approaches that can work. Treatments may include pulmonary rehabilitation; autonomic conditioning therapy, which includes breathing therapy; and cognitive rehabilitation to relieve brain fog. Doctors are also trying the antidepressant amitriptyline to help with sleep disturbances and headaches; the antiseizure medication gabapentin to help with pain, numbness, and other neurological symptoms; and drugs to relieve low blood pressure in patients experiencing postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS).

The NIH is sponsoring studies that have recruited just over 8,200 adults. And more than two dozen researchers from Harvard; Stanford; the University of California, San Francisco; the J. Craig Venter Institute; Johns Hopkins University; the University of Pennsylvania; Mount Sinai Hospitals; Cardiff University; and Yale announced in September they were forming the Long COVID Research Initiative to speed up studies.

The group, with funding from private enterprise, plans to conduct tissue biopsy, imaging studies, and autopsies and will search for potential biomarkers in the blood of patients.

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

Long COVID: The name says it all. It’s an illness that, for many people, has not yet stopped.

Eric Roach became ill with COVID-19 in November 2020, and he’s still sick. “I have brain fog, memory loss,” says the 67-year-old Navy veteran from Spearfish, S.D. “The fatigue has just been insane.” 

Long COVID, more formally known as post-acute sequelae of COVID (PASC), is the lay term to describe when people start to recover, or seem to recover, from a bout of COVID-19 but then continue to suffer from symptoms. For some, it’s gone on for 2 years or longer. While the governments of the United Statesand several other countries formally recognize the existence of long COVID, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has yet to formally define it. There’s no approved treatment, and the causes are not understood.

Here’s what is known: Long COVID is a postviral condition affecting a large percentage of people who become infected with the coronavirus. It can be utterly debilitating or mildly annoying, and it is affecting enough people to cause concern for employers, health insurers, and governments.
 

First, the many symptoms

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prvention, long COVID symptoms may include:

• Tiredness or fatigue that interferes with daily life.
• Symptoms that get worse after physical or mental effort.
• Fever.
• Difficulty breathing or shortness of breath.
• Cough.
• Chest pain.
• Heart palpitations.
• Difficulty thinking or concentrating (sometimes referred to as “brain fog”).
• Headache.
• Sleep problems.
• Dizziness when standing.
• Pins-and-needles feelings.
• Change in smell or taste.
• Depression or anxiety.
• Diarrhea.
• Stomach pain.
• Joint or muscle pain.
• Rash.
• Changes in menstrual cycles.

“People with post-COVID conditions may develop or continue to have symptoms that are hard to explain and manage,” the CDC says on its website. “Clinical evaluations and results of routine blood tests, chest x-rays, and electrocardiograms may be normal. The symptoms are similar to those reported by people with ME/CFS (myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome) and other poorly understood chronic illnesses that may occur after other infections.” 

Doctors may not fully appreciate the subtle nature of some of the symptoms. 

“People with these unexplained symptoms may be misunderstood by their health care providers, which can result in a long time for them to get a diagnosis and receive appropriate care or treatment,” the CDC says.

Health professionals should recognize that long COVID can be disabling, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services says. “Long COVID can substantially limit a major life activity,” HHS says in civil rights guidance. One possible example: “A person with long COVID who has lung damage that causes shortness of breath, fatigue, and related effects is substantially limited in respiratory function, among other major life activities,” the HHS notes.
 

How many people are affected?

This has been difficult to judge because not everyone who has had COVID-19 gets tested for it and there are no formal diagnostic criteria yet for long COVID. The CDC estimates that 19% of patients in the United States who have ever had COVID-19 have long COVID symptoms. 

Some estimates go higher. A University of Oxford study in September 2021 found more than a third of patients had symptoms of long COVID between 3 months and 6 months after a COVID-19 diagnosis. As many as 55% of COVID-19 patients in one Chinese study had one or more lingering symptoms 2 years later, Lixue Huang, MD, of the China-Japan Friendship Hospital in Beijing, and colleagues reported in the journal Lancet Respiratory Medicine in May.

According to the CDC, age is a factor. “Older adults are less likely to have long COVID than younger adults. Nearly three times as many adults ages 50-59 currently have long COVID than those age 80 and older,” the CDC says. Women and racial and ethnic minorities are more likely to be affected.

Many people are experiencing neurological effects, such as the so-called brain fog, according to Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, of Washington University and the VA St. Louis Health Care System, and colleagues, whose report was published in Nature Medicine in September. They estimated that 6.6 million Americans have brain impairments associated with COVID infection.

“Some of the neurologic disorders reported here are serious chronic conditions that will impact some people for a lifetime,” they wrote. “Given the colossal scale of the pandemic, and even though the absolute numbers reported in this work are small, these may translate into a large number of affected individuals around the world – and this will likely contribute to a rise in the burden of neurologic diseases.”
 

Causes

It’s not clear what the underlying causes are, but most research points to a combination of factors. Suspects include ongoing inflammation, tiny blood clots, and reactivation of latent viruses. In May, Brent Palmer, PhD, of the University of Colorado, Denver, and colleagues found people with long COVID had persistent activation of T-cells that were specific for SARS-CoV-2.

COVID-19 itself can damage organs, and long COVID might be caused by ongoing damage. In August, Alexandros Rovas, MD, of University Hospital Munster in Germany, and colleagues found patients with long COVID had evidence of damage to their capillaries. “Whether, to what extent, and when the observed damage might be reversible remains unclear,” they wrote in the journal Angiogenesis.

People with long COVID have immune responses to other viruses, such as Epstein-Barr – evidence that COVID-19 might reactivate latent viruses. “Our data suggest the involvement of persistent antigen, reactivation of latent herpesviruses, and chronic inflammation,” immunobiologist Akiko Iwasaki, PhD, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and colleagues wrote in a study posted in August that had not yet been peer-reviewed for publication.

This might be causing an autoimmune response. “The infection may cause the immune system to start making autoantibodies that attack a person’s own organs and tissues,” the NIH says.

There could be other factors. A study by Harvard researchers found that people who felt stressed, depressed, or lonely before catching COVID-19 were more likely to develop long COVID afterward. “Distress was more strongly associated with developing long COVID than physical health risk factors such as obesity, asthma, and hypertension,” Siwen Wang, MD, a research fellow with Harvard University’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, said in a statement.  Plus, nearly 44% of those in the study developed COVID-19 infections after having been assessed for stress, Dr. Wang and colleagues reported in the journal JAMA Psychiatry.
 

Vaccine protection 

There’s evidence that vaccination protects against long COVID, both by preventing infection in the first place, but also even for people who have breakthrough infections.

A meta-analysis covering studies involving 17 million people found evidence vaccination might reduce the severity of COVID-19 or might help the body clear any lingering virus after an infection.

“Overall, vaccination was associated with reduced risks or odds of long COVID, with preliminary evidence suggesting that two doses are more effective than one dose,” wrote Cesar Fernandez de las Penas, PhD, of King Juan Carlos University in Madrid, and colleagues. Their report is in The Lancet’s eClinicalMedicine.

A team in Milan found that unvaccinated people in their study were nearly three times as likely to have serious symptoms for longer than 4 weeks compared to vaccinated volunteers. According to their report in JAMA, Elena Azzolini, MD, PhD, assistant professor at Humanitas Research Hospital, and colleagues found two or three doses of vaccine reduced the risk of hospitalization from COVID to 16% or 17% compared to 42% for the unvaccinated.
 

Treatments

With no diagnostic criteria and no understanding of the causes, it’s hard for doctors to determine treatments.

Most experts dealing with long COVID, even those at the specialty centers that have been set up at hospitals and health systems in the United States, recommend that patients start with their primary care doctors before moving on to specialists.

“The mainstay of management is supportive, holistic care, symptom control, and detection of treatable complications,” Trish Greenhalgh, MD, professor of primary care health sciences at the University of Oxford, England, and colleagues wrote in the journal The BMJ in September. “Patients with long COVID greatly value input from their primary care clinician. Generalist clinicians can help patients considerably by hearing the patient’s story and validating their experience … (and) making the diagnosis of long COVID (which does not have to be by exclusion) and excluding alternative diagnoses.”

Evidence is building that long COVID closely resembles other postviral conditions – something that can provide clues for treatment. For example, several studies indicate that exercise doesn’t help most patients.

But there are approaches that can work. Treatments may include pulmonary rehabilitation; autonomic conditioning therapy, which includes breathing therapy; and cognitive rehabilitation to relieve brain fog. Doctors are also trying the antidepressant amitriptyline to help with sleep disturbances and headaches; the antiseizure medication gabapentin to help with pain, numbness, and other neurological symptoms; and drugs to relieve low blood pressure in patients experiencing postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS).

The NIH is sponsoring studies that have recruited just over 8,200 adults. And more than two dozen researchers from Harvard; Stanford; the University of California, San Francisco; the J. Craig Venter Institute; Johns Hopkins University; the University of Pennsylvania; Mount Sinai Hospitals; Cardiff University; and Yale announced in September they were forming the Long COVID Research Initiative to speed up studies.

The group, with funding from private enterprise, plans to conduct tissue biopsy, imaging studies, and autopsies and will search for potential biomarkers in the blood of patients.

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

Long COVID: The name says it all. It’s an illness that, for many people, has not yet stopped.

Eric Roach became ill with COVID-19 in November 2020, and he’s still sick. “I have brain fog, memory loss,” says the 67-year-old Navy veteran from Spearfish, S.D. “The fatigue has just been insane.” 

Long COVID, more formally known as post-acute sequelae of COVID (PASC), is the lay term to describe when people start to recover, or seem to recover, from a bout of COVID-19 but then continue to suffer from symptoms. For some, it’s gone on for 2 years or longer. While the governments of the United Statesand several other countries formally recognize the existence of long COVID, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has yet to formally define it. There’s no approved treatment, and the causes are not understood.

Here’s what is known: Long COVID is a postviral condition affecting a large percentage of people who become infected with the coronavirus. It can be utterly debilitating or mildly annoying, and it is affecting enough people to cause concern for employers, health insurers, and governments.
 

First, the many symptoms

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prvention, long COVID symptoms may include:

• Tiredness or fatigue that interferes with daily life.
• Symptoms that get worse after physical or mental effort.
• Fever.
• Difficulty breathing or shortness of breath.
• Cough.
• Chest pain.
• Heart palpitations.
• Difficulty thinking or concentrating (sometimes referred to as “brain fog”).
• Headache.
• Sleep problems.
• Dizziness when standing.
• Pins-and-needles feelings.
• Change in smell or taste.
• Depression or anxiety.
• Diarrhea.
• Stomach pain.
• Joint or muscle pain.
• Rash.
• Changes in menstrual cycles.

“People with post-COVID conditions may develop or continue to have symptoms that are hard to explain and manage,” the CDC says on its website. “Clinical evaluations and results of routine blood tests, chest x-rays, and electrocardiograms may be normal. The symptoms are similar to those reported by people with ME/CFS (myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome) and other poorly understood chronic illnesses that may occur after other infections.” 

Doctors may not fully appreciate the subtle nature of some of the symptoms. 

“People with these unexplained symptoms may be misunderstood by their health care providers, which can result in a long time for them to get a diagnosis and receive appropriate care or treatment,” the CDC says.

Health professionals should recognize that long COVID can be disabling, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services says. “Long COVID can substantially limit a major life activity,” HHS says in civil rights guidance. One possible example: “A person with long COVID who has lung damage that causes shortness of breath, fatigue, and related effects is substantially limited in respiratory function, among other major life activities,” the HHS notes.
 

How many people are affected?

This has been difficult to judge because not everyone who has had COVID-19 gets tested for it and there are no formal diagnostic criteria yet for long COVID. The CDC estimates that 19% of patients in the United States who have ever had COVID-19 have long COVID symptoms. 

Some estimates go higher. A University of Oxford study in September 2021 found more than a third of patients had symptoms of long COVID between 3 months and 6 months after a COVID-19 diagnosis. As many as 55% of COVID-19 patients in one Chinese study had one or more lingering symptoms 2 years later, Lixue Huang, MD, of the China-Japan Friendship Hospital in Beijing, and colleagues reported in the journal Lancet Respiratory Medicine in May.

According to the CDC, age is a factor. “Older adults are less likely to have long COVID than younger adults. Nearly three times as many adults ages 50-59 currently have long COVID than those age 80 and older,” the CDC says. Women and racial and ethnic minorities are more likely to be affected.

Many people are experiencing neurological effects, such as the so-called brain fog, according to Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, of Washington University and the VA St. Louis Health Care System, and colleagues, whose report was published in Nature Medicine in September. They estimated that 6.6 million Americans have brain impairments associated with COVID infection.

“Some of the neurologic disorders reported here are serious chronic conditions that will impact some people for a lifetime,” they wrote. “Given the colossal scale of the pandemic, and even though the absolute numbers reported in this work are small, these may translate into a large number of affected individuals around the world – and this will likely contribute to a rise in the burden of neurologic diseases.”
 

Causes

It’s not clear what the underlying causes are, but most research points to a combination of factors. Suspects include ongoing inflammation, tiny blood clots, and reactivation of latent viruses. In May, Brent Palmer, PhD, of the University of Colorado, Denver, and colleagues found people with long COVID had persistent activation of T-cells that were specific for SARS-CoV-2.

COVID-19 itself can damage organs, and long COVID might be caused by ongoing damage. In August, Alexandros Rovas, MD, of University Hospital Munster in Germany, and colleagues found patients with long COVID had evidence of damage to their capillaries. “Whether, to what extent, and when the observed damage might be reversible remains unclear,” they wrote in the journal Angiogenesis.

People with long COVID have immune responses to other viruses, such as Epstein-Barr – evidence that COVID-19 might reactivate latent viruses. “Our data suggest the involvement of persistent antigen, reactivation of latent herpesviruses, and chronic inflammation,” immunobiologist Akiko Iwasaki, PhD, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and colleagues wrote in a study posted in August that had not yet been peer-reviewed for publication.

This might be causing an autoimmune response. “The infection may cause the immune system to start making autoantibodies that attack a person’s own organs and tissues,” the NIH says.

There could be other factors. A study by Harvard researchers found that people who felt stressed, depressed, or lonely before catching COVID-19 were more likely to develop long COVID afterward. “Distress was more strongly associated with developing long COVID than physical health risk factors such as obesity, asthma, and hypertension,” Siwen Wang, MD, a research fellow with Harvard University’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, said in a statement.  Plus, nearly 44% of those in the study developed COVID-19 infections after having been assessed for stress, Dr. Wang and colleagues reported in the journal JAMA Psychiatry.
 

Vaccine protection 

There’s evidence that vaccination protects against long COVID, both by preventing infection in the first place, but also even for people who have breakthrough infections.

A meta-analysis covering studies involving 17 million people found evidence vaccination might reduce the severity of COVID-19 or might help the body clear any lingering virus after an infection.

“Overall, vaccination was associated with reduced risks or odds of long COVID, with preliminary evidence suggesting that two doses are more effective than one dose,” wrote Cesar Fernandez de las Penas, PhD, of King Juan Carlos University in Madrid, and colleagues. Their report is in The Lancet’s eClinicalMedicine.

A team in Milan found that unvaccinated people in their study were nearly three times as likely to have serious symptoms for longer than 4 weeks compared to vaccinated volunteers. According to their report in JAMA, Elena Azzolini, MD, PhD, assistant professor at Humanitas Research Hospital, and colleagues found two or three doses of vaccine reduced the risk of hospitalization from COVID to 16% or 17% compared to 42% for the unvaccinated.
 

Treatments

With no diagnostic criteria and no understanding of the causes, it’s hard for doctors to determine treatments.

Most experts dealing with long COVID, even those at the specialty centers that have been set up at hospitals and health systems in the United States, recommend that patients start with their primary care doctors before moving on to specialists.

“The mainstay of management is supportive, holistic care, symptom control, and detection of treatable complications,” Trish Greenhalgh, MD, professor of primary care health sciences at the University of Oxford, England, and colleagues wrote in the journal The BMJ in September. “Patients with long COVID greatly value input from their primary care clinician. Generalist clinicians can help patients considerably by hearing the patient’s story and validating their experience … (and) making the diagnosis of long COVID (which does not have to be by exclusion) and excluding alternative diagnoses.”

Evidence is building that long COVID closely resembles other postviral conditions – something that can provide clues for treatment. For example, several studies indicate that exercise doesn’t help most patients.

But there are approaches that can work. Treatments may include pulmonary rehabilitation; autonomic conditioning therapy, which includes breathing therapy; and cognitive rehabilitation to relieve brain fog. Doctors are also trying the antidepressant amitriptyline to help with sleep disturbances and headaches; the antiseizure medication gabapentin to help with pain, numbness, and other neurological symptoms; and drugs to relieve low blood pressure in patients experiencing postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS).

The NIH is sponsoring studies that have recruited just over 8,200 adults. And more than two dozen researchers from Harvard; Stanford; the University of California, San Francisco; the J. Craig Venter Institute; Johns Hopkins University; the University of Pennsylvania; Mount Sinai Hospitals; Cardiff University; and Yale announced in September they were forming the Long COVID Research Initiative to speed up studies.

The group, with funding from private enterprise, plans to conduct tissue biopsy, imaging studies, and autopsies and will search for potential biomarkers in the blood of patients.

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

New COVID-19 cases and hospital admissions in children continue to decline, while the slow pace of vaccinations has not deterred manufacturers from seeking new emergency authorizations.

There were just over 55,000 new cases reported during the week of Sept. 16-22, marking three consecutive weeks of declines through the end of summer. Since reaching a post-Omicron peak of 112,000 in late May, the number of weekly cases has fluctuated, with no stretch of increases or decreases lasting more than 4 weeks or the weekly count rising above 97,000 or falling lower than the current 55,000, according to state-level data collected by the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

New admissions with confirmed COVID for children aged 0-17 years, which did not follow that pattern and instead continued to rise through the spring and early summer, have been largely decreasing in recent weeks and had fallen to 0.27 per 100,000 population as of Sept. 21 after peaking at 0.46 per 100,000 in late July, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported. A similar decline has been seen for emergency department visits since late August.

The biggest vaccination news of the week came from Moderna and Pfizer and BioNTech, which are each seeking emergency authorization from the Food and Drug Administration for bivalent vaccine boosters that target both the original COVID strain and the BA.4 and BA.5 strains of Omicron.

“Pfizer’s booster would be for children 5 to 11 who have completed a primary vaccination series [and] Moderna’s updated boosters would be for children ages 6 to 17 who have completed a primary vaccination series,” WebMD said.

Although almost 61% of children aged 12-17 years are already fully vaccinated, that is not the case among those aged 5-11, of whom only 31.4% have completed the initial vaccine regimen. Since becoming eligible in June, just 1.9% of children under 5 years of age have been fully vaccinated and 6.3% have received at least one dose, the CDC said on its COVID Data Tracker. The latest data put the already boosted child populations at 28.8% for 12- to 17-year-olds and 14.8% in those aged 5-11.

About 51,000 children under age 5 years received their initial COVID vaccination during the week of Sept. 15-21, and the trend for that measure is one of gradual decline since July. Among the older children that same week, there were 28,000 initial vaccinations in the 5- to 11-year-olds and 18,000 for those aged 12-17, and activity in both age groups has largely stagnated since the spring, according to a separate AAP report based on CDC data.

New COVID-19 cases and hospital admissions in children continue to decline, while the slow pace of vaccinations has not deterred manufacturers from seeking new emergency authorizations.

There were just over 55,000 new cases reported during the week of Sept. 16-22, marking three consecutive weeks of declines through the end of summer. Since reaching a post-Omicron peak of 112,000 in late May, the number of weekly cases has fluctuated, with no stretch of increases or decreases lasting more than 4 weeks or the weekly count rising above 97,000 or falling lower than the current 55,000, according to state-level data collected by the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

New admissions with confirmed COVID for children aged 0-17 years, which did not follow that pattern and instead continued to rise through the spring and early summer, have been largely decreasing in recent weeks and had fallen to 0.27 per 100,000 population as of Sept. 21 after peaking at 0.46 per 100,000 in late July, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported. A similar decline has been seen for emergency department visits since late August.

The biggest vaccination news of the week came from Moderna and Pfizer and BioNTech, which are each seeking emergency authorization from the Food and Drug Administration for bivalent vaccine boosters that target both the original COVID strain and the BA.4 and BA.5 strains of Omicron.

“Pfizer’s booster would be for children 5 to 11 who have completed a primary vaccination series [and] Moderna’s updated boosters would be for children ages 6 to 17 who have completed a primary vaccination series,” WebMD said.

Although almost 61% of children aged 12-17 years are already fully vaccinated, that is not the case among those aged 5-11, of whom only 31.4% have completed the initial vaccine regimen. Since becoming eligible in June, just 1.9% of children under 5 years of age have been fully vaccinated and 6.3% have received at least one dose, the CDC said on its COVID Data Tracker. The latest data put the already boosted child populations at 28.8% for 12- to 17-year-olds and 14.8% in those aged 5-11.

About 51,000 children under age 5 years received their initial COVID vaccination during the week of Sept. 15-21, and the trend for that measure is one of gradual decline since July. Among the older children that same week, there were 28,000 initial vaccinations in the 5- to 11-year-olds and 18,000 for those aged 12-17, and activity in both age groups has largely stagnated since the spring, according to a separate AAP report based on CDC data.

New COVID-19 cases and hospital admissions in children continue to decline, while the slow pace of vaccinations has not deterred manufacturers from seeking new emergency authorizations.

There were just over 55,000 new cases reported during the week of Sept. 16-22, marking three consecutive weeks of declines through the end of summer. Since reaching a post-Omicron peak of 112,000 in late May, the number of weekly cases has fluctuated, with no stretch of increases or decreases lasting more than 4 weeks or the weekly count rising above 97,000 or falling lower than the current 55,000, according to state-level data collected by the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

New admissions with confirmed COVID for children aged 0-17 years, which did not follow that pattern and instead continued to rise through the spring and early summer, have been largely decreasing in recent weeks and had fallen to 0.27 per 100,000 population as of Sept. 21 after peaking at 0.46 per 100,000 in late July, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported. A similar decline has been seen for emergency department visits since late August.

The biggest vaccination news of the week came from Moderna and Pfizer and BioNTech, which are each seeking emergency authorization from the Food and Drug Administration for bivalent vaccine boosters that target both the original COVID strain and the BA.4 and BA.5 strains of Omicron.

“Pfizer’s booster would be for children 5 to 11 who have completed a primary vaccination series [and] Moderna’s updated boosters would be for children ages 6 to 17 who have completed a primary vaccination series,” WebMD said.

Although almost 61% of children aged 12-17 years are already fully vaccinated, that is not the case among those aged 5-11, of whom only 31.4% have completed the initial vaccine regimen. Since becoming eligible in June, just 1.9% of children under 5 years of age have been fully vaccinated and 6.3% have received at least one dose, the CDC said on its COVID Data Tracker. The latest data put the already boosted child populations at 28.8% for 12- to 17-year-olds and 14.8% in those aged 5-11.

About 51,000 children under age 5 years received their initial COVID vaccination during the week of Sept. 15-21, and the trend for that measure is one of gradual decline since July. Among the older children that same week, there were 28,000 initial vaccinations in the 5- to 11-year-olds and 18,000 for those aged 12-17, and activity in both age groups has largely stagnated since the spring, according to a separate AAP report based on CDC data.

STOCKHOLM – The number of people living with type 1 diabetes worldwide is expected to double by 2040, with most new cases among adults living in low- and middle-income countries, new modeling data suggest.

The forecast, developed from available data collected in the newly established open-source Type 1 Diabetes Index, provides estimates for type 1 diabetes prevalence, incidence, associated mortality, and life expectancy for 201 countries for 2021.

The model also projects estimates for prevalent cases in 2040. It is the first type 1 diabetes dataset to account for the lack of prevalence because of premature mortality, particularly in low- and middle-income countries.

“The worldwide prevalence of type 1 diabetes is substantial and growing. Improved surveillance – particularly in adults who make up most of the population living with type 1 diabetes – is essential to enable improvements to care and outcomes. There is an opportunity to save millions of lives in the coming decades by raising the standard of care (including ensuring universal access to insulin and other essential supplies) and increasing awareness of the signs and symptoms of type 1 diabetes to enable a 100% rate of diagnosis in all countries,” the authors write.

“This work spells out the need for early diagnosis of type 1 diabetes and timely access to quality care,” said Chantal Mathieu, MD, at the European Association for the Study of Diabetes annual meeting.
 

One in five deaths from type 1 diabetes in under 25s

The new findings were published in Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology by Gabriel A. Gregory, MD, of Life for a Child Program, New South Wales, Australia, and colleagues. The T1D Index Project database was published Sept. 21, 2022.

According to the model, about 8.4 million people were living with type 1 diabetes in 2021, with one-fifth from low- and middle-income countries. An additional 3.7 million died prematurely and would have been added to that count had they lived. One in five of all deaths caused by type 1 diabetes in 2021 is estimated to have occurred in people younger than age 25 years because of nondiagnosis.

“It is unacceptable that, in 2022, some 35,000 people worldwide are dying undiagnosed within a year of onset of symptoms. There also continues to be a huge disparity in life expectancy for people with type 1 diabetes, hitting those in the poorest countries hardest,” noted Dr. Mathieu, who is senior vice-president of EASD and an endocrinologist based at KU Leuven, Belgium.

By 2040, the model predicts that between 13.5 million and 17.4 million people will be living with the condition, with the largest relative increase from 2021 in low-income and lower-middle-income countries. The majority of incident and prevalent cases of type 1 diabetes are in adults, with an estimated 62% of 510,000 new diagnoses worldwide in 2021 occurring in people aged 20 years and older.
 

Type 1 diabetes is not predominantly a disease of childhood

Dr. Mathieu also noted that the data dispute the long-held view of type 1 diabetes as a predominantly pediatric condition. Indeed, worldwide, the median age for a person living with type 1 diabetes is 37 years.

“While type 1 diabetes is often referred to as ‘child-onset’ diabetes, this important study shows that only around one in five living with the condition are aged 20 years or younger, two-thirds are aged 20-64 years, and a further one in five are aged 65 years or older.”

“This condition does not stop at age 18 years – the children become adults, and the adults become elderly. All countries must examine and strengthen their diagnosis and care pathways for people of all ages living with type 1 diabetes,” Dr. Mathieu emphasized.

And in an accompanying editorial, Serena Jingchuan Guo, MD, PhD, and Hui Shao, MD, PhD, point out that most studies that estimate diabetes burden have focused on type 2 diabetes, noting, “type 1 diabetes faces the challenges of misdiagnosis, underdiagnosis, high risk of complications, and premature mortality.”

The insulin affordability issue is central, point out Dr. Guo and Dr. Shao of the Center for Drug Evaluation and Safety, department of pharmaceutical evaluation and policy, University of Florida College of Pharmacy, Gainesville.

“Countries need to strengthen the price regulation and reimbursement policy for insulin while building subsidy programs to ensure insulin access and to cope with the growing demand for insulin. Meanwhile, optimizing the insulin supply chain between manufacturers and patients while seeking alternative treatment options (for example, biosimilar products) will also improve the current situation,” they conclude.   

The study was funded by JDRF, of which four coauthors are employees. The editorialists have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

STOCKHOLM – The number of people living with type 1 diabetes worldwide is expected to double by 2040, with most new cases among adults living in low- and middle-income countries, new modeling data suggest.

The forecast, developed from available data collected in the newly established open-source Type 1 Diabetes Index, provides estimates for type 1 diabetes prevalence, incidence, associated mortality, and life expectancy for 201 countries for 2021.

The model also projects estimates for prevalent cases in 2040. It is the first type 1 diabetes dataset to account for the lack of prevalence because of premature mortality, particularly in low- and middle-income countries.

“The worldwide prevalence of type 1 diabetes is substantial and growing. Improved surveillance – particularly in adults who make up most of the population living with type 1 diabetes – is essential to enable improvements to care and outcomes. There is an opportunity to save millions of lives in the coming decades by raising the standard of care (including ensuring universal access to insulin and other essential supplies) and increasing awareness of the signs and symptoms of type 1 diabetes to enable a 100% rate of diagnosis in all countries,” the authors write.

“This work spells out the need for early diagnosis of type 1 diabetes and timely access to quality care,” said Chantal Mathieu, MD, at the European Association for the Study of Diabetes annual meeting.
 

One in five deaths from type 1 diabetes in under 25s

The new findings were published in Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology by Gabriel A. Gregory, MD, of Life for a Child Program, New South Wales, Australia, and colleagues. The T1D Index Project database was published Sept. 21, 2022.

According to the model, about 8.4 million people were living with type 1 diabetes in 2021, with one-fifth from low- and middle-income countries. An additional 3.7 million died prematurely and would have been added to that count had they lived. One in five of all deaths caused by type 1 diabetes in 2021 is estimated to have occurred in people younger than age 25 years because of nondiagnosis.

“It is unacceptable that, in 2022, some 35,000 people worldwide are dying undiagnosed within a year of onset of symptoms. There also continues to be a huge disparity in life expectancy for people with type 1 diabetes, hitting those in the poorest countries hardest,” noted Dr. Mathieu, who is senior vice-president of EASD and an endocrinologist based at KU Leuven, Belgium.

By 2040, the model predicts that between 13.5 million and 17.4 million people will be living with the condition, with the largest relative increase from 2021 in low-income and lower-middle-income countries. The majority of incident and prevalent cases of type 1 diabetes are in adults, with an estimated 62% of 510,000 new diagnoses worldwide in 2021 occurring in people aged 20 years and older.
 

Type 1 diabetes is not predominantly a disease of childhood

Dr. Mathieu also noted that the data dispute the long-held view of type 1 diabetes as a predominantly pediatric condition. Indeed, worldwide, the median age for a person living with type 1 diabetes is 37 years.

“While type 1 diabetes is often referred to as ‘child-onset’ diabetes, this important study shows that only around one in five living with the condition are aged 20 years or younger, two-thirds are aged 20-64 years, and a further one in five are aged 65 years or older.”

“This condition does not stop at age 18 years – the children become adults, and the adults become elderly. All countries must examine and strengthen their diagnosis and care pathways for people of all ages living with type 1 diabetes,” Dr. Mathieu emphasized.

And in an accompanying editorial, Serena Jingchuan Guo, MD, PhD, and Hui Shao, MD, PhD, point out that most studies that estimate diabetes burden have focused on type 2 diabetes, noting, “type 1 diabetes faces the challenges of misdiagnosis, underdiagnosis, high risk of complications, and premature mortality.”

The insulin affordability issue is central, point out Dr. Guo and Dr. Shao of the Center for Drug Evaluation and Safety, department of pharmaceutical evaluation and policy, University of Florida College of Pharmacy, Gainesville.

“Countries need to strengthen the price regulation and reimbursement policy for insulin while building subsidy programs to ensure insulin access and to cope with the growing demand for insulin. Meanwhile, optimizing the insulin supply chain between manufacturers and patients while seeking alternative treatment options (for example, biosimilar products) will also improve the current situation,” they conclude.   

The study was funded by JDRF, of which four coauthors are employees. The editorialists have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

STOCKHOLM – The number of people living with type 1 diabetes worldwide is expected to double by 2040, with most new cases among adults living in low- and middle-income countries, new modeling data suggest.

The forecast, developed from available data collected in the newly established open-source Type 1 Diabetes Index, provides estimates for type 1 diabetes prevalence, incidence, associated mortality, and life expectancy for 201 countries for 2021.

The model also projects estimates for prevalent cases in 2040. It is the first type 1 diabetes dataset to account for the lack of prevalence because of premature mortality, particularly in low- and middle-income countries.

“The worldwide prevalence of type 1 diabetes is substantial and growing. Improved surveillance – particularly in adults who make up most of the population living with type 1 diabetes – is essential to enable improvements to care and outcomes. There is an opportunity to save millions of lives in the coming decades by raising the standard of care (including ensuring universal access to insulin and other essential supplies) and increasing awareness of the signs and symptoms of type 1 diabetes to enable a 100% rate of diagnosis in all countries,” the authors write.

“This work spells out the need for early diagnosis of type 1 diabetes and timely access to quality care,” said Chantal Mathieu, MD, at the European Association for the Study of Diabetes annual meeting.
 

One in five deaths from type 1 diabetes in under 25s

The new findings were published in Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology by Gabriel A. Gregory, MD, of Life for a Child Program, New South Wales, Australia, and colleagues. The T1D Index Project database was published Sept. 21, 2022.

According to the model, about 8.4 million people were living with type 1 diabetes in 2021, with one-fifth from low- and middle-income countries. An additional 3.7 million died prematurely and would have been added to that count had they lived. One in five of all deaths caused by type 1 diabetes in 2021 is estimated to have occurred in people younger than age 25 years because of nondiagnosis.

“It is unacceptable that, in 2022, some 35,000 people worldwide are dying undiagnosed within a year of onset of symptoms. There also continues to be a huge disparity in life expectancy for people with type 1 diabetes, hitting those in the poorest countries hardest,” noted Dr. Mathieu, who is senior vice-president of EASD and an endocrinologist based at KU Leuven, Belgium.

By 2040, the model predicts that between 13.5 million and 17.4 million people will be living with the condition, with the largest relative increase from 2021 in low-income and lower-middle-income countries. The majority of incident and prevalent cases of type 1 diabetes are in adults, with an estimated 62% of 510,000 new diagnoses worldwide in 2021 occurring in people aged 20 years and older.
 

Type 1 diabetes is not predominantly a disease of childhood

Dr. Mathieu also noted that the data dispute the long-held view of type 1 diabetes as a predominantly pediatric condition. Indeed, worldwide, the median age for a person living with type 1 diabetes is 37 years.

“While type 1 diabetes is often referred to as ‘child-onset’ diabetes, this important study shows that only around one in five living with the condition are aged 20 years or younger, two-thirds are aged 20-64 years, and a further one in five are aged 65 years or older.”

“This condition does not stop at age 18 years – the children become adults, and the adults become elderly. All countries must examine and strengthen their diagnosis and care pathways for people of all ages living with type 1 diabetes,” Dr. Mathieu emphasized.

And in an accompanying editorial, Serena Jingchuan Guo, MD, PhD, and Hui Shao, MD, PhD, point out that most studies that estimate diabetes burden have focused on type 2 diabetes, noting, “type 1 diabetes faces the challenges of misdiagnosis, underdiagnosis, high risk of complications, and premature mortality.”

The insulin affordability issue is central, point out Dr. Guo and Dr. Shao of the Center for Drug Evaluation and Safety, department of pharmaceutical evaluation and policy, University of Florida College of Pharmacy, Gainesville.

“Countries need to strengthen the price regulation and reimbursement policy for insulin while building subsidy programs to ensure insulin access and to cope with the growing demand for insulin. Meanwhile, optimizing the insulin supply chain between manufacturers and patients while seeking alternative treatment options (for example, biosimilar products) will also improve the current situation,” they conclude.   

The study was funded by JDRF, of which four coauthors are employees. The editorialists have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

STOCKHOLM – Weight loss should be a co–primary management goal for type 2 diabetes in adults, according to a new comprehensive joint consensus report from the European Association for the Study of Diabetes and the American Diabetes Association.

And while metformin is still recommended as first-line therapy for patients with type 2 diabetes with no other comorbidities, the statement expands the indications for use of other agents or combinations of agents as initial therapy for subgroups of patients, as part of individualized and patient-centered decision-making.

Last updated in 2019, the new “Management of Hyperglycemia in Type 2 Diabetes” statement also places increased emphasis on social determinants of health, incorporates recent clinical trial data for cardiovascular and kidney outcomes for sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) agonists to broaden recommendations for cardiorenal protection, and discusses health behaviors such as sleep and sitting. It also targets a wider audience than in the past by addressing health system organization to optimize delivery of diabetes care.

The new statement was presented during a 90-minute session at the annual meeting of the EASD, with 12 of its 14 European and American authors as presenters. The document was simultaneously published in Diabetologia and Diabetes Care.

During the discussion, panel member Jennifer Brigitte Green, MD, commented: “Many of these recommendations are not new. They’re modest revisions of recommendations that have been in place for years, but we know that actual implementation rates of use of these drugs in patients with established comorbidities are very low.”

“I think it’s time for communities, health care systems, etc, to actually introduce these as expectations of care... to assess quality because unless it’s considered formally to be a requirement of care I just don’t think we’re going to move that needle very much,” added Dr. Green, who is professor of medicine at Duke University, Durham, N.C.

Vanita R. Aroda, MD, of the division of endocrinology, diabetes, and hypertension at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, commented: “In the past, sometimes these recommendations created fodder for debate, but I don’t think this one will. It’s just really solidly evidence based, with the rationales presented throughout, including the figures. I think just having very clear evidence-based directions should support their dissemination and use.”
 

Weight management plays a prominent role in treatment

In an interview, writing panel cochair John B. Buse, MD, PhD, said: “We are saying that the four major components of type 2 diabetes care are glycemic management, cardiovascular risk management, weight management, and prevention of end-organ damage, particularly with regard to cardiorenal risk.”

“The weight management piece is much more explicit now,” said Dr. Buse, director of the Diabetes Center at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

He noted that recent evidence from the intensive lifestyle trial DiRECT, conducted in the United Kingdom, the bariatric surgery literature, and the emergence of potent weight-loss drugs have meant that “achieving 10%-15% body weight loss is now possible.

“So, aiming for remission is something that might be attractive to patients and providers. This could be based on weight management, with the [chosen] method based on shared decision-making.”

According to the new report: “Weight loss of 5%-10% confers metabolic improvement; weight loss of 10%-15% or more can have a disease-modifying effect and lead to remission of diabetes, defined as normal blood glucose levels for 3 months or more in the absence of pharmacological therapy in a 2021 consensus report.”

“Weight loss may exert benefits that extend beyond glycemic management to improve risk factors for cardiometabolic disease and quality of life,” it adds.
 

Individualization featured throughout

The report’s sections cover principles of care, including the importance of diabetes self-management education and support and avoidance of therapeutic inertia. Detailed guidance addresses therapeutic options including lifestyle, weight management, and pharmacotherapy for treating type 2 diabetes.

Another entire section is devoted to personalizing treatment approaches based on individual characteristics, including new evidence from cardiorenal outcomes studies for SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists that have come out since the last consensus report.

The document advises: “Consider initial combination therapy with glucose-lowering agents, especially in those with high [hemoglobin] A1c at diagnosis (that is, > 70 mmol/mol [> 8.5%]), in younger people with type 2 diabetes (regardless of A1c), and in those in whom a stepwise approach would delay access to agents that provide cardiorenal protection beyond their glucose-lowering effects.”
 

Designed to be used and user-friendly

Under the “Putting it all together: strategies for implementation” section, several lists of “practical tips for clinicians” are provided for many of the topics covered.

A series of colorful infographics are included as well, addressing the “decision cycle for person-centered glycemic management in type 2 diabetes,” including a chart summarizing characteristics of available glucose-lowering medications, including cardiorenal protection.

Also mentioned is the importance of 24-hour physical behaviors (including sleep, sitting, and sweating) and the impact on cardiometabolic health, use of a “holistic person-centered approach” to type 2 diabetes management, and an algorithm on insulin use.

Dr. Buse has financial ties to numerous drug and device companies. Dr. Green is a consultant for AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim/Lilly, Bayer, Sanofi, Anji, Vertex/ICON, and Valo. Dr. Aroda has served as a consultant for Applied Therapeutics, Duke, Fractyl, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Sanofi.

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

STOCKHOLM – Weight loss should be a co–primary management goal for type 2 diabetes in adults, according to a new comprehensive joint consensus report from the European Association for the Study of Diabetes and the American Diabetes Association.

And while metformin is still recommended as first-line therapy for patients with type 2 diabetes with no other comorbidities, the statement expands the indications for use of other agents or combinations of agents as initial therapy for subgroups of patients, as part of individualized and patient-centered decision-making.

Last updated in 2019, the new “Management of Hyperglycemia in Type 2 Diabetes” statement also places increased emphasis on social determinants of health, incorporates recent clinical trial data for cardiovascular and kidney outcomes for sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) agonists to broaden recommendations for cardiorenal protection, and discusses health behaviors such as sleep and sitting. It also targets a wider audience than in the past by addressing health system organization to optimize delivery of diabetes care.

The new statement was presented during a 90-minute session at the annual meeting of the EASD, with 12 of its 14 European and American authors as presenters. The document was simultaneously published in Diabetologia and Diabetes Care.

During the discussion, panel member Jennifer Brigitte Green, MD, commented: “Many of these recommendations are not new. They’re modest revisions of recommendations that have been in place for years, but we know that actual implementation rates of use of these drugs in patients with established comorbidities are very low.”

“I think it’s time for communities, health care systems, etc, to actually introduce these as expectations of care... to assess quality because unless it’s considered formally to be a requirement of care I just don’t think we’re going to move that needle very much,” added Dr. Green, who is professor of medicine at Duke University, Durham, N.C.

Vanita R. Aroda, MD, of the division of endocrinology, diabetes, and hypertension at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, commented: “In the past, sometimes these recommendations created fodder for debate, but I don’t think this one will. It’s just really solidly evidence based, with the rationales presented throughout, including the figures. I think just having very clear evidence-based directions should support their dissemination and use.”
 

Weight management plays a prominent role in treatment

In an interview, writing panel cochair John B. Buse, MD, PhD, said: “We are saying that the four major components of type 2 diabetes care are glycemic management, cardiovascular risk management, weight management, and prevention of end-organ damage, particularly with regard to cardiorenal risk.”

“The weight management piece is much more explicit now,” said Dr. Buse, director of the Diabetes Center at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

He noted that recent evidence from the intensive lifestyle trial DiRECT, conducted in the United Kingdom, the bariatric surgery literature, and the emergence of potent weight-loss drugs have meant that “achieving 10%-15% body weight loss is now possible.

“So, aiming for remission is something that might be attractive to patients and providers. This could be based on weight management, with the [chosen] method based on shared decision-making.”

According to the new report: “Weight loss of 5%-10% confers metabolic improvement; weight loss of 10%-15% or more can have a disease-modifying effect and lead to remission of diabetes, defined as normal blood glucose levels for 3 months or more in the absence of pharmacological therapy in a 2021 consensus report.”

“Weight loss may exert benefits that extend beyond glycemic management to improve risk factors for cardiometabolic disease and quality of life,” it adds.
 

Individualization featured throughout

The report’s sections cover principles of care, including the importance of diabetes self-management education and support and avoidance of therapeutic inertia. Detailed guidance addresses therapeutic options including lifestyle, weight management, and pharmacotherapy for treating type 2 diabetes.

Another entire section is devoted to personalizing treatment approaches based on individual characteristics, including new evidence from cardiorenal outcomes studies for SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists that have come out since the last consensus report.

The document advises: “Consider initial combination therapy with glucose-lowering agents, especially in those with high [hemoglobin] A1c at diagnosis (that is, > 70 mmol/mol [> 8.5%]), in younger people with type 2 diabetes (regardless of A1c), and in those in whom a stepwise approach would delay access to agents that provide cardiorenal protection beyond their glucose-lowering effects.”
 

Designed to be used and user-friendly

Under the “Putting it all together: strategies for implementation” section, several lists of “practical tips for clinicians” are provided for many of the topics covered.

A series of colorful infographics are included as well, addressing the “decision cycle for person-centered glycemic management in type 2 diabetes,” including a chart summarizing characteristics of available glucose-lowering medications, including cardiorenal protection.

Also mentioned is the importance of 24-hour physical behaviors (including sleep, sitting, and sweating) and the impact on cardiometabolic health, use of a “holistic person-centered approach” to type 2 diabetes management, and an algorithm on insulin use.

Dr. Buse has financial ties to numerous drug and device companies. Dr. Green is a consultant for AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim/Lilly, Bayer, Sanofi, Anji, Vertex/ICON, and Valo. Dr. Aroda has served as a consultant for Applied Therapeutics, Duke, Fractyl, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Sanofi.

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

STOCKHOLM – Weight loss should be a co–primary management goal for type 2 diabetes in adults, according to a new comprehensive joint consensus report from the European Association for the Study of Diabetes and the American Diabetes Association.

And while metformin is still recommended as first-line therapy for patients with type 2 diabetes with no other comorbidities, the statement expands the indications for use of other agents or combinations of agents as initial therapy for subgroups of patients, as part of individualized and patient-centered decision-making.

Last updated in 2019, the new “Management of Hyperglycemia in Type 2 Diabetes” statement also places increased emphasis on social determinants of health, incorporates recent clinical trial data for cardiovascular and kidney outcomes for sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) agonists to broaden recommendations for cardiorenal protection, and discusses health behaviors such as sleep and sitting. It also targets a wider audience than in the past by addressing health system organization to optimize delivery of diabetes care.

The new statement was presented during a 90-minute session at the annual meeting of the EASD, with 12 of its 14 European and American authors as presenters. The document was simultaneously published in Diabetologia and Diabetes Care.

During the discussion, panel member Jennifer Brigitte Green, MD, commented: “Many of these recommendations are not new. They’re modest revisions of recommendations that have been in place for years, but we know that actual implementation rates of use of these drugs in patients with established comorbidities are very low.”

“I think it’s time for communities, health care systems, etc, to actually introduce these as expectations of care... to assess quality because unless it’s considered formally to be a requirement of care I just don’t think we’re going to move that needle very much,” added Dr. Green, who is professor of medicine at Duke University, Durham, N.C.

Vanita R. Aroda, MD, of the division of endocrinology, diabetes, and hypertension at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, commented: “In the past, sometimes these recommendations created fodder for debate, but I don’t think this one will. It’s just really solidly evidence based, with the rationales presented throughout, including the figures. I think just having very clear evidence-based directions should support their dissemination and use.”
 

Weight management plays a prominent role in treatment

In an interview, writing panel cochair John B. Buse, MD, PhD, said: “We are saying that the four major components of type 2 diabetes care are glycemic management, cardiovascular risk management, weight management, and prevention of end-organ damage, particularly with regard to cardiorenal risk.”

“The weight management piece is much more explicit now,” said Dr. Buse, director of the Diabetes Center at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

He noted that recent evidence from the intensive lifestyle trial DiRECT, conducted in the United Kingdom, the bariatric surgery literature, and the emergence of potent weight-loss drugs have meant that “achieving 10%-15% body weight loss is now possible.

“So, aiming for remission is something that might be attractive to patients and providers. This could be based on weight management, with the [chosen] method based on shared decision-making.”

According to the new report: “Weight loss of 5%-10% confers metabolic improvement; weight loss of 10%-15% or more can have a disease-modifying effect and lead to remission of diabetes, defined as normal blood glucose levels for 3 months or more in the absence of pharmacological therapy in a 2021 consensus report.”

“Weight loss may exert benefits that extend beyond glycemic management to improve risk factors for cardiometabolic disease and quality of life,” it adds.
 

Individualization featured throughout

The report’s sections cover principles of care, including the importance of diabetes self-management education and support and avoidance of therapeutic inertia. Detailed guidance addresses therapeutic options including lifestyle, weight management, and pharmacotherapy for treating type 2 diabetes.

Another entire section is devoted to personalizing treatment approaches based on individual characteristics, including new evidence from cardiorenal outcomes studies for SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists that have come out since the last consensus report.

The document advises: “Consider initial combination therapy with glucose-lowering agents, especially in those with high [hemoglobin] A1c at diagnosis (that is, > 70 mmol/mol [> 8.5%]), in younger people with type 2 diabetes (regardless of A1c), and in those in whom a stepwise approach would delay access to agents that provide cardiorenal protection beyond their glucose-lowering effects.”
 

Designed to be used and user-friendly

Under the “Putting it all together: strategies for implementation” section, several lists of “practical tips for clinicians” are provided for many of the topics covered.

A series of colorful infographics are included as well, addressing the “decision cycle for person-centered glycemic management in type 2 diabetes,” including a chart summarizing characteristics of available glucose-lowering medications, including cardiorenal protection.

Also mentioned is the importance of 24-hour physical behaviors (including sleep, sitting, and sweating) and the impact on cardiometabolic health, use of a “holistic person-centered approach” to type 2 diabetes management, and an algorithm on insulin use.

Dr. Buse has financial ties to numerous drug and device companies. Dr. Green is a consultant for AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim/Lilly, Bayer, Sanofi, Anji, Vertex/ICON, and Valo. Dr. Aroda has served as a consultant for Applied Therapeutics, Duke, Fractyl, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Sanofi.

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

Nightmares in healthy middle-aged and older adults may be an independent risk factor for cognitive decline and dementia, particularly in men, new research suggests.

Results from a large cohort study showed that healthy middle-aged adults who had bad dreams at least once a week were four times more likely to experience cognitive decline over the following decade, and older adults were twice as likely to be diagnosed with dementia, compared with peers who never had bad dreams.

Frequent nightmares may “identify people who are at high risk of developing dementia in the future, several years or decades before the characteristic memory and thinking problems emerge,” study investigator Abidemi Otaiku, BMBS, University of Birmingham, England, said in an interview.

“This would be the optimum time for doctors to intervene to try and slow down or prevent dementia from developing,” Dr. Otaiku said.

The findings were published online in The Lancet journal eClinicalMedicine).
 

Distressing dreams

Distressing dreams have been previously associated with faster cognitive decline and increased dementia risk in patients with Parkinson’s disease (PD), but whether the same holds for individuals from the general population without PD is unknown.

To investigate, Dr. Otaiku examined data from three community-based cohorts in the United States. This included 605 middle-aged adults (aged 35-64 years) who were followed for up to 13 years and 2,600 adults aged 79 and older who were followed for up to 7 years. All were considered cognitively normal at baseline.

The prevalence of frequent distressing dreams, defined as occurring “once a week or more,” was higher in the older cohort compared with the middle-aged cohort (6.9% vs. 6.0%, respectively).

This is in line with other research that showed distressing dreams remain relatively stable throughout early adulthood and then progressively increase in prevalence from middle to older adulthood. 

After adjustment for all covariates, a higher frequency of distressing dreams was linearly and statistically significantly associated with a higher risk for cognitive decline in middle-aged adults (P = .016) and a higher risk for dementia in older adults (P = .001).

In the fully adjusted model, compared with middle-aged adults who never had bad dreams, those who reported having one or more bad dreams weekly had a fourfold risk for cognitive decline (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 3.99; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.07-14.85).

Older adults who had one or more bad dreams weekly had a greater than twofold increased risk for developing dementia (aOR, 2.21; 95% CI, 1.35-3.62).
 

Early days

In sex-stratified analyses, distressing dreams were strongly and statistically significantly associated with cognitive decline and dementia in men, but were only weakly and nonsignificantly associated with cognitive decline and dementia in women.

Dr. Otaiku said he suspects some individuals in the preclinical phase of dementia have “subtle neurodegeneration occurring over time in the right frontal lobe: the area of the brain that helps to downregulate negative emotions whilst we are awake, and also whilst we are dreaming.”

This could result in “depression and anxiety in the day, and nightmares and bad dreams during the night,” he said.

It is possible that treatment for frequent nightmares may help to slow cognitive decline and delay or prevent dementia, Dr. Otaiku added.

He noted that prazosin is used to treat nightmares and has been shown to prevent memory decline and reduce amyloid B generation in preclinical studies of Alzheimer’s disease.

“This is an exciting prospect [but] it is still early days and we will need research to see whether treating nightmares might help to reduce dementia risk down the line,” Dr. Otaiku said.
 

Credible research

In an interview regarding these findings, Maria C. Carrillo, PhD, chief science officer for the Alzheimer’s Association, said: “This is credible research consistent with the idea that sleep disturbances may be a risk factor or warning sign of cognitive decline.”

She added that “what’s novel here” is the researchers examined distressing dreams – not more physical sleep disturbances and disorders such as insomnia or apnea.

“However, nightmares can disturb sleep in the same way these disorders do by waking people up in the middle of the night,” said Dr. Carrillo, who was not involved with the study.

“Previous research has pointed to nightmares being indicative of potential changes in the brain that can precede other dementias like Parkinson’s disease. More research is needed to tease out what exactly is happening in the brain during nightmares that may be contributing to this increased risk,” she said.

Dr. Carrillo noted that “getting good sleep” is important for overall health, which includes brain health.

“The good news is there are treatments – both drug and nondrug – that can help address sleep disturbances,” she added.

This study received no external funding. Dr. Otaiku and Dr. Carrillo have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Nightmares in healthy middle-aged and older adults may be an independent risk factor for cognitive decline and dementia, particularly in men, new research suggests.

Results from a large cohort study showed that healthy middle-aged adults who had bad dreams at least once a week were four times more likely to experience cognitive decline over the following decade, and older adults were twice as likely to be diagnosed with dementia, compared with peers who never had bad dreams.

Frequent nightmares may “identify people who are at high risk of developing dementia in the future, several years or decades before the characteristic memory and thinking problems emerge,” study investigator Abidemi Otaiku, BMBS, University of Birmingham, England, said in an interview.

“This would be the optimum time for doctors to intervene to try and slow down or prevent dementia from developing,” Dr. Otaiku said.

The findings were published online in The Lancet journal eClinicalMedicine).
 

Distressing dreams

Distressing dreams have been previously associated with faster cognitive decline and increased dementia risk in patients with Parkinson’s disease (PD), but whether the same holds for individuals from the general population without PD is unknown.

To investigate, Dr. Otaiku examined data from three community-based cohorts in the United States. This included 605 middle-aged adults (aged 35-64 years) who were followed for up to 13 years and 2,600 adults aged 79 and older who were followed for up to 7 years. All were considered cognitively normal at baseline.

The prevalence of frequent distressing dreams, defined as occurring “once a week or more,” was higher in the older cohort compared with the middle-aged cohort (6.9% vs. 6.0%, respectively).

This is in line with other research that showed distressing dreams remain relatively stable throughout early adulthood and then progressively increase in prevalence from middle to older adulthood. 

After adjustment for all covariates, a higher frequency of distressing dreams was linearly and statistically significantly associated with a higher risk for cognitive decline in middle-aged adults (P = .016) and a higher risk for dementia in older adults (P = .001).

In the fully adjusted model, compared with middle-aged adults who never had bad dreams, those who reported having one or more bad dreams weekly had a fourfold risk for cognitive decline (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 3.99; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.07-14.85).

Older adults who had one or more bad dreams weekly had a greater than twofold increased risk for developing dementia (aOR, 2.21; 95% CI, 1.35-3.62).
 

Early days

In sex-stratified analyses, distressing dreams were strongly and statistically significantly associated with cognitive decline and dementia in men, but were only weakly and nonsignificantly associated with cognitive decline and dementia in women.

Dr. Otaiku said he suspects some individuals in the preclinical phase of dementia have “subtle neurodegeneration occurring over time in the right frontal lobe: the area of the brain that helps to downregulate negative emotions whilst we are awake, and also whilst we are dreaming.”

This could result in “depression and anxiety in the day, and nightmares and bad dreams during the night,” he said.

It is possible that treatment for frequent nightmares may help to slow cognitive decline and delay or prevent dementia, Dr. Otaiku added.

He noted that prazosin is used to treat nightmares and has been shown to prevent memory decline and reduce amyloid B generation in preclinical studies of Alzheimer’s disease.

“This is an exciting prospect [but] it is still early days and we will need research to see whether treating nightmares might help to reduce dementia risk down the line,” Dr. Otaiku said.
 

Credible research

In an interview regarding these findings, Maria C. Carrillo, PhD, chief science officer for the Alzheimer’s Association, said: “This is credible research consistent with the idea that sleep disturbances may be a risk factor or warning sign of cognitive decline.”

She added that “what’s novel here” is the researchers examined distressing dreams – not more physical sleep disturbances and disorders such as insomnia or apnea.

“However, nightmares can disturb sleep in the same way these disorders do by waking people up in the middle of the night,” said Dr. Carrillo, who was not involved with the study.

“Previous research has pointed to nightmares being indicative of potential changes in the brain that can precede other dementias like Parkinson’s disease. More research is needed to tease out what exactly is happening in the brain during nightmares that may be contributing to this increased risk,” she said.

Dr. Carrillo noted that “getting good sleep” is important for overall health, which includes brain health.

“The good news is there are treatments – both drug and nondrug – that can help address sleep disturbances,” she added.

This study received no external funding. Dr. Otaiku and Dr. Carrillo have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Nightmares in healthy middle-aged and older adults may be an independent risk factor for cognitive decline and dementia, particularly in men, new research suggests.

Results from a large cohort study showed that healthy middle-aged adults who had bad dreams at least once a week were four times more likely to experience cognitive decline over the following decade, and older adults were twice as likely to be diagnosed with dementia, compared with peers who never had bad dreams.

Frequent nightmares may “identify people who are at high risk of developing dementia in the future, several years or decades before the characteristic memory and thinking problems emerge,” study investigator Abidemi Otaiku, BMBS, University of Birmingham, England, said in an interview.

“This would be the optimum time for doctors to intervene to try and slow down or prevent dementia from developing,” Dr. Otaiku said.

The findings were published online in The Lancet journal eClinicalMedicine).
 

Distressing dreams

Distressing dreams have been previously associated with faster cognitive decline and increased dementia risk in patients with Parkinson’s disease (PD), but whether the same holds for individuals from the general population without PD is unknown.

To investigate, Dr. Otaiku examined data from three community-based cohorts in the United States. This included 605 middle-aged adults (aged 35-64 years) who were followed for up to 13 years and 2,600 adults aged 79 and older who were followed for up to 7 years. All were considered cognitively normal at baseline.

The prevalence of frequent distressing dreams, defined as occurring “once a week or more,” was higher in the older cohort compared with the middle-aged cohort (6.9% vs. 6.0%, respectively).

This is in line with other research that showed distressing dreams remain relatively stable throughout early adulthood and then progressively increase in prevalence from middle to older adulthood. 

After adjustment for all covariates, a higher frequency of distressing dreams was linearly and statistically significantly associated with a higher risk for cognitive decline in middle-aged adults (P = .016) and a higher risk for dementia in older adults (P = .001).

In the fully adjusted model, compared with middle-aged adults who never had bad dreams, those who reported having one or more bad dreams weekly had a fourfold risk for cognitive decline (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 3.99; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.07-14.85).

Older adults who had one or more bad dreams weekly had a greater than twofold increased risk for developing dementia (aOR, 2.21; 95% CI, 1.35-3.62).
 

Early days

In sex-stratified analyses, distressing dreams were strongly and statistically significantly associated with cognitive decline and dementia in men, but were only weakly and nonsignificantly associated with cognitive decline and dementia in women.

Dr. Otaiku said he suspects some individuals in the preclinical phase of dementia have “subtle neurodegeneration occurring over time in the right frontal lobe: the area of the brain that helps to downregulate negative emotions whilst we are awake, and also whilst we are dreaming.”

This could result in “depression and anxiety in the day, and nightmares and bad dreams during the night,” he said.

It is possible that treatment for frequent nightmares may help to slow cognitive decline and delay or prevent dementia, Dr. Otaiku added.

He noted that prazosin is used to treat nightmares and has been shown to prevent memory decline and reduce amyloid B generation in preclinical studies of Alzheimer’s disease.

“This is an exciting prospect [but] it is still early days and we will need research to see whether treating nightmares might help to reduce dementia risk down the line,” Dr. Otaiku said.
 

Credible research

In an interview regarding these findings, Maria C. Carrillo, PhD, chief science officer for the Alzheimer’s Association, said: “This is credible research consistent with the idea that sleep disturbances may be a risk factor or warning sign of cognitive decline.”

She added that “what’s novel here” is the researchers examined distressing dreams – not more physical sleep disturbances and disorders such as insomnia or apnea.

“However, nightmares can disturb sleep in the same way these disorders do by waking people up in the middle of the night,” said Dr. Carrillo, who was not involved with the study.

“Previous research has pointed to nightmares being indicative of potential changes in the brain that can precede other dementias like Parkinson’s disease. More research is needed to tease out what exactly is happening in the brain during nightmares that may be contributing to this increased risk,” she said.

Dr. Carrillo noted that “getting good sleep” is important for overall health, which includes brain health.

“The good news is there are treatments – both drug and nondrug – that can help address sleep disturbances,” she added.

This study received no external funding. Dr. Otaiku and Dr. Carrillo have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A look at the top cardiovascular disease (CVD) diagnoses in U.S. emergency departments (EDs) suggests that many heart-related emergencies are due to poorly controlled high blood pressure.

In a study of more than 20 million ED visits, about one-third of CVD-related ED visits in the United States were for hypertension-related conditions.

Overall, 13% of ED visits, representing more than 2.7 million individuals, were for essential hypertension.

Nationwide sample

The researchers studied more than 20.6 million ED encounters in adults with a primary CVD diagnosis using data from the Nationwide Emergency Department Sample between 2016 and 2018.

In the sample, 49% were women, and the median age was 67 years. Men had poorer overall baseline cardiometabolic profiles, but women had higher rates of obesity, hypertension, and cerebrovascular disease. The majority had Medicare or Medicaid insurance.

In women, essential hypertension was the most common reason for an ED visit (16%), followed by hypertensive heart or kidney disease (14%) and atrial fibrillation (AF)/flutter (10%).

In men, the top three reasons were hypertensive heart or kidney disease (15%), essential hypertension (11%), and acute myocardial infarction (AMI, 11%).

On presentation, women were significantly more likely to have essential hypertension, hypertensive crisis, AF/flutter, supraventricular tachycardia, pulmonary embolism, or ischemic stroke, while men were more likely to have AMI, or cardiac arrest.

“Previous studies have shown sex differences in patterns of CVD among hospitalized patients,” Dr. Mamas noted. “However, examining CVD encounters in the ED provides a more complete picture of the cardiovascular healthcare needs of men and women, as it captures encounters prior to hospitalization.”

He noted that previous studies of CVD emergency visits are limited to suspected MI visits. “Therefore, this analysis of 15 CVD conditions helps to better understand the full spectrum of acute CVD needs, including sex disparities in hospitalization and risk of death,” Dr. Mamas said.
 

Sex differences in outcomes

The study found that outcomes from the emergency CVD visits were slightly different for men and women.

Overall, women were less likely than were men to die (3.3% vs. 4.3%) or be hospitalized (49.1% vs. 52.3%) after an ED visit for CVD. The difference may be due to women’s generally lower-risk diagnoses, Dr. Mamas said, but there could be an underestimation of deaths in women.

In logistic regression models adjusted for baseline covariates, women with intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) had a higher risk of being admitted to hospital or dying compared with men with ICH.

Men were more likely to die if they presented with hypertensive heart or kidney disease, AF/flutter, AMI or cardiac arrest, the researchers found. 

“We did not track deaths outside of the hospital setting,” Dr. Mamas pointed out. Given past evidence that women are more likely to be inappropriately discharged from the ED, and strong evidence for the systemic undertreatment of women, further study is warranted to track outcomes beyond the ED visit,” he added.

The researchers called for further research into understanding the underlying factors driving the differences in CVD patterns and outcomes between men and women.

Reached for comment, Maryann McLaughlin, MD, a cardiologist at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, said: “Hypertension is a silent killer” and this study “reiterates that people need to get their blood pressure checked more regularly.

“In the very least, if they do present to the hospital as not feeling well or whatever it is, and they are identified as having high blood pressure, that’s an important opportunity to really teach them about hypertension and have them follow-up with it,” Dr. McLaughlin told this news organization. 

The study was supported by Health Data Research UK. Dr. Keele and Dr. McLaughlin have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A look at the top cardiovascular disease (CVD) diagnoses in U.S. emergency departments (EDs) suggests that many heart-related emergencies are due to poorly controlled high blood pressure.

In a study of more than 20 million ED visits, about one-third of CVD-related ED visits in the United States were for hypertension-related conditions.

Overall, 13% of ED visits, representing more than 2.7 million individuals, were for essential hypertension.

Nationwide sample

The researchers studied more than 20.6 million ED encounters in adults with a primary CVD diagnosis using data from the Nationwide Emergency Department Sample between 2016 and 2018.

In the sample, 49% were women, and the median age was 67 years. Men had poorer overall baseline cardiometabolic profiles, but women had higher rates of obesity, hypertension, and cerebrovascular disease. The majority had Medicare or Medicaid insurance.

In women, essential hypertension was the most common reason for an ED visit (16%), followed by hypertensive heart or kidney disease (14%) and atrial fibrillation (AF)/flutter (10%).

In men, the top three reasons were hypertensive heart or kidney disease (15%), essential hypertension (11%), and acute myocardial infarction (AMI, 11%).

On presentation, women were significantly more likely to have essential hypertension, hypertensive crisis, AF/flutter, supraventricular tachycardia, pulmonary embolism, or ischemic stroke, while men were more likely to have AMI, or cardiac arrest.

“Previous studies have shown sex differences in patterns of CVD among hospitalized patients,” Dr. Mamas noted. “However, examining CVD encounters in the ED provides a more complete picture of the cardiovascular healthcare needs of men and women, as it captures encounters prior to hospitalization.”

He noted that previous studies of CVD emergency visits are limited to suspected MI visits. “Therefore, this analysis of 15 CVD conditions helps to better understand the full spectrum of acute CVD needs, including sex disparities in hospitalization and risk of death,” Dr. Mamas said.
 

Sex differences in outcomes

The study found that outcomes from the emergency CVD visits were slightly different for men and women.

Overall, women were less likely than were men to die (3.3% vs. 4.3%) or be hospitalized (49.1% vs. 52.3%) after an ED visit for CVD. The difference may be due to women’s generally lower-risk diagnoses, Dr. Mamas said, but there could be an underestimation of deaths in women.

In logistic regression models adjusted for baseline covariates, women with intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) had a higher risk of being admitted to hospital or dying compared with men with ICH.

Men were more likely to die if they presented with hypertensive heart or kidney disease, AF/flutter, AMI or cardiac arrest, the researchers found. 

“We did not track deaths outside of the hospital setting,” Dr. Mamas pointed out. Given past evidence that women are more likely to be inappropriately discharged from the ED, and strong evidence for the systemic undertreatment of women, further study is warranted to track outcomes beyond the ED visit,” he added.

The researchers called for further research into understanding the underlying factors driving the differences in CVD patterns and outcomes between men and women.

Reached for comment, Maryann McLaughlin, MD, a cardiologist at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, said: “Hypertension is a silent killer” and this study “reiterates that people need to get their blood pressure checked more regularly.

“In the very least, if they do present to the hospital as not feeling well or whatever it is, and they are identified as having high blood pressure, that’s an important opportunity to really teach them about hypertension and have them follow-up with it,” Dr. McLaughlin told this news organization. 

The study was supported by Health Data Research UK. Dr. Keele and Dr. McLaughlin have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A look at the top cardiovascular disease (CVD) diagnoses in U.S. emergency departments (EDs) suggests that many heart-related emergencies are due to poorly controlled high blood pressure.

In a study of more than 20 million ED visits, about one-third of CVD-related ED visits in the United States were for hypertension-related conditions.

Overall, 13% of ED visits, representing more than 2.7 million individuals, were for essential hypertension.

Nationwide sample

The researchers studied more than 20.6 million ED encounters in adults with a primary CVD diagnosis using data from the Nationwide Emergency Department Sample between 2016 and 2018.

In the sample, 49% were women, and the median age was 67 years. Men had poorer overall baseline cardiometabolic profiles, but women had higher rates of obesity, hypertension, and cerebrovascular disease. The majority had Medicare or Medicaid insurance.

In women, essential hypertension was the most common reason for an ED visit (16%), followed by hypertensive heart or kidney disease (14%) and atrial fibrillation (AF)/flutter (10%).

In men, the top three reasons were hypertensive heart or kidney disease (15%), essential hypertension (11%), and acute myocardial infarction (AMI, 11%).

On presentation, women were significantly more likely to have essential hypertension, hypertensive crisis, AF/flutter, supraventricular tachycardia, pulmonary embolism, or ischemic stroke, while men were more likely to have AMI, or cardiac arrest.

“Previous studies have shown sex differences in patterns of CVD among hospitalized patients,” Dr. Mamas noted. “However, examining CVD encounters in the ED provides a more complete picture of the cardiovascular healthcare needs of men and women, as it captures encounters prior to hospitalization.”

He noted that previous studies of CVD emergency visits are limited to suspected MI visits. “Therefore, this analysis of 15 CVD conditions helps to better understand the full spectrum of acute CVD needs, including sex disparities in hospitalization and risk of death,” Dr. Mamas said.
 

Sex differences in outcomes

The study found that outcomes from the emergency CVD visits were slightly different for men and women.

Overall, women were less likely than were men to die (3.3% vs. 4.3%) or be hospitalized (49.1% vs. 52.3%) after an ED visit for CVD. The difference may be due to women’s generally lower-risk diagnoses, Dr. Mamas said, but there could be an underestimation of deaths in women.

In logistic regression models adjusted for baseline covariates, women with intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) had a higher risk of being admitted to hospital or dying compared with men with ICH.

Men were more likely to die if they presented with hypertensive heart or kidney disease, AF/flutter, AMI or cardiac arrest, the researchers found. 

“We did not track deaths outside of the hospital setting,” Dr. Mamas pointed out. Given past evidence that women are more likely to be inappropriately discharged from the ED, and strong evidence for the systemic undertreatment of women, further study is warranted to track outcomes beyond the ED visit,” he added.

The researchers called for further research into understanding the underlying factors driving the differences in CVD patterns and outcomes between men and women.

Reached for comment, Maryann McLaughlin, MD, a cardiologist at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, said: “Hypertension is a silent killer” and this study “reiterates that people need to get their blood pressure checked more regularly.

“In the very least, if they do present to the hospital as not feeling well or whatever it is, and they are identified as having high blood pressure, that’s an important opportunity to really teach them about hypertension and have them follow-up with it,” Dr. McLaughlin told this news organization. 

The study was supported by Health Data Research UK. Dr. Keele and Dr. McLaughlin have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Americans are not rushing to receive the updated COVID-19 booster vaccine.

The newest booster became available to the public around Labor Day weekend, and about 4.4 million people have gotten it as of Sept. 21, according to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data. That figure represents about 1.5% of the people eligible to receive the booster, NBC News reported.

The White House has said the total is probably closer to 5 million people. The CDC totals don’t yet include Texas and Idaho, which use an aggregate vaccination record reporting method for the Pfizer vaccine.

Scott Roberts, MD, a Yale Medicine infectious disease specialist in New Haven, Conn., told NBC News the low numbers are “demoralizing.”

“I would expect a much higher proportion of Americans to have gotten the booster by this point,” he said. “The fact that this booster came out days before Biden said the pandemic is over is a huge mixed message. Now it’s going to be that much harder to convince those at risk who are on the fence to get a booster.”

White House COVID-19 coordinator Ashish Jha, MD, says he thinks demand will pick up in the coming weeks.

“We’ve been thinking and talking about this as an annual vaccine like the flu vaccine. Flu vaccine season picks up in late September and early October. We’re just getting our education campaign going. So we expect to see, despite the fact that this was a strong start, we actually expect this to ramp up stronger,” Dr. Jha said.

The new booster is the third one authorized by the federal government and was redesigned to protect against the currently circulating subvariants BA.4 and BA.5 of the Omicron strain. People who have received a primary vaccine series or a booster at least 2 months before can receive it.

The new Pfizer booster is available for people 12 and up and the Moderna version for people 18 and up. The vaccines can be mixed and matched.

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

Americans are not rushing to receive the updated COVID-19 booster vaccine.

The newest booster became available to the public around Labor Day weekend, and about 4.4 million people have gotten it as of Sept. 21, according to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data. That figure represents about 1.5% of the people eligible to receive the booster, NBC News reported.

The White House has said the total is probably closer to 5 million people. The CDC totals don’t yet include Texas and Idaho, which use an aggregate vaccination record reporting method for the Pfizer vaccine.

Scott Roberts, MD, a Yale Medicine infectious disease specialist in New Haven, Conn., told NBC News the low numbers are “demoralizing.”

“I would expect a much higher proportion of Americans to have gotten the booster by this point,” he said. “The fact that this booster came out days before Biden said the pandemic is over is a huge mixed message. Now it’s going to be that much harder to convince those at risk who are on the fence to get a booster.”

White House COVID-19 coordinator Ashish Jha, MD, says he thinks demand will pick up in the coming weeks.

“We’ve been thinking and talking about this as an annual vaccine like the flu vaccine. Flu vaccine season picks up in late September and early October. We’re just getting our education campaign going. So we expect to see, despite the fact that this was a strong start, we actually expect this to ramp up stronger,” Dr. Jha said.

The new booster is the third one authorized by the federal government and was redesigned to protect against the currently circulating subvariants BA.4 and BA.5 of the Omicron strain. People who have received a primary vaccine series or a booster at least 2 months before can receive it.

The new Pfizer booster is available for people 12 and up and the Moderna version for people 18 and up. The vaccines can be mixed and matched.

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

Americans are not rushing to receive the updated COVID-19 booster vaccine.

The newest booster became available to the public around Labor Day weekend, and about 4.4 million people have gotten it as of Sept. 21, according to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data. That figure represents about 1.5% of the people eligible to receive the booster, NBC News reported.

The White House has said the total is probably closer to 5 million people. The CDC totals don’t yet include Texas and Idaho, which use an aggregate vaccination record reporting method for the Pfizer vaccine.

Scott Roberts, MD, a Yale Medicine infectious disease specialist in New Haven, Conn., told NBC News the low numbers are “demoralizing.”

“I would expect a much higher proportion of Americans to have gotten the booster by this point,” he said. “The fact that this booster came out days before Biden said the pandemic is over is a huge mixed message. Now it’s going to be that much harder to convince those at risk who are on the fence to get a booster.”

White House COVID-19 coordinator Ashish Jha, MD, says he thinks demand will pick up in the coming weeks.

“We’ve been thinking and talking about this as an annual vaccine like the flu vaccine. Flu vaccine season picks up in late September and early October. We’re just getting our education campaign going. So we expect to see, despite the fact that this was a strong start, we actually expect this to ramp up stronger,” Dr. Jha said.

The new booster is the third one authorized by the federal government and was redesigned to protect against the currently circulating subvariants BA.4 and BA.5 of the Omicron strain. People who have received a primary vaccine series or a booster at least 2 months before can receive it.

The new Pfizer booster is available for people 12 and up and the Moderna version for people 18 and up. The vaccines can be mixed and matched.

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